Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Sheep vote (2nd nomination)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellany page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete Hiding talk 00:25, 9 January 2006 (UTC) It has been pointed out I should explain my reasoning, a point with which I agree. Although a simple adding of votes gives a 64% favouring of delete, one participant arguing for keep does so on a weak keep, and after reading points made during the debate and also taking into account the discussion and points made in the prior nomination at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Sheep vote I have used my discretion and closed as a delete. I have userfied the page at User:SebastianHelm/Sheep vote since I felt there was a strong enough argument for the page being kept either in user space or at meta. Hiding talk 11:38, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Sheep vote

Pointless page which is used to criticise other's votes. Serves no purpose. Talrias (t | e | c) 02:02, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This is still here? Kill it. Strange that it survived the previous VFD, while most voters wanted it to be removed from Wikipedia one way or another. - Sikon 06:10, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: The prior discussion can be found at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Sheep vote. It was closed as "no consensus".
  - I know. For me, it was a clear consensus: not keep. - Sikon 12:58, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Baaaaaaa. --Carnildo 09:31, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you please clarify your vote? - Sikon 12:58, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It was formerly an attack page, but now it's a description of something that happens a lot. R adiant _>|< 10:51, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep/Rewrite People use the term, so there should be a page explaining it. I favor severe editorial pruning however. Xoloz 17:21, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- So mention it in Wikipedia:Glossary. The Wikipedia namespace isn't a dictionary anymore than the main namespace is. Delete or possibly move to Meta. —Cryptic (talk) 20:51, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Nominator provides no reason why this is nominated for a second time.
I might consider revising this vote if the nominator had the courtesy to add a link to the first nomination and list some new facts. (Which might also help disperse the usual objections to recounts.) — Sebastian (talk) 20:05, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, someone else has added a link now. I've given my reasoning for why I think it should be deleted. Talrias (t | e | c) 20:16, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Page serves no purpose other than to smugly reinforce the prejudices of people who find themselves on the minority side of a given discussion. It encourages people to assume bad faith on the part of discussion participants who hold opposing views, and thus flies directly in the face of WP:AGF. WP:AGF is one of Wikipedia's core principles. Pages within non-article namespace which encourage the exact opposite should be kept only if there is an exceptionally pressing need for that page. As if that weren't enough (and you'd certainly think it would be), it also reinforces the idea that various consensus-seeking processes throughout Wikipedia are votes and not discussions. Overall, a non-trivial amount of harm committed for an absolutely trivial benefit. Ξxtreme Unction|_{yakkity yak} 12:22, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Needless and bad criticism of user vote. CG 17:03, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Extreme Unction. --Metropolitan90 07:21, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Baaaa. Ashibaka tock 05:09, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a genuine problem on Wikipedia (eg Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/NickBush24). File:Yemen flag large.png CTOAGN (talk) 22:56, 8 January 2006 (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 page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.