Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Deleted articles with freaky titles


 * 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. Xoloz 16:40, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Deleted articles with freaky titles
It not funny, and it only invites trolling like the bizarre usernames page that was deleted. WP:DENY. Deleted nonsense should stay deleted. — The Future 00:36, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Funny and harmless. Owen&times; &#9742;  00:40, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. OK, I was the person who started this page, but I took particular note to make sure that it was not going to be a troll-magnet - in exactly the same way that BJAODN is not a troll-magnet. It clearly does not fall foul of WP:DENY, which aims to crack down on the creation of "categories, user pages, and tracking pages which serve to describe or document patterned edit abuse". This page does none of those things. Also - importantly - WP:DENY is only proposed policy. Even if it is ratified, I think there would be a serious outcry if it were to cover BJAODN and similar pages. I can see the problem with WP:BUBU, as these are deliberately created vandalous usernames - as evinced by the fact that the users are blocked. The same principles do not apply here, since many of the article titles listed were genuine if misguided attempts to create wikipedia articles. And yes, it is funny as well as harmless. Grutness...wha?  00:50, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I hardly think the titles:


 * "1000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000"
 * "FUCK OFF YOU FUCKING CUNTING COUPLES. THERE IS NOT ROOM IN AISLE 6 OF TESCO FOR YOU TO EAT EACH OTHERS INNARDS OUT. THERE IS NOT ROOM IN MY LIFE TO HAVE YOUR SNOGGING SHOVED IN MY FACE ALL DAY EVERY DAY. JUST FUCK OFF."
 * were serious attempts at creating articles. We shouldn't recognize vandals for thier work on Wikipedia. — The Future 01:07, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Please point out to me where I said that all of the article titles listed were serious attempts at editing. I stand by my statement that most of them were. Grutness...wha?  01:29, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, it's just as funny as BJAODN. The Allah-Kitten controversy alone is enough to make it worth saving (and if anyone knows what that is, I'm really curious...).  On the question of attracting vandals/trolls -- well, so do a lot of other pages; going by that rationale you'd have to delete George W. Bush and tons of others.  I wouldn't object to a little judicious editing to remove the ones that (like the obscenity-ridden one above) were not intended as serious articles, though.  That might discourage people from deliberately creating such titles in hopes of getting selected for this page. Bookgrrl 01:22, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. WP:DENY is not policy. It's not even that good of an idea. Thanks, Luc "Somethingorother" French 01:36, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

coment I tend towards the position that we should do what we want regardless of vandels one way or the other.Geni 01:58, 8 September 2006 (UTC) ]Bryant''' 07:41, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per Bookgrrrl, will need some trimming though. Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 02:02, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep because its part of the Wikipedia community. Really, its harmless. Leave it be. --CableModem 02:09, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Stong keep While I do agree with WP:DENY (we should in general do what we can about vandalism and even if it isn't policy, it's probably true) this is not glorifying an individual vandal like WOW's old BJAODN page did. (If that reasoning is valid, we should probably delete most of the BJAODN stuff.)  How likely is it that any individual will make an article and notice that it got here?  Also, I'm sure that much of what's here were things like good faith newbie tests, which are NOT vandalism. Y0u | Y0ur talk page 05:20, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep, WP:DENY isn't even a guideline, let alone policy, yet. '''Daniel[[Special:Random|.]
 * Keep - not doing any harm, and I think institutional memory is a good thing. Also, this one's buried deeply enough as to not be troll food, so WP:DENY shouldn't even be a consideration - Stephanie Daugherty (Triona) - Talk - Comment - 08:20, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Try uncyclopedia. --Improv 12:47, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep This meta-deletionism is getting out of hand. --Ryan Delaney talk 14:03, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak delete. Harmless, but the least it could do is actually be funny... BalthCat 14:34, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge into BJAODN so that it can still exist but under the funny pages. —     21:13, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge to BJAODN. Not terribly funny on its own.--Frenchman113 on wheels! 21:15, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep and don't rename or we'll lose the wonderful shortcut. the wub "?!"  21:27, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Harmless, and WP:DENY is only proposed. BryanG(talk) 04:35, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Mostly harmless. -- Cimon Avaro; on a pogostick. 05:50, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per everyone's general sentiment and note that deletion discussions are not appropriate places for pushing proposed policies, even reasonable ones. Sandstein 09:50, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Move to a subpage of BJAODN. --GW_SimulationsUser Page 14:17, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep where it is. It's mostly harmless. --Optichan 21:21, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep but remove the ones that were most likey not good-faith attempts at creating articlas. Otherwise its funny and harmeless. All sorts of funny pages suddenlly seem to be "troll magnets'. 24.20.69.240 08:22, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Many of these titles are actually quite funny, and unlike the list of stupid usernames (which was just a collection of vandalism), many of these are titles chosen in good faith albeit misguided efforts, and does not encourage vandalism. Sjakkalle (Check!)  12:03, 11 September 2006 (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.