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 Basically delete. I will say, off the bat, that I am ignoring the GFDL question in this close. Simply put, that is a legal issue, and I do not believe that legal issues are best decided via a !vote of untrained community members. This leaves one major argument for deletion - the argument that BJAODN is a monument to vandalism. It also leaves one argument for keeping - that BJAODN is funny. While it is tempting to treat this as a matter of "I don't like it" vs. "I like it" and just count votes, I do not think that this is appropriate here. Simply put, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and "it encourages vandalism" does inherently trump "it's funny" as a reason for doing or not doing something. And looking at BJAODN, the lack of care or judgment taken with it is disappointing to say the least. I do not think that anybody in this MfD would seriously argue for a pressing need to memorialize the claim that there exists a line of Pepsi called "Penis Pepsi" that "tastes like big foots dic" (sic). And yet we did. It is also telling to me that, despite the promises of many to fix the lack of attribution in BJAODN, none of it was actually fixed, suggesting a page that is not the subject of any serious work or effort.

I am therefore persuaded by the claims that the page is simply a monument to vandalism. On the other hand, I am also persuaded by the claims that the page is an institution. To this end, I have left certain subpages unscathed - things that compile non-encyclopedia edits (Help desk, unblock), deleted articles with freaky titles, two that were just reposts of a discussion, the Colbert page, stupid article ideas, and the best-ofs. I do not close the door to some of these being individually nominated, and would not consider such nominations querrelous or cases of asking the other parent.

I will note, finally, that there is obviously no way to close this MfD without it being contentious. However, it is my sincere belief that, in this case, deletion is the less contentious and divisive option. As such, that is what can best claim to be "consensus" in this case. Phil Sandifer 15:33, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum, because it seems there is some ambiguity over my close. This is not a closure without prejudice for recreation, or an encouragement to create a GFDL compliant version. Quite the contrary, this is a close noting that consensus has turned against memorializing vandalism, and a close with predjudice against recreating any part of BJAODN, though I did keep certain parts for historical value.
I will also note that I, as part of the close, moved the main BJAODN page to Wikipedia:Silly things to emphasize the break from the previous tradition of BJAODN. This is part of the close, and probably shouldn't be edit warred over. Phil Sandifer 20:01, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Bad Jokes and Other Deleted Nonsense (6th Nomination)[edit]

Nomination[edit]

The Wikipedia:Bad Jokes and Other Deleted Nonsense main page links to about 60+ pages, all of which forms the project namespace identified as BJAODN. The purpose of this MfD is to end BJAODN as an ongoing project, including deleting its title page and all of its other namespace pages (which are referred to as the BJAODN subpages and can be viewed at Template:Bjaodn and Bjaodn content). I believe that an appropriate action would be to Delete all subpages, tag main as historical.
(1) Background: The BJAODN project basically is a list of humorous items taken from around Wikipedia and posted in project namespace. Rather than being posted in article namespace, where policies such as Verifiability, What Wikipedia is not, and No original research clearly apply, the material is posted in project namespace, which creates confusion as to whether such article standards policies apply to these lists or to what degree they may apply. None of the lists have or could comply with an "unambiguous statement of membership criteria based on definitions made by reputable sources" as set out at Wikipedia:Lists, but it is not clear if Wikipedia:Lists applies to these project namespace lists. This is not a project that reaches out to assist in other areas of Wikipedia or to assist users in contributing to the encyclopedia; this project exists to draw content from other areas of Wikipedia into project namespace to build on itself. In this sense, it seems to be a website project hosted within Wikipedia.
(2) Unmaintainble: The BJAODN project basically is a list of humorous items taken from around Wikipedia and posted in project namespace. Many of these items have been deleted from other parts of Wikipedia after an XfD discussion.

(i) Copyright problems. When material is copied from one namespace to one of the remaining seventeen namespaces - with copy being a key term - it creates complex copyright compliance problems[citation needed], particularly where the copied material is not freely licensed to Wikipedia. Not all users assign their copyrights in their talk page contributions to Wikipedia[citation needed] - they retain the copyrights. Some users retain different rights than other users. The BJAODN project is filled with such talk page posts, some entirely violating the copyrights of others and some commingling material having different copyrights attached to it. In addition, BJAODN posters have not shown any compliance with Wikipedia:Copyrights - Using copyrighted work from others and there is no reason such material should be kept.
(ii) GFDL problems. GFDL is a Foundation issue (issue #4) and compliance with GFDL is beyond debate. When only part of a document is copied, the copied portion is a modified version and this creates complex GFDL compliance problems. In particular, GFDL Sec. 4. Modifications has specific, detailed rules regarding the use of a modified version taken from one namespace (a first network location) and posted in a different name space (a second location within that same network). As far as I could determine, none of the material posted in the BJAODN project complies with GFDL Sec. 4. Modifications.
(iii) Recreation of deleted material problems. In addition, the BJAODN project does not appear to follow the policies related to the recreation of material that was previously deleted after an XfD discussion.
(iv) Attribution. Although DENY and BLP issues can be addressed by editing the pages and the cut and paste that supports the BJAODN project can be accomplished through the WP:SPLICE process, it seems improbable to properly attribute material having commingled copyright licenses and various GFDL issues.

