Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Bad Jokes and Other Deleted Nonsense (3rd nomination)


 * ''The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellany page below. <stitle=Wikipedia:Readers_must_be_this_high_to_get_into_Bad_Jokes_and_Other_Deleted_Nonsense&diff=119192993&oldid=117567091 this diff], which was removed less than a day ago, or perhaps the extensive cleanup effort by one use in particular. Two other issues of BJAODN were recently raised at this archived thread on the Admin Noticeboad. The first issue raised was that BJAODN has become huge. At the time of this nom, there are currently 61 archives, 5 supposed best-of pages, one page of helpdesk e-mails, and an archive of all the nonsense from the past three years of April Fools (with a section already designed for the crap that is going to happen tomorrow). The second issue, and is a very large one at that, is our legal violations. Almost all of the content in BJAODN is cut and paste moved there, thus violating the GFDL under which everything we submit is licensed. Finally--and I think most people will agree with me--almost all of BJAODN isn't even funny. Honestly, potty jokes get old after about the third one you read. So I urge you, please discuss this in a manner befitting our community, and let's trim this monster down. (And finally, this is not an early April Fools Joke. I am entirely serious. The timing is coincidental). ^ demon [omg plz] 23:09, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * This mailing list thread may also be of interest. ^ demon [omg plz] 00:04, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Withdrawing at this time. While this nomination was made in good faith, I unintentially posted it on a day in which people are too willing to let loose and have fun. Perhaps I'll renominate at a later time. Thanks everyone for your comments however. ^ demon [omg plz] 02:25, 1 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Deleting Bad Jokes and Other Deleted Nonsense would be one of the worst possible moves Wikipedia could make right now. If you delete this, you delete a huge part of Wikipedia culture. Also, the whole "not funny" bit is really just an opinion. Some people think it's pretty funny stuff. So I cast my inevitable vote of Strong Keep. FireSpike 23:16, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Have you read them at all? Most of them are dumb and feed the trolls who put them on the articles in the first place. PTO 23:17, 31 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Edit-Conflict-Delete archives, Userfy the April Fools' Day archives, if they haven't been already, and Userfy the "best of" pages. They're the only actually funny ones. The rest is just unfunny crap. Congrats to ^demon for opening the can of worms here. PTO 23:16, 31 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete, as someone who has access to OTRS and deals with complains from subjects of articles, I am sick and tired of people saying "Someone copied a vandalised revision to {WP:BJAODN}. Please remove it; I don't want that showing up in search engines at all." It is a massive pile of BLP infringements and GFDL-non-attributed copyvios. Delete them all.  Daniel Bryant  23:20, 31 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete. Sorry if I seem humor-challenged, but these things were funny when we were small, and no one had heard of us. Now the BJAODN pages are more trouble than they're worth, since they are troll trophy-cabinets, troll-magnets, and OTRS problems galore.  Please delete them all.  Antandrus  (talk) 23:22, 31 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete the 61 mostly pointless archives, after giving editors a week or so to put any genuinely good entries (which are few and far between) in separate pages. Keep the "best picks" pages and the main page. Monitor regularly to avoid BLP violations going forward. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 23:25, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete all except the "Best picks" per Crotalus horridus. JuJube 23:27, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Crotalus solution sounds like a good one to me. I doubt most vandals are even aware of BJAODN, much less actively shooting for it, so I don't think trollfeeding is much of a concern. BLP is, however. Seraphimblade Talk to me 23:29, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Crotalus solution or delete all I've thought of putting this here; an overwhelming collection of that no one who's contributing actually reads. Only keep the "best of" if they don't violate BLP. · AO Talk 23:32, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. All claims that this is 'part of Wikipedia culture', 'funny', etc are red herrings, and will I hope be ignored by the closing admin. Those are reasons for hosting the funnier vandalism edits somewhere, and this would be the perfect reason for someone to take advantage of the GFDL by moving them onto their own private website, blog, or wiki, and consequently taking the responsibility for the content. The question is whether we should be taking that responsibility, and the answer is pretty clearly no. I certainly hope that the closing admin will not give equal weight to the arguments of those who have to deal with the problems this causes (see Daniel Bryant's post re OTRS etc.) and those who remember chuckling at some entry about cheese. --Sam Blanning(talk) 23:34, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh and the 'Crotalus solution' is unworkable since putting 'Monitor' in between six apostrophes does not mean anyone will do it. Maybe for a couple of weeks after the MfD is closed, but interest will fall off and we'll be back where we started with people throwing anything in. If people were actually willing to monitor BJAODN, they'd be doing it already and we wouldn't be having this discussion. --Sam Blanning(talk) 23:37, 31 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep This MFD is obviously an April Fool's Day joke. Cheers --Emperor Walter Humala · ( talk? ·  help! ) 23:45, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Did you read the box on the top of the page? PTO 23:47, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Probably not. 1ne 23:50, 31 March 2007 (UTC)ont-weight:bold;">demon ]][omg plz] 23:50, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Part of Wikipedian culture. I realize that Sam Blanning has said "this is a red herring", but that's genuinely how I believe. 