Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Flying Spaghetti Monster

Well, that looks like a pretty good consensus. Heh. — ceejayoz ^★ 17:18, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet attack[edit]

Where in heaven's name did all these sockpuppets come from? They're fully half of the votes on the page. Is it all the same group of people in a single netblock? --Ardonik.talk()^* 17:35, August 20, 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry, what is a sock puppet attack? --jenlight 20:34, August 20, 2005 (UTC)
- See Wikipedia:Sockpuppets.-Loren 20:56, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - The primary complaint here seems to be that many voters are ignorant about Wikipedia policies (e.g. the argument that this is a "free speech issue," as opposed to whether or not this entry is encyclopedic), not that many voters are sock puppets (i.e. pseudonyms of interested contributors). Not that this is anythiing more than a semantic quibble (though it is, perhaps, the difference between deliberate malice and simple ignorance).
    - Well put. --Ardonik.talk()^* 09:10, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
It doesn't really matter, as there is a pretty clear consensus to keep even without those votes. android 79 17:45, August 20, 2005 (UTC)

"Valid" and "Invalid" votes[edit]

I really wish people would stop trying to clean up vote pages; the Wikipedia guide to VfDs is fairly clear on this point. And I quote: "Please do not refactor the discussion into lists or tables of votes, however much you may think that this helps the process." It's now impossible to revert the page without destroying votes, so I'm going to just combine the two sections, and people should vote accordingly. And note that there is no such thing as anyone but an admin deciding validity of votes -- just because a vote comes from a user not signed in (e.g., an IP address) doesn't make it invalid! Jason 21:50, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Amen, Jason. Thanks for fixing that. Moncrief 22:31, August 20, 2005 (UTC)

Whether an anonymous vote is valid or not depends strongly on the context in which the vote was made. Evidently a large number of votes on this page are here because people outside the Wikipedia are encouraging others to cast votes on the VfD page and then leave forever. Those votes really are invalid, and I think the intent of the refactoring was to make it easier to point that out to the admin who processes this page.

This is the same situation that happened when the BS article circumciser got deleted;

a bunch of

(okay, so it was a few) anti-circumcision "intactivists" came to the Wikipedia solely to vote keep on the page, and as you can see, their efforts were ignored. Some of them registered accounts that are still being used to push their anti-circumcision POV today, but that's still better than showing up only once just to "do your part." --Ardonik.talk()^* 16:33, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

Alas, it's nobody's job to decide such things except for the admin who ultimately decides to take on the task. That's why the Guide to VfDs says explicitly that, and why people should respect that. And note that I do also disagree with a clear-cut definition of an invalid vote -- again, it doesn't matter as much how long someone's been a member or if they ever come back, but rather, it's important what the reasoning is for their vote. If a never-before, never-again voter expresses a defensible reason for their vote, why is it any less valid? Jason 16:48, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's not those kinds of votes I object to, but rather people who come simply because their friends urged them to "do their part", much like the carpetbaggers of bygone years. It's rare (though I suppose not unprecedented) that such participants have a good idea of what does and does not belong in this collaborative work. Usually, their arguments just boil down to "keep because I personally think this is notable." --Ardonik.talk()^* 17:49, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

If even one-tenth of the run-in voters who show up for something like this expressed defensible reasons for their votes, I'd be a happy man. Sadly, most of them have no idea how Wikipedia operates beyond the basic mechanics, and so they present arguments for keeping the article that they think amounts to a slam-dunk "keep" and that people who have read WP:NOT recognize as irrelevant or a reason not to keep. "It's utterly important to keep this article! The world can only be saved if we get the word out about this!" Wikipedia is not a soapbox. "Wikipedia can be on the leading edge by being the first to publish this absolute scientific breakthrough!" No original research, please. "What do you mean you don't want a definition of this word? Any good dictionary would have it!!!" You are thinking of our sister project, Wiktionary.

Someone who has good and defensible reasons for their vote will influence other voters by sharing those good and defensible reasons. But votes like that are in a minority; most are basically the voter's opinion, and it's perfectly reasonable to keep the level of experience that informs that opinion in mind when weighing it. When someone whose first and only edit to the entire wiki is this vote says "I can't see any reason for deletion", is that saying more about the merits of the article or about his capability to see? -- Antaeus Feldspar 21:47, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Can we close this already? It's an obvious keep, regardless of sockpuppetry. - — Omegatron 05:25, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

What is the difference between deities and fictional deities? Are there "non-fictional deities"? -- Murtasa 15:05, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Heh. I'd imagine "non-fictional" deities are those genuinely believed in by at least one follower. — ceejayoz ^★ 20:52, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If you were to ask that from, say, Torquemada, George W. Bush, or a similar religious authority, you'd be in a lot of trouble. — JIP | Talk 04:38, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, if you asked a whole lot of people, of whom you just cited the worst examples, they would be able to give you an answer. You know, those I-am-smarter-than-though atheists are not one iot better than the bible-thumpers. -- AlexR 10:28, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I know. I was trying to insult religious fundamentalists, not religious people in general. And BTW, it's spelled "thou". — JIP | Talk 10:39, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, usually I know the spelling ... that is what happened when you edit before breakfast, though ;-) AlexR 12:19, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Retaliatory VfD?[edit]

Who else thinks this is Revenge Of the Morals and Values Council(WfD)?--152.163.101.8 23:31, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea why it would be considered as their revenge. Unless you are specifically accusing the person who put it up for VfD of wrongdoing, and have some pretty damn compelling evidence to justify your not assuming good faith, it seems pointless and unwise to engage in such speculation. -- Antaeus Feldspar 23:37, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This strikes me as bad-faith wild speculation, because it apparently assumes that WfD is motivated by Christian/other monotheistic fundamentalism, of which I see no sign. This is like the (anti-WfD) troll who put the Jesus picture on the decency template and the decency template on Talk:Wicca. ~~ N (t/c) 23:40, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]