Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Bad Jokes and Other Deleted Nonsense (4th nomination)


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellany 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The result of the debate was keep - nomination withdrawn. - Mailer Diablo 13:06, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Bad Jokes and Other Deleted Nonsense


(Last Afd) Okay, I will act as the devil's advocate this time round. It's a shame that it has to come to this, but given the recent events it is something more of procedural for me push the notion that one of the oldest pages has got to go. I do not see any point to keep the body when its original spirit is actually gone; we're not deleting general humor on Wikipedia, which can be superseded by Humor. If the argument of GFDL violation is correct, then this page itself still contains tainted revisions.

As clarification, this nomination includes BJAODN itself, and any subpage(s) that begins with the above prefix. I'm pushing for either one of the two motions - first to delete this page as red-link, or second to delete this page and recreate with a simple, brief history of what has been going on here (which probably is just the lead-in of the current page). - Mailer Diablo 12:31, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
 * What about the GFDL compliant material that gets lost in the crossfire? - Mgm|(talk) 08:10, 1 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom.  Majorly  (talk | meet) 13:05, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep in mind folks, this is for the remaining BJAODN pages and the future of a GFDL compliant BJAODN - this MfD does not apply to the prior deletions.
 * Wait, you mean BJAODN itself is still GFDL compliant even should first major revisions be lost from BadJokesAndOtherDeletedNonsense, Bad Jokes and Other Deleted Nonsense and Wikipedia:Bad jokes and other deleted nonsense due to the 2004 database crash, given that they were transfered by copy-and-paste ? - Mailer Diablo 18:09, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Yes, we do need to have this discussion. No, we do not need to delete what remains of BJAODN, which is GFDL compliant (even if there are some exceptions to this). Yechiel Man  13:18, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Which ones are GFDL compliant? More than likely they may be more of the greater part of Wikipedia Humor, in which then we just move them out as standalone pages. Just to be sure we're on the same line, we take BryceHarrington's original quote for the definition of BJADON, which is essentially savages from articlespace. - Mailer Diablo 13:27, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Your keep opinion may be given more weight if you give a reason to keep it. ( H )  13:44, 31 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete, there's nothing there. ^ demon [omg plz] 13:21, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep It's been here for so long, it's practically become part of Wikipedia! Besides, I like to see what happens to nonsense... Dark Ermac 13:41, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Your keep opinion may be given more weight if you give an argument other than "It's been here for so long". ( H )  13:45, 31 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete It is full of liable, copyright infringements, and down right nastiness. It is not why Wikipedia exists, it feeds the trolls by giving them a trophy room, and it is a waste of good editors time to try to keep the page compliant with GFDL. ( H )  13:44, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong keep - this page brings some delightedness to Wikipedia, has been around for a long time, I see no real reason to delete it. Why is "the spirit gone"? Could you explain this? Or perhaps look for consensus on the talk page first, this page has become part of wikipedia over the years and it'd be a bit too easy to delete it in one simple AfD. Salaskan 14:10, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, since I've nuked pretty much all of BJAODN I don't particularly see a point to this. As noted, we have Wikipedia:Humor, and any BJAODN subpage could easily be userfied like all the April Fools junk, then categorized as Wikipedia:Humor. IMO, our collective creative energies really should go to writing an encyclopedia rather than preserving and expanding on this garbage - want to screw around on a wiki? Go to Uncyclopedia. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - &lt;*&gt; 14:16, 31 May 2007 (UTC) (That's a delete for you vote-y types.)
 * Strong keep Wikipedia isn't just an encyclopaedia, but a community. Surely there is some room for BJAODN, to relive our classic memories of witty yet inane posts and vandals past. Also restore deleted articles until community consensus can be established as to what to do, and how. Orderinchaos 14:42, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete All of the entertaining material appears to have been removed. It's too bad really, these pages were hilarious. One person's garbage is another person's treasure...perhaps such things will live on in the quiet diffs of yesteryear. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 15:07, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep but if it does get deleted, can someone spork it to Uncyclopedia? They want it. They've already started taking stuff from it.--Dexter111344 15:16, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
 * comment reality check even moving it there is a copyright violation Gnan garra 15:23, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
 * comment As a humor site, fair use has a pretty broad brush for uncyclopedia. Honestly, we would probably be fine keeping it ourselves, for the same reason; there are unlikely to be actual legal implications. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 07:29, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep as a copyright violation, WP:CSD could have been applied without this discussion. Yet retaining the page and requiring GFDL compliant listings ie include a diff from the source article would alleviate future GFDL concerns while enabling the spirit of community that the previous two MfD discussed continue. Gnan garra 15:23, 31 May 2007 (UTC) changed to Keep after seeing that policy is a fickle thing here and can be ignored when enough Admins say so as such I'm giving weight to keeping. I also note that the deletions of the archives is out of process and they should be reinstated until a result of this determined. Gnan garra 16:20, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep No offense, but wikipedia needs some humor, and I think the articles shouldn't have been deleted until the XfD had finished, for a few reasons. One, how can we prove a copyvio if the pages aren't there? Two, it'd give other people a chance to review it. Three, maybe some people want to keep that stuff. I mean, how old was some of the stuff? Older than dirt from what I heard. But, if it does end up as delete, I propose a history of it, a well, a few examples of the best stuff that was there (those things would have to be discussed though, and copyvio free). Whs itc hy 15:35, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - Yes, the history proposal is provided for in the nomination as the second option. - Mailer Diablo 15:49, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I know, I'm just saying that's what I would support if it is delete. Whs itc hy 15:51, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Just to put on the record I'm happy to volunteer to fish GFDL-compliant, non-libellous edits out of the (deleted) articles if we decide to create such an archive. Ideally, a team should do it. Orderinchaos 23:48, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Count me in on that team, I'd be happy to help but we probably need at least an admin on the team to get the undeleted history.--User:Rock2e Talk - Contribs 13:00, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Neutral, I misread the scope once again. Sean William @ 18:04, 31 May 2007 (UTC) Delete (possibly Speedy Delete under G1, patent nonsense) This crap isn't funny. We've got Category:Wikipedia humor for the actually funny stuff. Sean William @ 16:07, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
 * (ec) PLEASE NOTE: I checked the GFDL compliance of what remains of BJAODN. I have left my results here: User:YechielMan/Other stuff/GFDL compliance for BJAODN. While some of you may disagree on one or two of my interpretations, it's clear that most of what remains is indeed compliant.

