Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Close Encounters of the Bad Jokes and Other Deleted Nonsense Kind


 * 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The result of the debate was Nomination withdrawn. This has been an interesting and lively debate, and mostly good natured too! Thank you to all participants. A number of people have objected to the format of the listing, and others have highlighted that we may have no choice in removing the archives due to the requirements of the GFDL. Furthermore, since the nomination was made, a better community-led cleanup and refactoring has been proposed at Administrators%27_noticeboard. I've listened to all these suggestions and have decided the best way forward would be to withdraw this nomination and go with the community led proposal. Please direct any further discussion to AN or to the cleanup page when it's created. --kingboyk 22:56, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Close Encounters of the Bad Jokes and Other Deleted Nonsense Kind
Bjaodn links to some 60 numbered BJAODN archives, and another 2 dozen or so "special collections". This is utterly absurd. First of all, we should be discouraging the creation of joke articles and nonsense whereas this meticulous cataloguing of it seems to me to be encouraging it. Your edits might get deleted but you'll get a spot in BJAODN for ever and a day! Secondly, it's exactly this kind of activity which presents Wikipedia as a frivolous social networking site, not an encyclopedia. I'm not a party pooper; I advocate having one and only one BJAODN page, which is filled on a rolling basis. New additions to the page must replace old.

This is a test nomination of a randomly selected page; if it succeeds I will nominate all of the other pages except for a central archive page, and also nominate the template Bjaodn for deletion. One other alternative is to merge all of these pages into one using move/delete/restore; anybody who truly wants to see all 80 or so pages can then trawl through the history. My recommendation, however, is to delete. kingboyk 21:45, 21 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep Close and renominate the whole project, maybe speedily (as a "test"). This isn't the way this issue should be addressed - it should have been brought up on BJAODN's talk page, or possibly on the Village Pump. This isn't in the scope of MFD. --Core desat  21:58, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry? Why isn't this in the scope of MFD? Also, would you care to explain why this should be kept, i.e. how does it benefit Wikipedia? --kingboyk 22:01, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Perhaps it is in MFD's scope, then. If anything, this MFD should be speedily kept - if you want to consider deleting or doing something to all of BJAODN, why nominate only this page? It would have been more appropriate to just nominate Bad Jokes and Other Deleted Nonsense itself so the whole project could be discussed. Plus, what if this nomination doesn't succeed? --Core desat  22:13, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * As I said, the central page can stay. One page. If this MFD fails, I move on. If it passes, I'll get all of them nominated using this as a precedent. I did consider nominating them all straight off the bat, but was advised against it - 80 pages is a lot to nominate in one go, and some folks don't like big blanket nominations, so I was advised to test the waters first. Anyway, never mind the process - why should this be kept? I've stated my rationale why it shouldn't be kept, so please help me out - how does it help Wikipedia to have these pages? Is this what Jimbo had in mind when he started the project? --kingboyk 22:18, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Again, my reason for wanting to keep this is so that the issue can be reviewed differently. This issue needs an Esperanza-type approach, and nominating the whole project doesn't necessarily mean the whole project will be deleted (you could easily propose there that only subpages be deleted, and to keep the central page, similar to the decentralization of Esperanza - only this wouldn't be tagged as historical). Perhaps I should have just used "close" and not "keep". --Core desat  22:41, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for clearing that up. If consensus shows people want an umbrella nom, I will oblige as per below and User_talk:Picaroon9288. There's no right or wrong answer here so whatever people want... --kingboyk 23:50, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * KEEP I misread the intentions of the nom. - I'm not questioning the "faith" of the nominator, as he brings up some very valid points. However, BJAODN is central to Wikipedia's culture. When users get a little too uptight over issues, they can just go there and get a good laugh. PTO 22:00, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * But 60+ Pages of laughs?? Reedy Boy 22:03, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete for a number of reasons. First, most of these are not actually funny.  Really.  Very few of them raise so much as a smile form me, and I like to laugh.  