Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:List of media personalities who have vandalised Wikipedia

This seems like a pointless category to me. First of all, I think that a lot of this is probably OR (Stephen Colbert for instance was never proven to have vandalized Wikipedia). Also how notable is it that a celeb or anybody for that matter has trolled a particular website. Why don't we have a "List of media personalities who have worn polka-dot ties" category while we're at it?--Azer Red Si? 23:07, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Believe it or not, that latter suggestion is remarkably close to an article currently on AfD. Delete, BTW. Grutness...wha? 23:47, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • Looking again, I realise that my original "delete" comment was what comes of reading several deletion pages at the same time, and was based on thinking this was an AfD not a MfD. There;'s noting wrong with this in Wikispace - it just shouldn be in article space. As such, changing comments to keep. Grutness...wha? 00:40, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, entirely pointless, but noting that WP:OR doesn't apply out of articlespace. -Amarkov

Comment - I originally thought that this was within the category namespace.--Azer Red Si? 04:01, 20 January 2007 (UTC)^blah_edits 00:11, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:DENY -Doc^g 00:26, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: WP:DENY is not a policy, from the header on the page right now:

The following is a proposed Wikipedia policy, guideline, or process. The proposal may still be in development, under discussion, or in the process of gathering consensus for adoption. References or links to this page should not describe it as "policy".

