Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Shannon1/Vandalism Page

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

The result of the discussion was  Speedy deleted per WP:CSD  Salvio  Let's talk 'bout it! 22:45, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

User:Shannon1/Vandalism Page
Here's another vandalism page. These pages violate WP:NOTWEBHOST and User pages. They could also damage Wikipedia's reputation. ~  Nerdy Science  Dude  02:16, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep I guess you will nominate the main sandbox next? Gigs (talk) 03:50, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * That is not a valid reason for keeping a page that encourages vandalizing Wikipedia in the userspace. Because the main sandbox does not encourage vandalism in the userspace, it should not be deleted. Cunard (talk) 05:07, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * This is a sandbox. It's impossible to "vandalize" a sandbox.  It says it will be cleared regularly, so the risk is no higher than any other sandbox page. Gigs (talk) 16:01, 28 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Strong keep What's next? Nominating the main page? Access Denied  [FATAL ERROR] 04:48, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Nominating the main page for deletion is implausible. This is not a policy-based reason for retention. Cunard (talk) 05:07, 28 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete Pages that encourage and condone vandalism should be deleted per WP:NOTWEBHOST and User pages (permanent link). Cunard (talk) 05:07, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Vandalism pages damage Wikipedia's reputation; from Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:King of Hearts/Notepad/Vandalism on Wheels!: "an IP, while removing vandalism [on User:King of Hearts/Notepad/Vandalism on Wheels!], wrote in an edit summary, "Removed NPOV spam, obsessively promoting TROLL as vandalism as opposed to spam, comedy, etc. Are you a wikipedia administrator?" The potential for BLP violations on such a page is great. In Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Blood reaper/Vandalism page, the page had homophobic slurs and copyrighted content that had remained there for months if not years. There is no need to let pages that allow gratuitously offensive content to remain on Wikipedia. Because vandalism pages are rarely, if ever, maintained by their creators, they should be deleted to prevent libelous content buried beneath pages of vandalism from remaining there. Cunard (talk) 19:29, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Vandalboxes waste the time of vandal patrollers who must read the page's rules to see if the vandalism should be reverted. This time could be better spent reverting actual vandalism in Wikipedia articles. The page does not help prevent vandalism because vandals are going to vandalize the mainspace or the user's userpage regardless of pages such as this. Vandals/trolls derive more pleasure in vandalizing pages in the mainspace when such actions are forbidden. Permitting such pages to remain on Wikipedia fosters the attitude that vandalism is acceptable on Wikipedia. I believe that that is unacceptable. Cunard (talk) 05:07, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per Cunard, nom. Not seeing how deleting this page lead to deletion of either sandbox or main page. At best, violates WP:NOTWEBHOST and User pages; at worst, lends itself to abuse, such as personal attacks, BLP violations, WP:COPYVIO, et cetera. These concerns would seem to override WP:Wikipedia should be free webspace for everything and WP:Wikipedia should become just like MySpace. / edg ☺ ☭ 15:03, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 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 page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.