1ne 23:46, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. If we must establish guidelines to keep unfunny nonsense, copyvios, and idiocy out, then so be it, but this page should continue to exist in some form or other. (We might have to delete the archives though.) These pages do more to promote good will and destress editors than Esperanza ever did at its best. Most of the best entries are hilarious WP:POINT violations anyway, not personal attacks. --tjstrf talk 23:58, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep - This nom only proves that we can't have fun on this site. Eh, at least clean out all the bad ones. -- AAA!  ( AAAA ) 00:03, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Very Strong Keep/BJAODN - Read the first entry you see. I hate saying this but "This page contains material which is kept because it is considered humorous. It is not intended, nor should it be used, for any remotely serious purpose." also great stress relief not to metion LOOK HERE Af648 00:12, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Can't help but want to keep because it's like Esperanza but it actually works; also, it requires little maintenance. I find it to be a great stress relief. If you feel certain things are definite bullshit and ought to be taken out, then do so yourself. Also, I am concerned about using WP:BLP as a defense to delete sections related to living folk since this page is, after all, called "bad jokes and other deleted nonsense", referring to a statement as an obvious falsity is a defense against libel. I am not a lawyer. &mdash;Signed, your friendly neighborhood MessedRocker. 00:23, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep this... heck, feature it today! --Idont Havaname (Talk) 00:24, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep: Why does it seem like the community wants to delete all pages that are remotely enjoyable ?! ~ <font color="#FF0000">St <font color="#FFD700">ep <font color="#7CFC00">tr <font color="#00FFFF">ip   00:43, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep these are good pages and stops people adding pages on wikipedia for these jokes. Crested Penguin 00:50, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per all above, but individual archives with BLP stuff may be reasonable to delete. -Amarkov moo! 00:54, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep. This keep vote's not meant to be a joke, but honestly.. it's something to view to take the edge off, it is meant to be a humorous page. It's not in the mainspace, so that's no big deal. I think what gets in there should be a little stricter/funnier sure, but there's no problems. It doesn't violate GFDL since it was originally published on the mainspace to begin with. I'll agree with your first issue, but the third is basically WP:IDONTLIKEIT.-- Wizardman 00:56, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Crotalify. Great solution. ~Crazytales, your resident godking (I AM THE AVALANCHE) 01:14, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Defer to Requests for Forgiveness. - ElbridgeGerry t c block 01:30, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
 * But seriously, Strong Keep. Information is obviously fake, and WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not policy. - ElbridgeGerry t c block 01:39, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
 * And Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Bad Jokes and Other Deleted Nonsense (2nd nomination) resulted in speedy keep and chastising of nominator as bad faith SPA, doing the same thing a bad faith SPA did isn't very honorable either. Wooyi 01:55, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The difference being I made this nomination in good faith, and I'm an established editor. ^ demon [omg plz] <em style="font-size:10px;">02:01, 1 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Strong keep and trim: there is absolutely no need to delete this. Lets get it straight, vandals (or at least the vandals I confronted as an editor) are mostly new users who don't know the our insider culture, I doubt any would try to get their vandalism into BJAODN. And please stop trying to obliterate longstanding wiki projects, these kind of MFD does more harm than good, they affect thousands of our cherished editors who have already had great affection toward BJAODN. Of course, some of the redundant unfanny stuff can go, but BJAODN is here to stay. Wooyi 01:53, 1 April 2007 (UTC)


 * What? Again? Strong keep and invitation to everyone -- especially the original nominator -- to read the humour disclaimer at the top. It is not intended, nor should it be used, for any remotely serious purpose. - looks like you're trying to be serious about it. Js farrar 02:07, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Apply the Crotalus solution, or delete outright. There have been actual issues with BJAODN lately as presented by the nom. Get rid of the archives and create one, cycling BJAODN page that can be monitored to prevent WP:BLP concerns, as brought up in a previous MFD. That previous MFD also brings up the good point that, as they are now, the BJAODN archives are GFDL violations. Being funny is not a reason to violate a copyright license, is an excellent case for deletion, as well. --Core<font color="#006449">desat  02:24, 1 April 2007 (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.