Using a proposed policy as the sole basis for deletion does not seem to be a particuarly strong argument. I hate vandalism as much as anyone else, but that doesn't make it necessary to pretend it doesn't exist. --Matthew 06:40, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, let me write it longhand. Delete this glorifies vandalism, and suggests that it can be notable. It goes against the spirit of Revert block ignore, it may encourage copycats WP:BEANS etc. For a full rationale of where I'm coming from see WP:DENY which sums up the problem with this and my prefered solution.--Doc^g 11:55, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete--Naohiro19(Talk Page/Contributions) 00:31, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - WP:DENY, no good reason to encourage more media personalities to vandalize and troll WP. Moreschi ^Deletion! 10:38, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. WP:DENY, unnecessary listcruft, and seems rather like original research since most can't possibly be verified. Michaelas10 (Talk) 15:09, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. There's not much reason to WP:DENY, as already-famous media personalities are very unlikely to want to gain the modicum of publicity from being on some low-traffic page on Wikipedia. As it's in the Wikipedia namespace it unlikely to be read by a casual editor (or a media personality). As Wikipedia gets mentioned more in the media, it's increasingly important to keep a record of the situations where the comments have been unhelpful so as to keep tabs on Wikipedia's realtionship with the media. This helps the community improve its public relations. LukeSurl 23:08, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Um... why does it improve public relations to have a list of vandals, using real names? -Amarkov ^blah_edits 23:12, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • My logic is that in making decisions which will end up involving the media, it helps to have pages like this to see how this relationship has progressed over time. LukeSurl 11:07, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - interesting information; unlikely some celebrity will come along and say "oh, I get to vandalize Wikipedia and be on that list!" It's interesting; it should stay. Patstuart^talk|edits 06:12, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - denying that something has occured does not change the fact that it has. WP:DENY is meant prevent "joe vandal" from aspiring to be the next Willy on Wheels, media personalities are not vandalizing to seek fame, they're simply curious. This page's existance therefore does not encourage further vandalism, it merely documents events that have occured. It is notable because it documents the actions of notable people and orgaizations. --Matthew 06:35, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NO. Any way you put it, this celebrates vandalism and indicates that we find it notable. Indeed it gives celebrity endorsement. It glorifies it and encourages copycats if nothing else. Our policy is to deny all publicity to vandalism, to treat it as not-notable and irrelevant. Revert, block, ignore. So now we delete this and ignore it. No trophy cabinets for vandalism, no publicity, no commentary.--Doc^g 11:50, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• zOMG! DELETE! KILL! BURY IT!, read WP:DENY, WP:BEANS and Don't feed the celebrity trolls! — Nearly Headless Nick 11:59, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• But, I kinda like this list. :< Hang on there, sweetie. — Nearly Headless Nick 12:03, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • That argument doesn't apply here, because it's not in the mainspace, and you should know that. Unless we want to get rid of any articles that isn't actually serious on here. Patstuart^talk|edits 22:46, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • It does apply here, familiarise yourself with policies and guidelines; and read about the deletion of the Willy on Wheels long term abuse page. Chao. — Nearly Headless Nick 09:26, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think it doesn't. I don't think that this page is any different than WP:LAME, which has survived multiple deletion attempts. It has WP:DENY issues as well. Anyway, perhaps you're right; but part of the problem, is that a lot in the Wikipedia space is there just for reference, just like this page. Patstuart^talk|edits 23:31, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete At best it seems wholly irrelevant to building an encyclopedia, I can't see any argument to suggest that it is even in some way vaguely useful/helpful for anything (Except perhaps a horrible self reference "look how great we are, even the z-listers vandalise us"). At worst it "validates" vandalism as a "celebrity" activity, and may encourage others (not other celebrities, other poor weak minded individuals who try and emulate celebrities) to do likewise hence the WP:DENY arguments above. Combine the irrelevance and the potential of encouragement (no matter how slight that may be) and it seems an obvious delete. --pgk 16:54, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete As stated above, completely pointless and also WP:DENY. Oh yes, those of you who say to keep it just because it's interesting, please read WP:ILIKEIT. --♥Tohru Honda13♥^Talk 01:44, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. A valuable and well-researched piece of Wiki-humor, no less useful than anything else in Category:Wikipedia_humor. Perhaps it can be flagged with the Template:humor warning so people won't take it too seriously.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 16:31, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No need to feed the trolls, celebrity or otherwise. CharonX/talk 17:54, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep!!!! what the heck is this? wikihumour, and it survived an afd before - see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of media personalities who have vandalised Wikipedia. - Ta bu shi da yu 22:47, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, notability is not an issue in the Wikipedia namespace and it is an interesting list to read. Who will document media personalities vandalising Wikipedia if we don't? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 23:24, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:ILIKEIT and WP:DENY. This list may be interesting, but it will serve to give fans of these celebs incentive to vandalize Wikipedia.--Azer Red Si? 23:32, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, very relevant to Wikipedia in popular culture.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 23:37, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and give it a rest per the prior discussion. (And don't quote "consensus can change", either; this isn't grounds to disruptively keep rehashing the same old claims until the "correct" result is achieved. I also strongly dislike seeing argumentative and Scripture-quoting replies to Keep opinions. I am close to starting a request for comment about this intimidating, uncivil, and increasing tendency.) This is a project page, not an encyclopedia article. It contains useful information that editors ought to be aware of. - Smerdis of Tlön 23:44, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I gather there's something to this nomination, since it's an obvious pass of WP:V and WP:RS - well sourced, encyclopaedic, passes WP:N. I se a few references for WP:DENY here, which is merely a proposed guideline. Is this a trial run of it to get it promoted or some shit? WilyD 23:46, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Who cares? Clay4president2 23:52, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: As suggested above I had another look at WP:BEANS, which warns that we could be giving people ideas for mischief that otherwise they may not have had. Perhaps this page, a public record of silly edits by famous people, has a valuable, deterrent effect.--Moonraker88 23:55, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Absoluntly useless. Stop maintaining these lists and get back to writing articles. May I note, however, that No Original research doesn't apply to the project namespace. ★MESSEDROCKER★ 23:57, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, for all the reasons listed on the previous AfD. How many times does a list have to go through the AfD process. Since a consensus has already spoken, why can't that be honored? Akradecki 00:03, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Consensus can change. --Wafulz 00:54, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, Per WP:DENY ::mikmt 00:16, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, completely unnecessary, no reason for existence. WP:NOT a place for people to have useless lists that they think are funny. --Rory096 00:17, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. It's interesting, but I'd rather not see people jockey to get themselves on this list. --Wafulz 00:54, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge into other "Wikipedia in the news" records. This is actually a well-referenced article on examples of Wikipedia being mentioned in the news. All the entries here could be merged into one or other of the articles in the template I've added, or this article added to that template. It is hard enough to keep track of Wikipedia being used and mentioned in the press and other media. Let's not throw away the work done here. Please look at the material in the articles in that template, and compare it to the material being considered for deletion here. Decentralise the items in the article and put all the news references in the right articles. Good information here, but collected under the wrong title. I would also argue that my comment here counts as new evidence, so previous votes may need to be recast, or the MfD relisted. Carcharoth 01:02, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why? The problem is with the content, not where the content is. -Amark moo! 01:10, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, move elsewhere per Carcharoth. The collection is good for lots of bad will and bad press, with not much redeeming value, in my opinion. (For another, the list is never going to be complete; scores of non-notable journalists, bloggers, and other media types have done this, in addition to some bigger names.) I prefer not to encourage them to go on by giving them attention or to encourage us to make it into a big deal by obsessively maintaining the list. I like Carcharoth's suggestion of just merging into the lists of Wikipedia in the media. We shouldn't ignore it completely if we pay attention to WP mentions in the media, but putting the encouragements to vandalize in their own section is not productive. Kat Walsh (spill your mind?) 01:12, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per the previous AfD. --Myles Long 01:16, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per previous AFD that kept this article from being deleted. --DieHard2k5 01:20, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]