To the fellow who said my opinion may be given more weight if I give a reason: I think the burden of proof is on those who wish to delete one of Wikipedia's oldest traditions. I've had enough of people disparaging BJAODN as a waste of time. Heaven knows how many hours I've spent patrolling pages for spam, vandalism, and overall crap. It's nice to have an outlet of humor for such thankless drudgery. (Yes, if it weren't fun I wouldn't be doing it, but it can be stressful.) If you think any of the BJAODN supporters wish to spend all their time there and none elsewhere, you are mistaken. Heck, what if I want to spend all my time offline altogether? Who are you to stop me? If we delete what remains of BJAODN, we should also delete such gems as WP:WOTTA and WP:NCR. Humor is humor, whether it relates to Wikipedia usage or Wikipedia history.

Just to put this in perspective: Wikipedia has more than five million pages, including 1.8 million articles, a pile of redirects, a truckload of user talk pages, and a cavern of images. It has maybe 500 to 1000 humor-related pages, including those in userspace. That's less than 0.1% of Wikipedia's server resources. Leave it alone, and learn how to smile. Yechiel Man  16:16, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep this page is an ingrained part of Wikipedia culture, apart from being amusing at times. Yes, there are issues with GFDL and BLP compliance, but the pages are salvageable. Some people on WP:AN are offering to dig through histories to find the original edits, and it should be possible to set up a system to remove additions that do not comply. Hut 8.5 16:26, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - I have to agree. There are some problems with the page, but at the same time it is sort part of the community. Wikipedia is more than just a 100% serious community. We need to have stuff to laugh about. -- Tλε Rαnδоm Eδι   τ   оr   17:22, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. I believe all the reasons have already been given above, but essentially, there's no reason to delete it as it can be rebuilt. --tjstrf talk 18:19, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep everything: As it says on the top of the page, it's a tradition on WP, and no denying it. --Sl g r a n d s o n (page - messages - contribs) 19:05, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - I for one don't find it very traditional or funny. The GDFL has been clearly stated in this case, and we're trying to run an encyclopedia, not have a system of arbitrary projects. This could easily be exported to a userspace outside Wikipedia itself, where there is no risk of legal action, and we don't have to police it.--WaltCip 19:20, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
 * How would a different website have "no risk of legal action". Surely the risk would be, y'know, exactly the same? -Halo 21:12, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep and fix the process to comply with GFDL. If necessary start a massive project to dig out old diffs and find the data. -N 21:07, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete anything that cannot be attributed. Keep BJAODN so editors can at least start giving credit to the editors. GFDL License can't be ignored. Although it is a major "tradition" on WP, we can seriously do without the bad publicity and the legal threats. If we give credit to the author, fine, no problem, but otherwise I would have done the same thing as Jeffery did. — M o e   ε  21:11, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Absolutely not even close to any good reasons for deletion. Where are the GFDL compliance problems on this particular page? Precisely what section of the GFDL is being violated by anything on this page? --- RockMFR 21:36, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Jeffrey O. Gustafson cited GFDL item 4.B on the admins noticeboard. Full text of the GFDL is at WP:GFDL. Yechiel Man  22:15, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I realize the GFDL problems that existed in the subpages - I was actually one of the first people to bring it up many months ago. However, I am missing how the main page of BJAODN violates the GFDL. Nor am I seeing why it is impossible to have a GFDL-compliant BJAODN. --- RockMFR 22:19, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep. The BJAODN subpages (as well as BJAODN) are valuable content and a tradition; if we can attribute to whoever authored the