Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Sheep vote

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was, looks like a no consensus... not quite sure through all the jumble but, keep. Sasquatch↔讲↔看 05:38, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Sheep vote

What's this doing on Wikipedia, especially in the Wikipedia namespace?-- BMIComp (talk, criticize) 07:59, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

  • Comment. Lord only knows, but it's making at least one user go ballistic. --Ardonik.talk()* 08:23, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment It at one point was a personal attack against that user; I removed those references. -- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 08:51, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, it is "especially in the Wikipedia namespace" because it is a wikipedia phrase, e.g. it isnt encyclopedic. Bluemoose 09:06, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. I believe that these phrases are fair and notable enough. I'm trying to work out if this vote that I'm casting is a sheep vote or a wolf vote. DarthVader 11:40, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep see any vote on an unnotable school. Dunc|☺ 13:07, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete because it only leads to incivility and has no redeeming value to the encyclopedia. Not only that, but it's a neologism--I haven't heard it anywhere before yesterday. This isn't exactly widely used slang like "cruft" or "vanity" here, and it's far more abusive. Meelar (talk) 13:11, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Not Speedy Delete Attack page? Where? Still not a CSD by any means. I've undeleted it and reopened VfD.  Grue  15:04, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
    • My final vote is Transwiki to Meta or failing that, keep.  Grue  06:39, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per Meelar. I guess that makes this a "wolf vote." AиDя01DTALKEMAIL 20:00, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to m:polls are evil or transwiki to Meta. --MarkSweep 20:07, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment if we do keep this, we need to rewrite the "Wolf Vote" section to be NPOV. -- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 20:18, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete as subtle attack page. There is no excuse for this material on Wikipedia, for any reason. I have no idea what the person was thinking when they created this page but this page will only lead to hostilities, especially if namecalling is done (as it has been done already). Talrias (t | e | c) 20:47, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment Author of article points out in an edit summary that this was "Original Research". -- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 20:50, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Transwiki to humor section on meta. There's no way to distinguish between sheep votes and normal votes. It'll only cause huge shouting matches. - Mgm|(talk) 21:24, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete per Talrias. It should be noted that Boothy443 has redirected his name in his signature to this page. This page has no significant history, being created only a month ago, and I have never heard this term used in Wikipedia. Besides, the veracity is difficult to prove, and it is non-notable. Just because one user "coins" a term does not mean it deserves its own "Wikipedia:" page. Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 21:30, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Bicycle. I agree with all of the above. --Carnildo 21:45, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Transwiki to meta, which has as part of its scope sociological discussions of the problems of wikis. James F. (talk) 22:37, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, as a neologism invented a few weeks ago, that will only cause fights for no purpose. What was the creator thinking? -Splash 00:27, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep notable...if you consider Wikitalk meaningful... freestylefrappe 00:30, July 22, 2005 (UTC).
  • Keep and move to article space. Noted phenomenon, not just on Wikipedia. Almafeta 02:36, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Userfy it. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 02:45, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Baaaa--SockpuppetSamuelson 07:35, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - It does seem to be an attack page, I don't think it's possible to distinguish between normal votes and sheep votes. -- Joolz 09:05, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
    • I'd prefer it deleted but if there is no consensus to do so transwiki would be my second option. -- Joolz 15:51, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - irrelevant and opinionated, liable to lead to more name-calling, accusations and other strife - Skysmith 09:31, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, irrelevant and does not benefit the community in any manner. The "wolf vote" section is beyond pointless, also. --Sn0wflake 10:03, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete, if we allow nonsense like that to take over the Wikipedia namespace, the consequences can be disastrous. - Sikon 10:19, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Move to Meta. There is a page devoted to these sort of insights there. Sarge Baldy 12:21, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
  • BJAODN. Note that similar term actualy exists. SYSS Mouse 13:38, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete as attack page. Was already speedied twice as such. It may be a valid topic (as a subsection of meta, or part of WP:POINT or something) but the current version exists mainly to attack a user that is making some controversial votes on WP:RFA. Radiant_>|< 14:15, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep or Transwiki to Meta. The term helped defuse and focus an RfA discussion (which was precisely why the page was created. It proved to work to the best of Wikipedia. Please consider this before assuming bad faith.) This page has been on Wikipedia for a month and several people contributed to it, including some experienced and respected users. None of them saw any problem with the page as such. I see the concerns, but I see no factual evidence for them. The "personal attack" has been deleted. (BTW, it wasn't a baseless attack, but basically what Boothy443 said him/herself, when asked why he/she opposed all votes on RfA. However, I should have provided a diff for that, and now I can't find it.) — Sebastian (talk) 16:33, July 22, 2005 (UTC) and 01:29, July 30, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Seems pointless, and could be considered POV. Robert McClenon 18:18, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, original research, etc. Pavel Vozenilek 23:29, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Baaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhh Themindset 02:35, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete POV attack page. JamesBurns 02:58, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. It doesn't seem to be an attack page anymore. I really don't see why it should be deleted. The term is very clever and this article should be kept. DarthVader 06:54, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep because so many people above vote to as well. ~~~~ 14:44, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Move to Meta where it rightfully belongs and delete. →Raul654 20:53, July 23, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. This kind of material belongs on Meta. --Michael Snow 01:38, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Transwiki to meta. And don't put personal attacks on it anymore :( --Phroziac (talk) 17:45, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
  • keep, of course. there's nothing wrong with it. the term came up on the rfa talkpage, and somebody (not the "coiner") documented it. dab (ᛏ) 19:42, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Never heard of term until 10 mins ago. Seems more designed to cause civil unrest. …Guy M… (soapbox) 22:49, July 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. If kept, which it shouldn't be, it belongs on meta as terminology (see m:Deletionist, m:Mergist, etc). Hedley 23:39, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Not sure where it should be moved to. I don't see this as POV, but rather explaining something that happens in voting around wkik land. Vegaswikian 23:59, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, serves a purpose, is instructive. ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 14:28, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Created for the purpose of making a point, no redeeming value. Wile E. Heresiarch 15:05, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Transwiki to Meta. It does serve a purpose, because sheep voting actually does occur. It simply doesn't belong on the Wikipedia namespace. --Scimitar parley 15:11, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Transwiki to Meta. We have stuff like that there. User:Luigi30 (Ταλκ) 15:21, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, BJAODN, Deep Pit - just don't keep it or transwiki - Useless concept to attack those agreeing with the majority. - º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º 25 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Moving to Meta sounds good. --Carnildo 18:09, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Transwiki to Meta. I fear I may be sheep voting, but in my opinion, this has been the best suggested option. Ryan 06:13, July 27, 2005 (UTC)
  • Agree with the above votes. Baaaaaaa! --Andylkl (talk) 14:40, July 27, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, if you want to indulge in wikisociology, take it to meatball. --fvw* 07:43, July 28, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, though possibly not where it is just now. Oh, and Baaaaaahhhhh. Leithp 08:08, July 28, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, but expand considerably. This could be an opportunity to try and improve the general quality of votes cast in many forums (although mainly the RfA), but it must be expanded and developed to acquire an educational value, and the redeeming value so properly mentioned by Meelar. Redux 01:08, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Transwiki Havn't heard of this term other than in refrence to boothy. Not a common term IMO, but Meta seems to be quite fine with having this sort of thing--Tznkai 14:11, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and move to another namespace (article space, most probably). IJzeren Jan 12:49, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
  • BJAODN, lol. - Mailer Diablo 20:20, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.