Second, what part of the mission of building an encyclopaedia does this serve?  One page of BJAODN with ruthless pruning, fine, all very amusing, but we have many tens of pages with many hundreds of k of useless and unusable junk - too much ever to read.  Third, the existence of these pages actively encourages people to create content aimed at being BJAODNed, which is a terrible outcome.  Fourth, anything that ends up with a faux "Featured Nonsense" process (best of BJAODN, which incidentally includes probably the only ones that are actually funny) shows that somebody has seriously lost the plot, because we seem to be actively working on collecting and improving explicitly non-encyclopaedic content.  This insanity really needs to stop.  One BJAODN page, maybe a couple of "best-of" archives. Guy (Help!) 22:05, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete/Review/do something with it. That many pages is just over the top! Reedy Boy 22:08, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - way too much, not a little unencyclopedic, and not amusing. I have no problem with one, maybe two pages of "rolling" BJAODNs, but this is really excessive. Moreschi Request a recording? 22:18, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, then make a new BAJODN to put this in. – Steel 22:20, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep this was discussed so many times before... And whatever relieves the stress of editors is good for encyclopedia.  Grue   22:22, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Where was it discussed before? Picaroon 22:22, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Interesting, I just went through the entire Whatlinkshere. I found no evidence that the main page has ever been linked to an mfd. I am curious: where are the deletion discussions?
 * I think closing this nomination and renominating the whole thing will serve to gain a better consensus on the issue. While I appreciate kingboyk's boldness in "testing the waters," I think this needs to be tackled with all the pages in question nominated. Picaroon 22:22, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd be willing to do that if a few folks would help with tagging, maybe 10 or 20 each. The problem I foresee though is the usual problem with bundled debates, people wanting to delete some and keep others. Perhaps if people who think this should be a bundled debate could comment that way rather than "keep" or "delete" and if there's plenty of movement for doing it that way, sure. Thanks. --kingboyk 22:33, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd do 20 if we got one or two more people. Picaroon 22:47, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * That's a lot of work if there is clear consensus to keep. I'd say stick with the "live" one, which is most likely to be seen, and see what happens. Guy (Help!) 23:40, 21 March 2007 (UTC)


 * strong keep BJAODN has been up for deletion at least five times I know of, and has been kept every time, while consensus can change, it's clear from repeated attempts that BJAODN has a permenant place in Wikipedia culture. While BJAODN could use a good pruning, that is essentially a content dispute, not a matter for deletion. Wintermut3 22:36, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not nominating WP:BJAODN for deletion. I'm nominating one of it's many child/offshoot pages, with the intent of nominating all child pages if this passes. BJAODN is a Wikipedia institution that is safe as far as I am concerned. As User:Reedy Boy said above, we might need a laugh but not 60+ pages of laughs. (Not that much of it is very funny anyway). I'm even willing to compromise by deleting in a move/delete/restore cycle so that all edits are retained, but in the article history of the central BJAODN page, just not spread out over 5-7 dozen pages. --kingboyk 22:43, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Where were the previous attempts? Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Bad Jokes and Other Deleted Nonsense doesn't exist (yet). Picaroon 22:47, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Interesting, I just went through the entire Whatlinkshere. I found no evidence that the main page has ever been linked to an mfd. I too am curious: where are the deletion discussions? --Iamunknown 23:49, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete These pages are in the main not remotely funny; they are simply collections of vandalism. Maybe at most we should have a nomination page where people can nominate things to go on a single Bad Jokes and Other Deleted Nonsense which would only contain the very best, but pointless to have these collections with so much rubbish in. TomPhil 22:42, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. As has been said before, these pages are just collections of (mostly lame) vandalism. Keeping them all around is a total waste of time and space. I think one section of this BJAODN page says it best: "NONE OF THE RECENTLY ADDED CRAP IS FUNNY AT ALL. IN THE FUTURE, PLEASE CHOOSE SOMETHING FUNNY TO ADD TO THIS FILE." WarpstarRider 23:37, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep Wikipedia can contain some humor and fun stuff. We have this precedent which kept funny entries. There are purposes why pages like BJAODN, WP:NOTO, WP:TOE, and WP:DOF are established, to relieve wikistress. Wooyi 23:55, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * That was one redirect, not 60+ pages with an equal number of images. It is irrelevant to this mfd. --Iamunknown 00:53, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep party pooper. Derex 00:44, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Unfair. I advocated deletion of this, and I am responsible for numerous things in project space which are kept because a few of us find them funny.  