Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Donkey vote

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. —Korath (Talk) 01:59, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Donkey vote

This was tagged for a speedy but should not be deleted because "donkey votes" are an importance measure of protest or apathy. Voting is compulsory in Australia. Keep Kappa 13:17, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Keep or move to Wiktionary. Edited the article using Kappa's comment, for increased clarity, and made it a stub. --Smithfarm
• This is discussing the concept, not the word, and as such is inappropriate for the dictionary. There's a full discussion of this concept, the historical oddities that it has caused, and the consequent changes to the system already at Australian electoral system. Redirect. Uncle G 15:16, 2005 Mar 20 (UTC)

Point taken. Please note that Kappa and I have expanded the article somewhat, but I for one did not realize the material is already covered in the Australian electoral system article. Is there a way to redirect to the particular section of that article that discusses Donkey vote, instead of just to the article itself? If a user is looking for Donkey Vote, he wants an explanation of that, not a general tome on the entire electoral system. --Smithfarm

• Keep Compulsory votes? How do they do it? Grue 18:45, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Important concept in Australian electoral politics. Capitalistroadster 19:28, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Well, they round up all non-voters with cattleprods. <grin> seriously though, Merge as Smithfarm suggests, and the redirect can be written as [[Australian elections#Donkeys]] or thereabouts. Radiant_* 19:35, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)
    • Does that work? Kappa 20:37, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep or redirect, important in Australian politics - David Gerard 19:52, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Observation: It would be easier to keep it than to merge it. First, I think the current stub has potential to be expanded by people like Kappa who have a clue. Second, the Australian electoral system article doesn't have a Donkey Vote section. Third, even the current stub has info that is not duplicated in the big article. The sole mention of 'donkey vote' in the big article could be made into a link to Donkey vote. --Smithfarm
• I'd prefer a separate article rather than a merge, simply because it can be written about in more detail. Keep Lacrimosus 00:51, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Note. I have added to this discussing its impact on the House of Representatives, Senate and in Hare-Clark explaining the different variations of the phenomenon. Capitalistroadster 04:11, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• keep Yuckfoo 06:56, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• keep for being a notable effect in Australian elections, and politics. --Takver 05:58, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Seems both notable and interesting. Jonathunder 03:54, 2005 Mar 25 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.