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

The result was keep. - Mailer Diablo 07:07, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of media personalities who have vandalised Wikipedia[edit]

I created this article, and I notice it has been PROD'ed. However, I believe that this article is still a valid one, but I'm taking to the community to decide. - Ta bu shi da yu 13:05, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I thought it was too, so I was surprised that it got prod and prod2. Wikipedia is a notable web site, and vandalism incidents have generated significant media attention. Andjam 13:13, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It's verifiable and interesting. Does it qualify as vanity? Maybe we could give it a humour tag. --Wafulz 13:17, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I'm with everyone above. Every member of the list is sourced, and it's a genuinely interesting list. I also think, in response to Wafulz's comment, that it doesn't need any tagging, as it works completely fine as an encyclopedic article. -- Kicking222 13:30, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep encyclopaedic, sourced content - I'm not sure what else one can want. WilyD 14:17, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as non-notable self-reference. It's not as interesting a list as I was anticipating. MLA 14:30, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - everything here is sourced, and it's a valid list subject. Aren't there more instances though? Crystallina 14:44, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Move to meta and delete per MLA and per WP:SELF. The actions even of notable people editing Wikipedia aren't really encyclopedic topics. (Surprised that no note is yet taken of Penny Arcade and He-Man). - Smerdis of Tlön 14:49, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Penny Arcade aren't "media personalities". Must strongly disagree with moving to meta, this is a valid article in its own right. - Ta bu shi da yu 15:00, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • In WP:SELF it is written: In particular, do not refer to the fact that the page can be edited, do not refer to any Wikipedia project page or process, . . . on the grounds that this would be confusing or irrelevant in the derivative works whose creation we invite. This page is ultimately an article about editing Wikipedia pages. It would appear to fall within the letter of the guideline. Since I hate to delete anything, I am open to persuasion that this should be kept despite them, and that's why I proposed instead that this move to meta. It is an interesting conundrum. - Smerdis of Tlön 15:14, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep, (changed vote) because WP:IAR trumps a style guideline. - Smerdis of Tlön 15:55, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Self-references are acceptable in certain cases, where we have third party sources - as we do in this case. WilyD 15:11, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I see no reason for deletion. BabuBhatt 15:26, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This isn't Wikipedia writing about itself: it's a valid article about external events (which, granted, involve WP). It's a bit of a vogue thing to do at the moment and I expect that the list will grow. Besides, it's interesting. --Moonraker88 15:36, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Seems fine to me. I'd correct the spelling in "vandalized" though. --DieHard2k5 16:12, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• The word can be spelled two different ways: with an "s" in Great Britain and with a "z" in America. Just one of those funny things. Srose (talk) 22:02, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Well from the official Wikipedia ((test4))This is your last warning. The next time you vandalize a page, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. I'd suggest using a Z, wouldn't you? --DieHard2k5 00:32, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• The topic is already covered by WP:MOS#National varieties of English. According to those rules, the "S" wins. hateless 00:57, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It actually doesn't matter. If someone moves it, then I'll protect the page from being moved, and I'm an Australian! (we use English English, if you know what I mean). - Ta bu shi da yu 14:51, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Well, we could always use a redirect for the other spelling if needed. --DieHard2k5 01:03, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Moonraker. Aye-Aye 17:27, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Moonraker. RFerreira 19:16, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep the list is accurate and well sourced. I see nothing wrong with it. --Edgelord 19:25, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I don't see where this this page would be considered notable were it about any site other than Wikipedia. A move to the Wikipedia namespace as a humor page or some such might not be out of line, though. --Fyre2387 ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:24, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it's just me, but I don't find it very humorous.- Mgm|^(talk) 08:48, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - No importance outside of the WP community (eg. us). Wickethewok 19:32, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, WP is notable, it gets media attention, vandalism and inaccuracies is a very notable problem for WP and wikis in general, and the article is sourced. hateless 21:57, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as above, and there's nothing wrong with "vandalised". It's YOU that spells it wrong! Dev920 22:22, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I think it's interesting, well-referenced, and notable — more so every day, it seems, as more and more personalities go out of their way to be bothersome. And it's zpellz, Dev. God Bless America, JDoorjam Talk 00:27, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, but move into Wikispace as Wikipedia:List of media personalities who have vandalised Wikipedia. Useful and interesting, but also overly self-referential. Grutness...wha? 02:09, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Move into Wikispace as per Grutness. It seems a bit too self-referential as a mainspace article. Capitalistroadster 02:56, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's well sourced from independant third parties - the "self-referential" comments make no sense in the context of policies and guidelines on self-reference. WilyD 03:08, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Who cares? Clay4president 03:41, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as a subject which has been verifiably noted by the mass media on multiple occassions. "Who cares" is not a valid reason for deletion and should be disregarded with prejudice. Silensor 07:50, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. We have articles on Wikipedia and the famous Siegenthaler incident too. They do refer to Wikipedia itself, but the self-reference rules don't say we can't write articles about Wikipedia. Wikipedia gets press attention, so cases of vandalism to the project by well-known people (who are notable on their own) is certainly a valid topic to write an article about. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:48, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Or move to Wikispace I suppose. I like lists, but this is just a small list of names in a self-referential topic. Only one of them is really a celebrity in the normal sense. (By that I mean if you took a random poll in least 1 out of 1000 people would know who the person is)--T. Anthony 09:24, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ah yes, but they all had their exploits published and (it would appear) endorsed by media organisations. Curious, no? That in itself is pretty notable. - Ta bu shi da yu 14:00, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Move to project space; this is totally self-referential, but useful inside the project. Do not keep in article space. We wouldn't have List of media personalities who have submitted false information to Britannica or List of Hollywood celebrities who have cussed out George W. Bush, eevn though they'd probably be more noteworthy. -- nae'blis 14:48, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Move per nae'blis. Interesting stuff for Wikipedians, but doesn't deserve its own article space. Rohirok 17:21, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Move to Wikipedia:, which is already a home to quite a bit of our self-referential stuff. Though keep the sources and stuff. At this point, I'm not sure if this is a notable enough a phenomenon to discuss in article space. We have a lil' bit of self reference problem as it is. If we keep this in article space, we need to rethink the title scope: exactly what is a "media personality" (and does this need a bigger scope? Or smaller?) and what qualifies as "vandalism" (does this only include WP:-( stuff, or other kinds of misuses as well). --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 18:55, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or move to wp:. No value here. Pavel Vozenilek 19:42, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Valid, sourced information. If nothing else, this should me moved to WP space as a last resort. --Myles Long 23:29, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Move as suggested by Nae'blis: Too self-referential to be an article, but very interesting nonetheless. Belongs in the 'Kipedia namespace. Heimstern Läufer 23:31, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep content sourced and will unfortunately grow over time.  Funky Monkey  (talk)  03:26, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and spell with a "z". It is often mentioned that WP's servers are in the US, so US copyright law is the governing authority on matters here...so by default, shouldn't the "Z" have governing authority over the "S"? Akradecki 07:06, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't believe that U.S. copyright law enforces inaccurate spelling. Kidding :-) Ta bu shi da yu 15:04, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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 article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.