The problem here is not BJAODN, it's BJAODN archives 2 - 60 and up.  One page, with some really funny stuff, fantastic.  A hundred pages of vandalism preserved for posterity?  Less obviously desirable.  Guy (Help!) 14:21, 22 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Speedy Refile. If you want to nominate this for deletion, and use it as a precedent, then put it on the main BJAODN page, so everyone can notice. Ab e g92 contribs 00:49, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Also, my opinion is keep, but I hope it will be irrelevant for this MFD. Ab e g92 contribs 00:49, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm curious: if all 60+ of the BJAODN pages are so imporant, why are you afraid that this particular nomination will be overlooked? I mean, if every page is absolutely necessary, wouldn't everyone who wants to add their opinion to this discussion notice it even if it is on one random BJAODN page? --Iamunknown 02:27, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
 * A very small portion people will read this archive while this debate is going on; but someone might want to go through all the BJAODN and see all of them (like me) . Ab e g92 contribs 13:24, 23 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep and Close as per above. mrholybrain 's talk 02:25, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Would you clarify? Which part of above? --Iamunknown 02:30, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I meant as per the keep arguments above. mrholybrain 's talk 10:20, 22 March 2007 (UTC)


 * keep because this is not the way to change such a significant custom. Personally, I find these pages reminders of trivial a sense of humor can get, (but of course if we started deleting individual ones on that basis there would be nothing left) so after suitable discussion I will !vote to delete the entire group of pages as unencyclopedic. But not here, with this little notice. DGG 03:10, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment, I think that we can cut the number of pages down somewhat, by removing unfunny content and consolidating/merging pages, although this MFD is not a good way to effect that. The only funny stuff in there, in my opinion, includes the sections "Vivephilia", "From Sandwich", "From Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Islamophilia", "Wikipedia:Write like this we should", "Being Vandalized", "Flamer's bible", "From: Bumblesnap Chess", "From "Popcorn trick"", and "From Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Chewbacca Defense". 9 out of 79 sections is not that much. Let's keep the focus on finding funny stuff, and not just stupid stuff. Now, an argument that "BJAODN encourages creation of nonsense" is a bad one. Correlation does not imply causation, and most entries into BJAODN do not have BJAODN inclusion as the goal. I will vote an extremely strong keep if the whole collection is nominated. Grace notes T  § 03:18, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree that smerging the content would be appropriate. I would like to, however, solicit responses to this question: How can we decide what to keep and what not to keep in the proecess of smerging in order to keep the most users happy? --Iamunknown 04:08, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
 * In my opinion, humorous articles on wikipedia, including BJAODN, have been not well organized. One solution to this problem is to establish a new WikiProject to evaluate the inclusion and organize all humor-related wikipedia pages on projectspace. Wooyi 04:39, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
 * That would be one of the first times I'm aware of a WikiProject being created solely to deal with pages not at all related to the actual encyclopedia. Seems like we might be getting off track. I agree with you, however, that something does need to be done. Any ideas on how to define objective criteria on what stays and what goes? --Iamunknown 04:59, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
 * How about this: we announce that, after a month (or maybe two), we will delete all current archives. However, during that time period, it can be funneled by anyone into, say, five (at most ten) numbered archives. This is just cleanup. I am strongly against getting it all on one page, since that page is going to be long. Very long. Very, very, long. Too long. Grace notes T  § 19:29, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
