Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of media personalities who have vandalised Wikipedia (2nd nomination)

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 deleted, then redirect setup. I've read through the opinions below, and all sides have good points. However, this article is clearly a problem, not least from the failure to define "media personalities" to anything reasonable and the WP:BLP problems associated with the use of the word "vandalised". This list itself, without context, would seem to go against several Wikipedia practices; BLP, of course, but also WP:V and WP:RS. The ill-definition of the what constitutes a reason for ending up on this list is compounded by the lack of context that a list format allows for. If people want to add reliably sourced and clearly defined entries to Wikipedia in culture, they should do so, as this allows for more context and removes the stigma of "vandalised" in the title. ➲ REDVERS ^{It sucks to be me} 09:35, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of media personalities who have vandalised Wikipedia[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article is inappropriate on so many levels. First and foremost, even though the article is named "... who have vandalised Wikipedia", not close to all of the entries meet that description. Of the 13 entries on the list:

Seven of the entries (Sarah Lane, Scott Mills and Mark Chapman, Ivor Tossell, Vince DeMentri, The Fiver, Mark Hinson, Sydney Morning Herald) allegedly vandalized Wikipedia, if the claims in Wikipedia are true. This is only about half.
Two of them (Stephen Colbert, Triple J's Bloody Sunday radio show) only encouraged others to vandalize
Eric Zorn created an article on his own non-notable neologism. Most people who create articles on non-notable trash do so not intending to vandalize and have no idea, until we tell them, that Wikipedia isn't free webhosting for anything they want.
"Weird Al" Yankovic merely included a fake clip of Wikipedia being vandalized in a song he wrote and did not vandalize Wikipedia, nor encourage others to do so.
Alexander M.C. Halavais allegedly added inaccurate information as an experiment to test Wikipedia's accuracy. The alleged intent was not malicious so this could not be considered vandalism. For that matter, he is not a "media personality", so he is out of scope here anyway.
Ryan North's inclusion is a clear BLP violation - his comic included a reference to a vandalized article, but there is no reason to believe he himself vandalized it and he specifically asks others to not vandalize it.

Calling the article "list of media personalities who have vandalised Wikipedia" unfairly libels the six entries where the subjects did something other than vandalize.

Secondly, of the 15 references, only SEVEN of them (covering 5 of the 13 entries) are still active links available the public. If we're going to be claiming that these people vandalized Wikipedia, we ought to have something to go on.

Third, SIX of these SEVEN live references are actually written by the person involved, as opposed to secondary sources independent of the subject. In other words, only ONE of these so-called incidents involving vandalism was significant enough for someone to write about it and remains available to us today to verify it.

Fourth, yes, it's a behavior guideline and not a content policy, but this screams WP:DENY.

