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


 * 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 Speedy keep - Look below for why. Hedley 23:47, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Bad Jokes and Other Deleted Nonsense Gone Wild
This project has nothing to do with making an encylopedia xaosflux  Talk  / CVU  16:51, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete&mdash; per nom, should be deleted or at least moved to meta. // Pathoschild 16:56, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment: This isn't really a "project".  This is one in a long series of collections of comments, articles and contributions which, yes, are inappropriate to the encyclopedia but which were so bad that people thought they were funny.  Kind of like an outtakes reel for a movie.  They were sliced out of the encyclopedia space (because they're not encyclopedic) but kept because they have some value for stress-relief.  I personally don't find most of them to be funny (though a few are hilarious) but others clearly do.  These pages may not help the encyclopedia but isolated as they are, they don't really hurt the encyclopedia either.  Regardless, they should not be moved to meta.  These are outtakes from the creation of the encyclopedia and are not particularly relevant to the rest of the WikiMedia projects.  Rossami (talk) 18:05, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. BJAODN is a necessary holding place for all our hilariously unencyclopedic jokes. Johnleemk | Talk 18:05, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. There's room for some humour outside the main workspace. This is a form of one of our longstanding traditions, and is as such a cherished part of Wikipedia culture. --Improv 18:06, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Important part of Wikipedia culture. Punkmorten 18:07, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep. A long tradition on Wikipedia, clearly separated from article and workflow pages. OTOH, I would suggest regulal pruning of those long lists to get rid of the unfunny stuff.Zocky 18:09, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep Big part of Wikipedia culture. --Jaranda wat's sup 18:09, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. It's a necessary evil, and sometimes it's actually funny. PJM 18:11, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep -- There is a longstanding precedent that pages within Wikipedia space can be dedicated to Wikipedia-related humor, e.g. the one-millionth-topic pool. &rarr; Ξxtreme Unction |yakkity yak 18:12, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep Keep Keep Keep Keeeep Keep Keep Keep Keep - SoM
 * Super Glue Keep - I can't believe someone wants this deleted. It's one of the oldest articles on Wikipedia, and there is no need to have it removed. Yes Wikipedia is an enyclopedia, but that doesn't mean it can't have it's lighter moments. Please keep and I hope I never see BJAODN on the deletion page again.(Besides, this is a nomination to have just one subpage of BJAODN deleted, and not the actual project itself. --D-Day 19:25, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
 * That thingy in a castle Sceptre  ( Talk  ) 22:35, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
 * All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
 * All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
 * All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy. (That's a keep, btw.) RMoloney (talk) 22:51, 21 December 2005 (UTC)


 * (CTU) 5002 rebmeceD 12 ,65:22 [ klat ] 0oM .ereh gniod m'I tahw ekil ,tcejorp suoires esiwrehto na no ssenillis rof gnivarc ruoy llifluf ot deen ouy nehw rof taerg si esnesnoN deteleD rehto dna sekoJ daB .peeK
 * Of course we should keep this! --Kuroki Mio 2006 23:05, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Serves a necessary function as an outlet for stress relief for Wikipedians. Keeps a lot of craziness out of the article space.  Has a long tradition. - AdelaMae (talk - contribs) 23:09, 21 December 2005 (UTC)


 * keep as per everyone above who's given a good reason for keep. Grutness...wha?  23:44, 21 December 2005 (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 article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.