(3) No longer needed for its intended purpose. The BJAODN project originally was created and maintained for the past five or so years as a repository for humorous items XfD deleted from Wikipedia. With the wild success of Wikipedia, there now are many alternative outlets to recreate deleted material outside of Wikipedia's eighteen namespaces. In particular, Uncyclopedia is listed at Wikipedia:Alternative outlets as providing the same services as the BJAODN project and nostalgia.wikipedia.org seems to be an effort to republish the BJAODN project outside of Wikipedia. A main purpose of the BJAODN project now largely seems to serve the needs of unregistered users rather than the needs of the encyclopedia. For example, a survey of BJAODN What links here shows links to the BJAODN main page on 740 talk pages of unregistered users and 805 talk pages of registered uses. This 740/805 ratio is an exceptionally high unregistered-to-registered user-talk page ratios and demonstrates a relatively disproportionate linkage interest with unregistered users for this project. While the BJAODN main page may have historical value, the project has no relevance to Wikipedia today.
For prior discussions on the BJAODN project, see:

March 25, 2004. Miscellany for deletion #1. Results: Keep.
March 24, 2007. Miscellany for deletion #2. Results: Speedy close.
March 31, 2007. Miscellany for deletion #3. Results: Withdrawn, procedural keep.
May 31, 2007. Miscellany for deletion #4. Results: Nomination withdrawn.
May 31, 2007. Deletion review. Results: Deletion endorsed.
June 2, 2007. Deletion review (of subpages). Results: BJAODN should continue to exist, but it must be absolutely free of GFDL violations.
August 14, 2007. Miscellany for deletion #5. Results: Speedy close.
August 14, 2007. Deletion review. Results: Overturn and list on MfD.

For prior discussions on BJAODN subpages, see:

July 19, 2005. Articles for deletion (of a BJAODN subpage). Results: Delete
August 26, 2005. Non-main namespace pages for deletion (of a BJAODN subpage). Results: Delete
May 20, 2006. Miscellany for deletion (of a BJAODN subpage). Results: Delete
March 21, 2007. Miscellany for deletion (of a BJAODN subpage). Results: Nomination withdrawn
August 16, 2007. Miscellany for deletion (of a BJAODN subpage). Results: Deleted

-- Jreferee (Talk) 20:16, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer - An arbitration case has been opening regarding the events surrounding the recent August 14, 2007 speedy deletion of the BJAODN project. -- Jreferee (Talk) 20:16, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closer - Admin Ryulong has compiled a comprehensive list of what would need deletion at User:Ryulong/Sandbox/Beach. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 21:01, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, admins should use discretion when looking over that list, as some such pages may be better off in other sections of Wikipedia (such as, say, the idea of Wikipe-tan). — Rickyrab | Talk 00:51, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion[edit]
  • Yes, you missed the fact that most of those don't apply to non-article space. The only ones you might have a case for is copyright infringement and attack pages. And a couple wouldn't apply either way. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 20:55, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The GFDL applies everywhere. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 21:01, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Melodia, you're wrong. The CSD general criteria and WP:NOT apply everywhere. The WP:NOT policy specifies what Wikipedia in general is not, not just what articles shouldn't contain. Userspace is the only place that WP:NOT is relaxed, but even there it applies and egregious violations are routinely targeted and deleted. — Black Falcon (Talk) 21:28, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's really not true. There are many policies which it makes sense to apply to both the main namespace and the Wikipedia namespace, and these may be loosely enforced if their applicability is clear, but in general both long-standing precedent and common sense tell us that standard policies apply only to the main article namespace. Otherwise 98% of user pages would have to die, 90% of WP-space essays would be deleted as original research, and so on. A few policies specify what namespace(s) they regulate (WP:NOT#BLOG is an example of one that loosely does so). For the rest, we are free to ignore policies wherever appropriate, and gauge consensus with other means. — xDanielx T/C 00:53, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, I noted the exception for userspace and a similar relaxation exists for the projectspace (as you note). Relaxation does not translate into exemption, however. Project pages are regularly deleted under WP:NOT, particularly if they do not contribute to the encyclopedia. There is little doubt that a project page that contained any one of the following would be deleted: a forum for discussion unrelated to Wikipedia (WP:NOT#CHAT), a personal essay on the evils of government (WP:NOT#SOAPBOX), a personal blog (WP:NOT#BLOG), a sales catalog (WP:NOT#DIR), a how-to guide for buying and selling on eBay (WP:NOT#HOWTO), speculation about the 2012 Summer Olympics (WP:NOT#CRYSTAL), an extensive plot summary for Stargate (WP:NOT#PLOT). My point is that merely being located in the "Wikipedia:" namespace is not a free pass to avoiding deletion per WP:NOT. I think this is especially relevant in this case, since BJAODN is essentially a compilation of articles and article content. — Black Falcon (Talk) 01:09, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You are asking for something that is outside the technical ability of the closing admin. Anyone may copy the content while it is available for their own uses, no-one is stopping them as long as they stick to the GFDL when the reprint it. There is still plenty of time, and it would be inappropriate to ask that the content not be deleted on the condition that someone may copy the material somewhere else. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 21:52, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Something you wouldn't permit yourself when you speedily deleted BJAODN subpages a while back. Remember that? — Rickyrab | Talk 21:59, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
... You are making progressively less sense. At this point, I will not answer any questions you have of me specifically. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 22:03, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(Shrugs) I guess there aren't too many questions worth asking about you, given that your behavior has landed you in front of ArbCom and is plainly obvious. (I'll shut up now.) — Rickyrab | Talk 22:06, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, please do and cease ad hominem attacks. Thanks. Majorly (talk) 22:13, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Arbitrary Section Break[edit]

