` :::::::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.   `