Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiSloth

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous 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 no consensus. Wiki-animal lovers should be warned: while there is no consensus here, there is a real concern simmering beneath the surface. If fauna-creep becomes a real problem, WP may one day have its own mass extinction event. In short, do not go forth and multiply (these categories.) Xoloz (talk) 00:23, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiSloth[edit]

Somewhat duplicative of one or more of the other Category:Fantastic Wikipedia editors (also known as Wikifauna). I don't think we need a zoo full of such essays. The basics (which pre-date Wikipedia, according to Wikipedia:WikiGnome) should be enough. - jc37 16:23, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as nominator. - jc37 16:23, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You aren't really supposed to do that. It makes it appear that there is more suport for deletion than there actually is--Phoenix-wiki ^{talk · contribs} 20:36, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it's an okay thing to do. Closers are capable of reading and distinguishing! :) Xoloz (talk) 22:17, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Would like to see a page for WikiTrolls, though. John Carter (talk) 16:58, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all zoo-things listed on {{Wikipedia fauna}} into one article, except wikiTroll which deserves its own article. Ugh, I am not a big fan of these but they are harmless and do not detract from anything (I think?). My thinking would be if they are merged, then maybe it would cut down on "fauna-creep", as a new "creature" would be scrutinized on the talk page. Otherwise I can see a new one popping up every few months causing a potential problem down the road.--12 Noon ^2¢ 17:10, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - If you're going to have wikifauna at all, there should be no problem having pages for individual wikibeasts like this one. :) Rray (talk) 17:48, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I agree with Rray (talk · contribs). I'd wager that the WikiSloths are too lazy to bother commenting here themselves. Cirt (talk) 22:37, 13 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. They really don't fit into the "fantastic" theme of the other Wiki-fauna, and they seem to overlap a bit too much with WikiOgres (general inactivity, occasional burst of contribution). --UsaSatsui (talk) 22:43, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well it is up to you lot but I don't see much harm in it and you could give it a few weeks to see if anyone likes it and joins in with it. And no they're not so like wikiogres- because we don't get as narked as them lol:) You could have msg'd me saying my thing was up for deletion, anyway. Oh well it is all lessons in WP:DGAF :). Merkinsmum 23:47, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment DGAF rules. Rray (talk) 00:48, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In other words, this was intended as duplicative of WP:DGAF? - jc37 02:14, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that was the message anyone intended to send at all. :) Then again, I didn't create this essay. Rray (talk) 02:18, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jc37- erm, no, you could actually read the wikisloths essay, it describes an editing pattern and a more rounded description of a personality type IMHO. It also has a nice picture of some Sloths. Have you lot killed [1] yet- you could go there next lol.:)I loved him, Merlin! 00:17, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this species is not as widely known on WP, for reasons given on the page. I was one of them once upon a time, or at least intended to be. I don't know how you want us to "join in with", but I'll suggest an edit: DGAF is in my opinion primarily negative at least outside WP, and I'm not sure it applies here. More generally, to delete (or merge) because we might eventually have "a potential problem down the road." is a reason that could apply to almost anything. And I think these characterizations, old or new, are one of the best of the less-serious aspects of wikipedia--and they actually help build the encyclopedia--some are referred to very frequently in AfD. DGG (talk) 13:09, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's "not widely known on Wikipedia" because it's only a week old. --UsaSatsui (talk) 16:44, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I meant that the other pages in this group of articles are widely cited. I'm glad to have this added--particularly WikiGnome. Now that this is known, it will be cited also. (at least by me)DGG (talk) 21:54, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the "a potential problem down the road" comment went with a "Merge" vote rather than a "Delete" vote, as I do not wish to see this deleted via this MfD. :) --12 Noon ^2¢ 15:50, 14 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]

My apologies, for i then did misuse your quotation; I modified it above. . But I think the content for each is too extensive for merging. DGG (talk) 21:54, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment- User:DGG you can join in by adding yourself to [2] if it's still there lol:)I loved him, Merlin! 00:17, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy, essentially per 12 Noon. While I'd be interested to see what one could write about WikiPigs or WikiChickens, the issue of "fauna-creep" is real. Despite a number of similarities, Wikipedia is not Animal Farm. :) If consensus is against userfying, then delete per redundance to WikiOgres. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 23:33, 15 December 2007 (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.