Fifth, this smacks of Wikipedia keeping an enemies list, as opposed to something that actually belongs in an encyclopedia. This BLP-violating trash has no place on Wikipedia and I ask that it be deleted. --B (talk) 23:58, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If the nominator wishes to claim that part of the information is not verified, or requires one to get out of one's chair to look at the references, that is not grounds for deleting the whole article. Vandalism of Wikipedia is a notable phenomenon, with individual incidents receiving a range of media coverage from minor to very major. A significant part of it has been by media organizations. As a side note, calling the article BLP-violating trash is not very civil. Andjam (talk) 03:25, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh really? Exactly to whom is "BLP-violating trash" uncivil? The article is trash. The article violates BLP. Vandalism to Wikipedia is a notable phenomenon and it's covered in great deal in Reliability of Wikipedia. Just because vandalism to Wikipedia is notable doesn't mean it is an appropriate exercise to catalog every person who vandalizes. McDonald's is notable. Do we need an article List of famous people who have visited McDonald's? Wikipedia, in general, doesn't cover topics for which there are not reliable sources INDEPENDENT OF THE SUBJECT. Well, of the seven sources that can be readily verified, six of them are NOT independent of the subject. Of the eight dead links, look at the by-lines - EVERY SINGLE ONE is published by the subject. (#1 is actually available from archive.org at [1]) In other words, only ONE of these 13 alleged instances of vandalism or talking about vandalism is actually covered by a reliable source independent of the subject. If nobody else feels it worthwhile to cover these incidents, it's not Wikipedia's place to - this article has no place here. --B (talk) 04:01, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The list title alone is problematic. WesleyDodds (talk) 07:33, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per the nom's very detailed rationale. Fails WP:N. 13:02, 11 August 2009 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Joe Chill (talk • contribs)
Note - somehow this isn't on the daily log from when I nominated it. Either twinkle messed up and didn't add it or someone removed it. Either way, I'm listing it here (on August 20) so that an uninvolved admin can close it. Or, optionally, it may be worthwhile to let it run some more since it probably didn't get drive by traffic from AFD if it wasn't listed. --B (talk) 16:51, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Although I don't agree with WP:DENY and certainly not as a content policy, this article just fails our policies and guidelines on several different levels. There are concerns with WP:BLP, undue weight, original research via synthesis, lack of independent sources on the subject as noted above... put all that together and it's clear that this should be deleted. *** Crotalus *** 19:15, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Avoid self references, DENY, and kind of an enemy list too. Sceptre ^(talk) 19:41, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, BLP violation, navel-gazing. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 19:44, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Discuss removing anything that doesn't belong in the article, don't wipe out the entire thing. AFD is suppose to be a last resort, after attempts of cleanup have been done. And the name could be changed to "List of media personalities whose actions have caused Wikipedia to be vandalized". I think whether you do something yourself, or use your media influence to have others do it for you, its the same thing in this case, even if by accident in the case of Weird Al. I see references confirming many of the events. Linking to the old history of the articles hit, would be a good addition for all things. Dream Focus 10:28, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Very Strong Delete per WP:DENY. This article glorifies vandalism, something most good editors like myself fight vigorously every day. TomCat4680 (talk) 16:26, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per DreamFocus. Have edited the lede to address concerns in the nom. Glorifying vandalism would be very wrong, but i dont think the article does so. As wikipedia is one of the worlds premier sources of information with a large effect on global dialouge , dont see any harm in some self reference as long as it happens only in appropiate articles. FeydHuxtable (talk) 17:17, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Wikipedia in culture which covers everything important about this article plus some, without the undue weight towards vandals. This appears to be original synthesis anyways. --Explodicle (T/C) 17:24, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note Neither SELFREF nor DENY are terribly good reasons to delete an article (the first a style guideline, the second an essay). I will say that the scope of the list is almost certainly user generated, the contents mostly original research, and the subject matter pretty trivial. I also note that we have a tendency to want to write more about ourselves than is advisable. Also, this is a pretty well written nom. I wish more deletion noms were like this one. Protonk (talk) 18:17, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Having reviewed the article and the sourcing, I'm gonna have to say that we should delete it. Please don't redirect, as it is not a likely search term. Protonk (talk) 19:29, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep most of the issues of the nominator can be easily worked out, but were not before nomination. Otherwise, Redirect to Wikipedia in culture as per Explodicle, which is a good idea. Ikip (talk) 18:53, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete potential BLP violation, highly self-referential and raises questions re OR/synthesis. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 21:03, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 05:37, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Even if cleaned up to the greatest extent possible, we would still need sources (not to mention that spinning this out as a separate topic screams come violate BLP all over me). You know, independent reliable sources. - 2/0 (cont.) 05:55, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I'd be happy to cite a bunch of WP:TLAs, but this list is simply unsuitable for inclusion for reasons cited by the nominator. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 19:38, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This AFD has been open for almost 3 weeks. Shouldn't it have been closed 9 days ago? TomCat4680 (talk) 22:05, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposing in WP:AN. The Junk Police (reports|works) 07:27, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Wikipedia in culture. The arguments for deletion don't hold much weight, as we aren't supposed to delete things just because we don't like them. I don't see any BLP violations here if the material is well-sourced and neutrally presented. The list doesn't deserve an independant article as the collection of information isn't notable in its own right, but the information fits in very nicely with the charts already gathered at the article Wikipedia in culture and this is best presented within that context. Them From Space 07:42, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Wikipedia in culture, as others have recommended. I think this solution would be superior to deletion, as 1) much of the content overlaps, and 2) while it's true that it's not a likely search term, there are links to the page. --darolew (talk) 08:25, 24 August 2009 (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.