 * One current page and say 5 best ofs? I, personally, could live with that. Is that what you have in mind? How would we seek consensus for the action? --kingboyk 19:33, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
 * ← That's just about what I had in mind. We may have to stricter about what we accept, although I don't want to see any edit warring about it! The most important thing is that we archive deleted nonsense, rather than stuff than can merely be accessed with obscure diffs. In fact, most pages of BJAODN can be filled up with lists of diffs, although this might make browsing it a less pleasant experience. And I assume that we're only talking about the sixty-something archives, not the special collections or April Fools content. Grace notes T  § 20:13, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I personally would prefer to see all 60 archives and the "special collections" deleted and replaced by a rolling BJAODN page and a handful of best of's. That's just my opinion. However, if you think you can deliver consensus to delete the 60 archives but keep the special collections and create a much smaller more dynamic BJAODN it's a compromise that I would be silly not to accept :) Do you think consensus can be achieved for that and if so how? Are we again talking about nominating all 60 archives for deletion or do you have another process in mind? --kingboyk 20:39, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Make sure you folks look at Consumed Crustacean's comment down a ways: all of these BJAODN pages are pure GFDL-related copyright violations. So, if we are to keep them, they'll need to be significantly pruned and have the histories copied and pasted somewhere -- which will require lots of admin time to get the histories from deleted pages for such a silly project. --Iamunknown 16:54, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep. This is a terrible way to propose a cleanup, which is essentially what you are doing. Nominating a single random page out of many is pointless. What in the world would be the point of combining or merging these pages? The only thing such an action would do is waste time and get everyone in a frenzy, which would probably result in an even bigger mfd for the main BJAODN page and endless wheel wars. Honestly, leave well enough alone. If you truly want to get rid of BJAODN, the best way to do so would be using a GFDL-related argument, as the edit history of everything on BJAODN has not been preserved... (*wonders why I said that*) --- RockMFR 05:29, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep. If you want structural changes ("cleanup") of BJAODN, you should start on the talk page, not here. MfD should only consider this if discussion there won't (or didn't) work. Gavia immer (talk) 14:12, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Why? There's no such rule, and of course folks who frequent BJAODN will want the whole shebang kept. You're not going to get a speedy keep either as this is a good faith nomination with several other people advocating deletion. However, we might start again and tag all the pages this time (still to be decided). --kingboyk 14:23, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't want structural changes, I want to delete 59 pages of (mainly) complete crap. Just to be absolutely clear here. And speedy keep is an invalid !vote after so many deletes have been registered. Guy (Help!) 14:25, 22 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep. If one goes, they all go. If they all go, what's left of Wikipedia? &mdash; $PЯING  rαgђ  14:50, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
 * An encyclopedia? --kingboyk 14:55, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
 * A dry, crusty one with no lubrication, perhaps… &mdash; $PЯING  rαgђ  20:56, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
 * No, it will still have Category:Wikipedia humor, and it will still have BJAODN, just one page of funny BJAODN instead of sixty pages of - for the most part - crap. And if this does not get deleted I will get the Spider-Man suit out, see if I don't. Guy (Help!) 23:02, 22 March 2007 (UTC)


 * (this remains broadly my opinion, but I'm clarifying it by adding a new one at the bottom and striking this one) Keep, second choice to history-merge all the pages together. Yes, I agree that most of this isn't funny, but I don't really disagree with removing information in this context; the 'it doesn't do any harm' argument's been (rightly) added to WP:AADD, but the arguments there don't seem to apply in the special case of BJAODN because it has no requirement to be notable and is full of false information by design. Perhaps the best option would be to remove all the non-funny information to leave just Best of BJAODN (where all the funny stuff, and some non-funny stuff, ends up), and increase barriers to BJAODN'ing things somewhat, as a lot of what's BJAODN'd just isn't funny. As for history-merging all the pages: why is this a worse option than simple deletion? (Unless there's a copyright concern involved; I notice that much of BJAODN violates the GFDL because author information hasn't been maintained.) Or one other option that hasn't been mentioned here: transwiki to Uncyclopedia and let them sort the mess out. (I think this is unsatisfactory for both wikis, as well as complicating the legal situation further, but I'm mentioning it for consideration.) --ais523 14:54, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: We can't transwiki to Uncyclopedia because they have an incompatible licence. