Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:COI declaration

 __NOINDEX__
 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was  Redirect. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 23:29, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

COI declaration


Counterproductive in current form and level of maintenance, either this should be A paid editor was using this essay to justify a subpage disclosure. This seems harmful to all parties to have this (if I've understood correctly that the TOU does not consider that good enough).
 * Well maintained to keep in-line with the legal requirements WP:TOU, and policy WP:NOPAY etc, or
 * Deleted
 * Ping editors of essay:User:Ocaasi User:SlimVirgin User:Srich32977 User:Kephir User:Theopolisme User:Sj. Widefox ; talk 19:16, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete or redirect to WP:DISCLOSE. We should keep it only if someone is willing to update it regularly, and if it adds something to WP:DISCLOSE. As it stands, it's no longer accurate. If it's being used by paid editors to justify minimal disclosure, it will waste the time of editors who have to explain what current policy is. SarahSV (talk) 19:57, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete as obsolete and misleading, and to discourage recreation with misguided advice—misguided because it would either be correct because it duplicates what is in policy (and so be redundant), or would be wrong or confusing. I saw the discussion at WP:COIN and this page has to go to avoid future cases. Johnuniq (talk) 23:28, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes exactly. It's worse than just being cited to justify obsolete (weaker) disclosure (i.e. non-compliant disclosure) right now - it creates a contradictory set of documents that have been cited as too confusing by the paid editor at COIN to disclose. Widefox ; talk 10:18, 7 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Conflict_of_interest, aka WP:DISCLOSE, or delete. I prefer the redirect. Smallbones( smalltalk ) 05:14, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment. 1) This was a useful page before the disclosure policy, as there were no examples of good disclosure.  2) I frankly haven't had and do not have time to maintain it so I have no problem with it being redirected/deleted.  3) WP:DISCLOSE is necessary but not sufficient:  somewhere you need to show people actual examples of proper disclosure.  Cheers, Jake Ocaasit &#124; c 15:21, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Ditto. Thanks for the ping.  –  SJ  +  03:14, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Agree about adding (or merging) any useful examples into where appropriate (for example the WP:COIN guideline). Widefox ; talk 17:12, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.