works, fine; if not, just generically credit it to "editors of Wikipedia". Moreover, the BJAODN subpages' deletions have been put (by me) on deletion review. &mdash; Rickyrab | Talk 22:18, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I am requesting the edit histories of deleted subpages, as well as the subpages themselves, and I ask that those histories and subpages be given to others who request them as well. &mdash; Rickyrab | Talk 00:03, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. Note to closing admin: Slapping a "Keep" on the debate and walking away will not remove the problems of the GFDL. Steps must be taken to resolve upon the very moment the debate is closed, otherwise I will simply reopen the debate in three days.--WaltCip 22:52, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment not to sound rude, but why don't you help with the GFDL stuff, the more help, the easier it'll be. Whs itc hy 22:54, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. Note to the closing admin of the WP:Deletion review (Moe, or something like that): Slapping an "endorse deletion" on that debate and then walking away will NOT remove the problems of people who want to enjoy the Bad Jokes and Other Deleted Nonsense in question. Steps must be taken to resolve, as that debate was already closed; if not, I will simply reopen the debate in three days. &mdash; Rickyrab | Talk 00:37, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Part of Wikipedia culture, and popular too (this is not a WP:ILIKEIT vote by the way). I know of students who've laughed at this page. However, the GFDL issue must be addressed, and I have a solution. Here's a scenario:

A nonsensical page, Nonsense joke page is deleted - but then it should be restored, moved to Bad Jokes and Other Deleted Nonsense/JOKEPAGETITLE/Nonsense joke page and the attribution history is kept for GFDL compliance.

I will move pages over if people request it, that way the GFDL history problem may be solved. --SunStar Net talk 22:57, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep - Because even Wikipedia needs fun. -- AAA!  ( AAAA ) 23:23, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong keep. Major part of WP culture. As anyone who has hung around deletion debates for a while should know "It needs fixing" is not a sufficient reason for deletion. A GFDL-compliant BJAODN is an asset to Wikipedia, as it provides some much-needed light relief to editors, and as such may even be psychologically beneficial (especially when things are becoming heated). User:SunStar Net's solution is a very good one, and I for one would like to see it implemented. The only snag with it is attribution for things added into existing articles, though perhaps simply linking to the change's article's history is sufficient in those cases. Grutness...wha?  23:47, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, puerile. Hesperian 23:48, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Send it to hell. --MichaelLinnear 00:11, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep' Belgium EO 00:16, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment For you last three !voters, could we not straight vote? — M o e   ε  00:28, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I didn't. Hesperian 01:02, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - Any humour pages that can be properly attributed are quite welcome at Uncyclopedia. We'll we'll give your abandoned humour a loving home. Spang 00:38, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong keep per Grutness above. JRG 00:47, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment:The deleted pages were kosher under the transformative-works provision of fair use, and one's right to access the deleted pages is also kosher under fair use. The bad jokes and other deleted nonsense constitute humor and satire, not an attempt to tell the truth; moreover, the works were transformative in many areas, not merely derivative. They transformed the original works. 204.52.215.107 01:08, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Again, this isn't about the already deleted pages, and second, in regards to copyrights you are so far off from the reality of the situation that another universe just opened up in the gap. Congratulations. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - &lt;*&gt; 01:32, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Jeff, that was a little low. Whs itc hy 04:23, 1 June 2007 (UTC)