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 08:45, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. This should work like WP:LAME, which is indeed a reasonably short list that has new items added and old items removed. Unlike BJAODN, LAME is actually funny most of the time.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  16:15, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment! - I don't think that all of us are on the same page here. If you all want BJAODN to be reconstructed, start a motion to do so on the talk page. MFD isn't the place to do it. The people voting keep are under the impression that BJAODN will be completely destroyed. PTO 01:18, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. It looks like the issue has been decided, but I'll speak up anyhow. If ever there was a declaration of war on one of Wikipedia's oldest and fondest traditions, this is it.  We'll replace WP:OR and WP:V before we replace WP:BJAODN!  Oh wait, we already did that. :)  Seriously, it's important for our collective sanity to show a sense of humor, and BJAODN is the oldest example of this, long before there were ever Rouge Admins or Articles for Wheelation.  Honestly, I don't think BJAODN encourages trolling, and if it does, it's only a very small fraction of the trolling that goes on.  I've forwarded a few items from New Page Patrol to BJAODN, and I want the opportunity to continue in the future.  Long live BJAODN! YechielMan 01:35, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. I like it, it's like a version of Esperanza that actually works to remove stress. Why on earth would someone nominate ONLY archive 26 anyway? For those saying it's not funny, then remove the unfunny entries. --tjstrf talk 07:41, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep or Just close and discuss this in BJAODN talk or some other, better venue. "This is a test nomination of a randomly selected page". Um... RANDOMLY SELECTED???? Great strategy, really great, so far the most sensible strategy to get anything deleted, really... In all seriousness, I think the best solution would be to mark the unfettered BJAODN historical (and keep whatever the crap we have in the current collections), and for the future, only have a collection of best picks, and add a page where new bits could be proposed and eventually moved to collection - with encouragement to weed the "lamest of the jokes deleted for a good reason&trade;" out before they get permanently enshrined. Rolling model = good. However, MfD is not really the place to get processes changed; this should probably be discussed elsewhere... --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 08:43, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - BJAODN is like a little brother to me. A freakish little brother. -- AAA!  ( AAAA ) 10:57, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Avoid MFD. No deletion discussion is needed for pruning.  Make one good page, turn the other pages into redirects, and then you haven't done a "deletion" at all, so MFD is irrelevant.  Friday (talk) 16:03, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep and boldly remove the unfunny ones. Probably doesn't need to be reduced to one page, but something in single figures should be enough. --Tango 16:10, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. WP:ILIKEIT isn't enough reason to keep here; it violates the basic premises of the project. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a joke collection. --Rory096 16:13, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * BJAODN serves absolutely no purpose in building an encyclopedia. Some of it is funny, some of it is not. But guess what? Being "funny" still serves no purpose. Although the MfD might not result in a delete, the whole thing needs to be pruned like we are Leatherface, and BJAODN are a young, hot, nubile virgin making out with her boyfriend in a car parked in a field and about to go to third base for the first time. Delete everything that isn't funny whatsoever. Mahalo. --Ali&#39;i 16:18, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete WP:ENC, WP:NOT. This is a hall of fame to vandals and food for trolls. How on earth does this help us make an encyclopedia, I say delete all such pages. They are too hard to keep free of libel and obscene material. One persons haha is another persons offense. Wikipedia is not a joke book. I would like point out to the many people who stated Keep but did not make a policy based argument, this is not a vote and "votes" without policy based argument will not be given much weight if any when it comes time to judge consensus. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 16:34, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * You hope... ;-) --Ali&#39;i 16:41, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 *  Strong Delete / relist all. WP:NOT is policy. And, many of these are GFDL violations, not giving proper attribution to the original creator. That's a plain copyright violation right there. