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 Delete, consensus is clear, we already have meta pages on vandalism so we don't need this self-referential original research. Rather than revert yet more vandalism on the article (how original), I'm nuking it. Guy (Help!) 19:38, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki vandalism[edit]

Wiki vandalism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Not verified by any reliable sources. As far as I know, unverifiable - Google turns up, rather unsurprisingly, mostly us, other wikis, blogs and similar self-published net posts, which can't be used. It was probably inevitable that someone would create an article on this, given that we're on a wiki that's frequently vandalised; but before that we're an encyclopaedia, and the fact that it's a topic close to our hearts doesn't make verifiability any less negotiable. Delete. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 23:43, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete self-referential original research. I was sorely tempted to simply delete it. I guess Sam probably was as well. Guy (Help!) 00:01, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into existing Wiki policy pages on the subject. -Husnock 04:07, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Merge what where? I didn't see anything that would add to the projectspace. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 04:22, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Move Couldn't this be like a meta page or some kind of essay instead. It did have interesting information that applies to the Wikipedia community. The Mirror of the Sea 04:27, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  We already have Wikipedia:Vandalism. This contains no additional information. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 16:44, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • If that's the case, why not rename the page Wikipedia and other wikis:Vandalism? — Rickyrab | Talk 17:07, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • If it's not an article and it doesn't otherwise relate to Wikipedia then it doesn't belong here. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 17:23, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - it's been around for over a year, tagged since June for having no references, and still has nothing even approaching a reliable source. Filled with self-references and a vandalism magnet, that does no better a job of explaining the problem than our main wiki article. Delete, nothing here to merge to project space that hasn't been said already. -- nae'blis 18:40, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. FirefoxMan 22:21, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete we're not going to see reliable secondary sources on this until there are reliable secondary sources on general topics like trolling or harassment online. This is also redundant per nom. --Quirex 06:32, 13 December 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.