 * The biggest possible earth shattering KEEP I've ever even bothered to put down on a damn vfd discussion. This is making a mockery of this fine encyclopedia. - really, keep it. I'm sick of this. I go here to add some hilarious vandalism, and I find that all the subpages are gone. Dig up the old diffs, crack em open, put them back and deal with it. It's a part of Wikipedia culture folks, get used to it! FireSpike 01:40, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Having a culture mean we get to forget copyright laws. Saying "but I Like it isn't a valid argument. — M o e   ε  04:44, 1 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep. Running an encyclopedia does not mean we can't enjoy it. Maybe I'm a crazy radical here, but I'd say that having a sense of humor might help. Perhaps we'll bring back the good bits from the great copyright beyond. And if not, I'd still like a place to put the new ones, following whatever arcane rituals are needed to appease the copyright gods. William Pietri 04:32, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * sofixit. If you have enjoyed BJAODN and don't wish to see it go, organize with other editors, give a hand now and start implementing the suggestions on how to address the GFDL concerns. Start rebuilding the content and form a proper procedure on adding stuff that is compliant! Action speaks louder than arguments and your opinion will be given greater weight! - Mailer Diablo 06:28, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep and Comment. We can always delete material that is not GFDL compliant, but that doesn't mean deleting ALL of it is the way to go. - Mgm|(talk) 08:10, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * BJAODN - We're here to build an encyclopedia, dammit! We are not here to bring teh funny, we do not have a fucking sense of humor - just look at the hundreds of pages of pointless arguments at AN & AN/I! Burn BJAODN down! It will destroy Wiki as we know it! *foaming at the mouth* ˉˉanetode╦╩ 09:29, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep Frankly, the whole procedural angle being pursued arguing GFDL violation as the reason for removal of BJAODN is clear WikiLawyering and in reality a clear violation of the intended spirit of both the license and Wikipedia policy as a whole. This deletion is at best described as shameful, and does nothing other than remove the hilarious heart of WP. Literally, by CSD'ing the entire BJAODN, you've climbed the Reichstag dressed as Spider-Man for the sole purpose of promoting your single-minded view on the matter. Shame on you Deletionists for your unilaterial action on this matter. It would have taken you all of three minutes to open the MfD discussion, a few more to mass mark all the BJAODN pages as MfD's attached to this. If you were that concerned about the maintenance of BJAODN in the context of the copyright policy and attribution requirments, why didn't you just go over to the billage pump and help to thrash out a proposal which upholds the issues you raised while still maintains it. A simple change to how things are including using merge might have gone a long way to dealing with the perceived problems of the nominator. If anything, this deletion and the speedy deletion of all BJAODN pages is really bordering on WP:POINT and the persons in question need to be sutiably brought to account for their actions at a later date. Thewinchester (talk) 09:52, 1 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions.  -- Thewinchester (talk) 10:16, 1 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep. Deletion of "Bad Jokes and Other Deleted Nonsense?" Such a proposal is a bad joke, nonsense and should be deleted.--Melburnian 10:41, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Good grief. Keep -- BJAODN is a long-standing and useful escape-valve for stressed serious editors. If there are any tainted revisions -- and I haven't yet seen any evidence that there are -- they can be taken out. -- The Anome 11:18, 1 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Strong keep and add this page to BJAODN' Ian ¹³  /t  11:57, 1 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep The GFDL argument is interesting, but ultimately not binding on this process. Other rights of use exist, including fair use, and GFDL-compliance can be rebuilt by those committed to keeping the BJAODN pages.  Without examples of the GFDL problems, a convincing argument for deletion has not been made.  "Because I said so" ceased to be a persuasive argument when I left my mother's knee.  Now, we have GFDL deletions & BLP decimations while we're expected to accept them because the deleting admin said so.  The answer to this is to say: "This far and no further."  That's what I'm saying here:  This far and no further.  *steps off soapbox*  Thank you. And when this process concludes, please add it to WP:BJAODN. --Ssbohio 12:04, 1 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Stronger Keep - What a bad joke and nonsense. Keep this and get along with our lifes.  Imo eng  12:12, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. It is an integral part of Wikipedia culture. Even if it were a copyvio, it would be fair use and also unenforceable. 168.229.24.73 12:14, 1 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep and revert vandalism - vandalising a page in order to have it later deleted due to a lack of content is despicable. Js farrar 12:15, 1 June 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.