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 16:45, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment WP:NOT does not categorically apply to projectspace, only for the mainspace. I can give many examples of WP:NOT policies that do not apply on projectspace, like WP:NOT (all wikipedia essays are original research, including my own essay WP:RDAL) and WP:NOT (Glossary is a dictionary). The funny pages should not be deleted based on NOT because the jurisdiction of NOT in projectspace is not clearcut yet. Wooyi 16:55, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * But they should be deleted per WP:CSD categorically as blatant copyright violations. --Iamunknown 16:57, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Copying content from mainspace to projectspace does not constitute copyvio, as it is just content trans-namespace within wikipedia. Also we should not delete a longstanding page on wikipedia community. Wooyi 17:01, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh yes it does, unless the author names were copied too! Wikipedia doesn't own the copyrights, the author does. --kingboyk 17:03, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * WP:GFDL -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 17:05, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Oops I didn't notice that subtle technicality. But a remedy would be prune it and keep the best one, find the author and add their names. Wooyi 17:07, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Feel free to go ahead...60+ pages are just waiting for your TLC. --Iamunknown 17:10, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * "Personal essays on topics relating to Wikipedia are welcome in your user namespace or on the Meta-wiki.". there are similar exceptions and such made elsewhere on WP:NOT; BJOADN isn't mentioned. WP:NOT specifically states that articles should not contain dicdefs. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 17:05, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * If some kind of interpretation of NOT mandates the deletion of funny pages, I must invoke the doctrine of WP:IAR (albeit reluctantly). Funny pages in project space relieve Wikistress and helps Wikipedians to explore and edit Wikipedia with more fun. To policies, sometimes WP:SENSE does make exceptions through the principle established in IAR. Wooyi 17:15, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * This is an encyclopedia. How many times does that point have to be made? We're saying you can keep a handful of BJAODN pages. How many times does that point have to be made? If your wikistress is that bad go do something else for a while! --kingboyk 17:48, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I think you have misunderstood me, I never said I would support keeping all 60 pages on BJAODN. In fact I think cleanup is very necessary. I was only rebutting the claim that BJAODN should be completely deleted. Sorry if I've confused anyone. I do support deleting unnecessary, unfunny and redundant pages in BJAODN. Wooyi 18:12, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * No one is saying that all of BJAODN should be deleted.. Iamunknown 18:17, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Move all the content that's actually funny elsewhere, determine its source (for legal reasons), and history-merge everything else together in case someone wants to salvage it later as I've proposed in the thread WP:AN that grew up about this MfD. My opinion above still broadly stands; this comment is to clarify what I mean. --ais523 18:29, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * [[Image:Crystal Clear action apply.png|12px]] Keep. Why not? Perhaps it could be moved to Meta if it's deemed to be inappropriate content for Wikipedia itself. --///Jrothwell (talk)/// 20:49, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep and speedy close per WP:SNOW. Why do people continue to think that everything deemed serious (like Wikipedia) should be totally void of any humor? Grow a funny bone. --Edokter (Talk) 18:09, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Um, no? There is not nearly enough majority either way to snowball this mfd. --Iamunknown 18:16, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep and speedy close per WP:SNOW. -- Ķĩřβȳ ♥  ♥  ♥  Ťįɱé  Ø  19:59, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Lol. Nothing like reading an entire debate before contributing is there? Just see one line above, comment from Iamunknown. --kingboyk 20:09, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete all the archives. While I prefer to just delete the whole lot of them, after reading the discussion at WP:AN, I could live with kingboyk's proposal to let interested parties salvage and source what they want from the archives, although I hardly see the point in it.  This really would amount to a colosal waste of somebody's time to sift through the archives, but if somebody places so little value on their time, then go for it. —Doug Bell talk 21:01, 23 March 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.