Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Virtual vandalism

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 as original research and a neologism. Bearian (talk) 23:01, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Virtual vandalism

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

Several issues - no evidence of notability. Written like a personal essay. Only one self-published reference. (The article on the reference was previously deleted as not having any notability). Article does not have a NPOV. It's been tagged for repair for almost two years now but the issues remain. Dmol (talk) 01:13, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The source only mentions the term "virtual vandalism" once, I think "online vandalism" is more appropriate. Having said that, I don't see much evidence that it is a notable concept - or that it should have an article. Worm^TT · (talk) 10:02, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:38, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, →B music ian 02:07, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article could be merged with website defacement, but it seems to add nothing substantial or informative anyway. The quotes listed are useless and take up the majority of the article. The mention of a "Dr. Cohen" at the end doesn't explain who he is or why he is notable. The term "virtual vandalism" is not widely used, either. The usage of the word "virtual" to mean something "online" or "on the internet" is antiquated and would require more reliable sources that assert the term's widespread usage. Father McKenzie (talk) 15:18, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -Scottywong | talk _ 23:18, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Unsourced neologism; this is a slam dunk. Ravenswing 19:17, 15 June 2012 (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.