Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sarcasma

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 of the debate was delete. Shanel 06:17, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sarcasma

Tally:9 delete, 0 keep, 0 other.'

Looks like original research. I've listed it here in case anyone has any objection to deletion for any reason. File Éireann 22:56, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Damn you, you edit conflicted me while I was putting it up for speedy! Oh well, I'll give it a Strong Delete ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 22:59, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I've moved the votes from anonymous users down below for cleanliness: anonymous users are not counted in Wikipedia votes, but their comments should not be deleted either. It should be noted that all 3 IP's appear to be sockpuppets: 100% of their edits are to either Sarcasma, or this page. ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 08:55, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Wikpedia Deletion policy does not say that anon comments are "ineligble" nor is any tally relevant, because the decision is made by rough consensus, not by a tallying of votes. Moving things around like this is unnecessarily divisive and seems to stem only from your expressed bias against anonymous editors. Fightindaman 16:25, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

No Wikipedia Deletion policy doesn't. but Why register? does. To whit you must register to get: "The right to be heard in votes and elections."

As for tallies: Why do we have them on RFA's then? they're only decided by the closing 'crat's decision on whether there is a consensus, not a vote tally. But we do them anyway. Are you honestly going to tell me in this case that these 3 IP's appear to be anything other than sockpuppets trying to screw with the vote?⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 00:23, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

This isn't the way things are done on AfD. The closing admin handles the determination of which comments count towards the final decision. By common practice anon votes are left in place. If you disagree with the practice, you ought to seek to develop a consensus for a change. Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion is probably a good place to do that. NoIdeaNick 21:25, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

And if you'll notice, I'm not deleting the obviously sockpuppet/meatpuppetted comments, merely moving them to a different section. It's very clear that according to WP:WHY that anon's are not allowed to vote.

But this is AfD not the older VfD. So it's not a vote it's a discussion. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 00:01, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Anon votes

  • I emplore you not to delete this useful article. This is a legitimate article regarding a powerful grammatical tool. The world must know about the wonder that is the sarcasma. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.125.89.86 (talk • contribs) .
  • Keep. Looks like a legitimate punctuation use description to me. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 63.169.34.11 (talk • contribs) .
  • Keep. Useful and apt. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 12.178.31.226 (talk • contribs) .


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.