This page was a bit of a dilemna. Normally after a vandal strikes I would just revert the page, but this one is a new page, and one that deserves an article. I decided to blank it, since the one line of vandalism contained offensive language so I have just removed it, and pna-incompleted it. Do we have an official policy for a situation like this? I know page-blanking is almost always a no-no, but I wasnt left with much choice. Jaz 05:26, 16 Jan 2006 (UTC)

That's why we have the {{delete}} template and the Pages for immediate deletion listing. :) --Vedek Dukat ^{Talk | Duty Roster} 05:39, 16 Jan 2006 (UTC)

My only issue with that is that this page does deserve an article. Its not a made up term. Although I guess its better to have not page than a blank page. Jaz 05:47, 16 Jan 2006 (UTC)

I actuallly agree completely, but as neither of us apparently knows what legitimate content should go here, it looks better to have a notice about it being created by a vandal (and eventually no page at all, once an admin gets to it) than to have an empty page with a {{pna-incomplete}}. A contributor who sees that would probably respond, "What do you mean incomplete? What article?" --Vedek Dukat ^{Talk | Duty Roster} 05:51, 16 Jan 2006 (UTC)

It may deserve an article, but this wasn't it. This was an immediate deletion. And, yes, it is better to not have a page than to have a blank page; for one thing, those who might be interested in writing this article could read another article where this link appears but they will see a blue link (meaning the article exists), figure the article was already written, and ignore it; wheareas, if they see a red link, they may wish to create it themselves. Plus, it's common policy to delete pages that start out as vandalism or tests (i.e. "hi there"). --From Andoria with Love 06:30, 16 Jan 2006 (UTC)

Besides, the page already exists as power transfer grid. :P --From Andoria with Love 06:32, 16 Jan 2006 (UTC)