Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Bad Jokes and Other Deleted Nonsense

Add to this deletion debate

Bad Jokes and Other Deleted Nonsense and all BJAODN pages must be deleted immediatelly because it violates the GNUFDL license: When a user creates a new article or submits an edit, he owns the copyright and agrees to publish it under GFDL, which requires attribution. That's why Wikipedia has page historyes. The history of a page is the attribution which assures us that Wikipedia is in legal compliance with GNUFDL. If someone thinks the edit is nonsense, it is deleted and its contents are being transfered to Bad Jokes and Other Deleted Nonsense by copy and paste. But this is illegal! It destroyes the page history and fails to provide attribution, so badly needed by GNUFDL. At this time Wikipedia has collected a vast amount of content which IS of interest to many people (someone could write a dissertation discussing the nonsense being written in Wikipedia) and FAILS to provide proper attribution to the original author and copyright holder. For these reasons, nonsense pages must not be copied-pasted but moved into a separate namespace, keeping the page historyes. Administrator 21:59, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * Ummm... I agree with this idea - does that mean deleting all the old funnies :o( Zoney
 * Keep, unless our legal team says otherwise. (Drop me a note on my talk page when we get a legal team :) Fennec 22:58, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * If it gets down to copy and paste, we do a fair amount of that as we transfer material between pages on a largely ad hoc basis already- merging articles and what-not, for instance. Furthermore, IANAL but I don't think that this poses any sort of a legal threat whatsoever. And if it does, we can always offer to remove individual jokes. Does anyone *really* care? :) Fennec 23:01, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. Agree with Fennec. Jwrosenzweig 23:03, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. Massive overreaction to a sleeper of a problem that goes beyond BJAODN. IANAL either but IMO any author who tried to assert their copyright over this stuff would get laughed out of court. (-> Mind you, if there is stuff in BJAODN that shouldn't be there, this could be a problem, as it might be necessary to remove it from the history as well. Cross that bridge when we come to it, but that's a more general problem that may come up some day. Andrewa 23:07, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. Geez Louise. Ashibaka 02:51, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. Agree with Fennec. Niteowlneils 02:56, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. More Fennec agreement -- Cyrius 05:22, Mar 26, 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. - Hephaestos|&#167; 05:42, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. I don't really see the point in this. -- Friedo 06:15, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. We'll deal with the lawsuits if they arrive. DJ Clayworth 15:11, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. By the same argument, it breaks the license to delete any page or to turn it into a redirect; these destroy page histories or send users to pages with different histories. Smerdis of Tlön 20:33, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * Comment: I've already voted keep, but I don't think that making a redirect is the same issue at all. In that case the history is still there, it may be more difficult to access it but it's perfectly possible. In the case we're discussing, the history is lost. This point seems lost on many, judging by the number of times we see merge and delete appearing as a vote. As the deletion policy clearly says, this is not an option (yet). Andrewa 03:12, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. RickK | Talk 02:55, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. We need to keep some humour in Wikipedia even if it is a bit strange -- User:195.92.168.179 15:56, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)