Talk:!vote

Presumably an interjection, not a noun. Equinox 18:33, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Why? I've only seen it used as if it were a noun. --EncycloPetey 18:41, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh, okay. It didn't look like something that would occur mid-sentence, and the definition is poor for a noun (does it really mean "a sarcastic reference"? would two sarcastic references be !votes ?) Equinox 19:45, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

This will probably be deleted as Wiktionary jargon and appear only in an Appendix of Wiki jargon. It would be expected to form a plural, if needed, following the default English production rules, in this case, adding "-s". Just today someone called for a "!vote" at the Grease Pit. !Votes get called for from time to time. DCDuring TALK 11:26, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Wiktionary:Requests for deletion - kept

Kept. See archived discussion of September 2008. 06:51, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

RFD discussion: March–May 2019

The following discussion has been moved from Wiktionary:Requests for deletion (permalink).

This discussion is no longer live and is left here as an archive. Please do not modify this conversation, but feel free to discuss its conclusions.

---

!vote

No entry, may not exist. Johnny Shiz (talk) 12:57, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

• Do nothing: the page already has a {{no entry}} tag on it. That doesn’t need to be deleted. — SGconlaw (talk) 14:50, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

  Pronounced not-vote (not as for the negation operator ! of C), this is Wikipedia slang, which does not count for attestation purposes. So there is no way this will meet CFI.  --Lambiam 14:55, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

  We don't have any entries for, let's say, abcdise, so does "!vote" really need an article of its own, even a blank one? Johnny Shiz (talk) 17:42, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

  As the template description page of {{no entry}} states, "This template is intended to create placeholders for terms which, while possibly valid, do not meet CFI. This includes things such as people's names, common list words or dictionary-only words, and fictional words." [Emphasis added.] So it is not intended for nonsense terms but for terms which might plausibly be in the dictionary but which editors have decided do not meet the criteria for inclusion. — SGconlaw (talk) 18:09, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Leave as-is. - -sche (discuss) 21:07, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

• Closed as a waste of time. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 16:52, 7 May 2019 (UTC)