Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Library book 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 Keep Article improved since nomination. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 10:57, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Library book vandalism

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

Article doesn't say anything other than it is a bad crime. Voortle (talk)

• Redirect to Vandalism. No need for a specific article. Smartyllama (talk) 17:29, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:11, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:14, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Leaning Keep Looking through the library literature, there seems to be a substantial body of research about how to abate "intentional book damage" within libraries, Sadads (talk) 22:50, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  Also, see these improvement I made -- dozens more sources where those came from, Sadads (talk) 22:51, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Note that this is separate from Library theft.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:36, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Possible keep (and maybe move to something likeintentional library book damage. Everything Sadads wrote, plus there have been spates of books defaced by using broad-tip markers to spew ethnic hate slurs on the pages, and other problems. Still this is basically a variety of vandalism. Although in general I like to judge a topic independently of the article as it stands, in this case I would ask WP:HEY that someone expand the article not just with references, but with serious, formal discussions of the problem, preferably sourced to peer-reviewed journals. (flag me and I will revisit) Otherwise, Merge to Vandalism.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:36, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Changing to keep due to User:Megalibrarygirl's upgrade.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:29, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I'm a librarian and I can say with certainty that this topics should have its own article. There are different strategies for dealing with vandalism and mutilation of books in libraries due to the nature and scope of library work that are significantly different from "regular vandalism." In addition, reasons for library vandalism are often different from "regular vandalism." This type of vandalism is international in scope and has been going on for as long as there have been libraries. Thank you Sadads for improving the article. I've built on Sadads' work and expanded the article into 3 sections so far. I can improve it significantly further, as I've only scraped the tip of the iceberg on this topic. I may add more to this throughout the day as time permits. I'm pinging E.M.Gregory to take another look. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 15:22, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, meets WP:GNG, being a notable subject, article reflects this with plenty of references, thanks to Megalibrarygirl. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:43, 19 April 2016 (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.