"
Yes, aside, thank you for trying to answer the block-related concerns. I will accept your stated goal, ""to answer your questions, to help clear up points of confusion"", as answer to my #1 above and my italicized rephrasal (i.e., the negotiation of our communicative relationship). I only ask that if you should for any reason decide to assume bad faith with me, please have the courtesy of quoting (not linking) a significant clause or sentence (not title) of a policy. Thank you. I also accepted your answer to my #2 as ""the degree of disruption that the article can bring"", etc. (reasons you oppose existence of an article on this fundraising method). Here are the next policy questions I need answered, I'm not ready to focus on block policy yet.
3 (rephrased). WP:D says, ""Ask yourself: When a reader enters a given term in the Wikipedia search box and pushes ""Go"", what article would they most likely be expecting to view as a result?"" Why do you believe most users who type in ""moneybomb"" want and expect the article to be on the topic of the ""attempt to influence the ranking of a given [Google] page""?
4. WP:RUBBISH says arguments to avoid include ""Surmountable problem .... the basis of the quality of the current article."" WP:CRYSTAL adds, ""It is not appropriate for an editor to insert their own opinions"" ""about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects"", which seems to apply too. What specific policy indicates that your speculation about future disruption, or your belief of present disruption, is a valid deletion argument? WP:SOAP is not a deletion argument because ""an article can report objectively about such things"". Thank you for sticking to these subjects.   "