Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/BJAODN

 __NOINDEX__
 * 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 discussion was:  keep. WP:SNOW (non-admin closure) Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 01:39, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Best of BJAODN

 * – (View MfD) &#8203;

Alas, it is time, after many years. I believe that this is the 8th nomination for this page/set of pages, although the topic hasn't been discussed since 2007 or 08. This is a historical relic, which has since been moved off-wiki. I'd just leave well enough alone, but it appears that there are recent edits on many of these pages, causing a unique potential for abuse and administrative burden in a mostly-forgotten corner of the site that few are monitoring. As a project, we've moved on from this. Time to clean these up. agt x 02:37, 6 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep. These pages are marked as historical for the enjoyment of editors. Just treat vandalism as much as you would any other Wikipedia page, if worst comes to worst then these can always be indef page protected. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:46, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment I am confused on what you mean by "recent edits"? Aside from Still more Best of BJAODN all of the rest have no signs of ongoing vandalism issues as they haven't been touched in nearly a year. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:50, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes this is what I'm talking about. A steady stream of edits over the years. I note that the "still more" page also isn't marked historical, and that WP:SILLY suggests that it might still get added to on "rare occasions." The potential for abuse here far outweighs any "enjoyment of editors" that might be gained from these pages, especially since they've been transwikied. I am fine with the indef page protection solution if there's really consensus to keep this, but it doesn't make sense. agt x  16:20, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Again, I don't see a 5 alarm emergency here as there is a "potential" for abuse on just about every Wikipedia page. Should we start by deleting all of the joke pages because of this risk? Maybe then we can go onto essays? Im sorry but this is a slippery slope. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:08, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Who said it was a 5 alarm emergency? It isn't. The reality is, these pages are particularly problematic. Even now it includes, for example, homophobic "jokes". religious jokes in poor taste, blp problems, upon blp problems, and racist jokes about people's names. We don't need this. agt x  22:33, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep The Historical tag is enough to show that we don't do this sort of thing anymore. casualdejekyll  13:59, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep and keep marked historical. No reason to delete.  Robert McClenon (talk) 19:09, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
 * But what's the reason to keep? What benefit are these pages to Wikipedia? Also Still more Best of BJAODN is not marked historical (yet). It probably should be, but again, doesn't solve the problem. agt x  19:20, 6 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep: It has the historical tag on it. And also, it has a lot of links to it, so removing the pages would create a bunch of redlinks on talk archives. I.hate.spam.mail.here (talk | contributions) 01:28, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't have any opinion on keeping vs deletion yet (we stopped making these for good reason, because it was putting vandalism up on a pedestal and encouraging people to do more of it, and there is a fair amount of content in there that should be deleted on WP:BLP grounds) but if these are being kept as historical archives they should be protected (I would suggest ec level) to stop people continuing to add more to them. 163.1.15.238 (talk) 12:05, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep and full protect. We're not in the business of erasing historical content, the same reason why we don't outright delete WP:ESPERANZA.--WaltCip- (talk)  12:41, 9 May 2022 (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 page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.