BJAODN is currently being moved offsite by a group of users, just for everyone's information. Neranei (talk) 01:33, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(UTC)

Second arbitrary section break[edit]
Comment: Got to say, that reboot idea sounds brilliant. A process probably is the best move. T (Formerly Known as FireSpike) 00:16, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, the BJAODN regulars hardly even tried to find attribs. I succeeded at finding attributions, but I stumbled when it came to deleted pages. (we need to find ways of attracting admins to specific projects.) By sending BJAODN to another website, marking the main page historical and providing a link to the offsite project, we'd save the Wikipedian admins the trouble of having to police BJAODN and violate Wikipedia policy. — Rickyrab | Talk 00:35, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Templates do not violate the GFDL. The content in the template is transcluded from what the template namespace says, which has a full history. Your point is moot. — Moe ε 15:48, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the template has a full history, but to use it in an article you still need to give attribution. It's more of a problem for substituted templates because these don't link back to the template page. -- Prince Kassad 16:23, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The issue here is BJAODN, just because WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS isn't a reason. That issue needs to be brought up someplace thats not here. — Moe ε 16:31, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I won't do it because I know that nobody will take the problem seriously. People are just voting to delete BJAODN for GFDL violations because they want to get rid of it, and copyvio is a welcome argument to do that. -- Prince Kassad 18:02, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No one will take the problem seriously because templates causing a GFDL violation is ludacris, which isn't the topic of this discussion, like I said, other crap existing isn't a reason to keep something that obviously needs to be deleted unless you have a real reason. — Moe ε 20:31, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
third section break[edit]
  • Who is going to removed the GFDL violations and when? Last MfD people said they would remove them, but it never happened. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 15:00, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I expect the people who were most concerned about the GFDL violations to do the job. It won't be me, that is for certain.--Húsönd 15:29, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is just that those who wish to keep it are not fixing it. They didn't last time. I could do it, but I would rather write an encyclopedia. Frankly I don't think it will ever get done as much of the attribution requires admin tools to recover and most admins have better things to do, like write an encyclopedia. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 15:38, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with you. Those willing to keep it will leave it as it is because they're not concerned about GFDL, and those willing to delete will not fix it because they simply won't waste their time fixing something they want to get rid of. A typical Wikipedian go-nowhere.--Húsönd 15:52, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not go nowhere, go write an encyclopedia. This task has nothing to do with our stated goals so I don't think it is a failing of any sort if this gets deleted. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 17:05, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • We lost the Esperanza editors? If they're that focused on side projects that they leave when/if it goes away, no great loss. 64.126.24.11 15:04, 21 August 2007 (UTC) (nae'blis, not logged in)[reply]
  • Ack! Most edited Esperanza simply because it was the only part of Wikipedia where people could get accustomed to editing it while interacting with other users at the same time. Many of them became great editors. Others edited it because the rest of Wikipedia was too boring to edit without a break or something different every now and then. Many of them were still doing a good job.--Húsönd 15:29, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fair use? Nothing written on Wikipedia is released under fair use. Any edit anybody makes is released under the GFDL. Fair use has nothing to do with it. — Moe ε 18:46, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The GFDL doesn't trump fair use, so even if something was originally released under the GFDL, it could still be used under the terms of fair use, if a case can be made for that. — PyTom 00:22, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • A. Build a website.
  • B. Use Encyclopedia as a portal.
  • C. Cache the data on your computer.
  • Again, humor is not a valid argument. There is nothing in WP:HUMOR that says that articles with the little purple banner must be kept under any circumstances, even if they are funny. Plus lawyers have no sense of humor, and they will go after Wikipedia GFDL violations anyway. It's very unlikely that this will be restarted and the same issue will not pop up again; previous MFDs have already established that. Therefore the safest thing to do would be to outsource BJAODN, not "recycle" it.--WaltCip 01:48, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Who are these hypothetical lawyers and where would they come from? Is there some active GFDL police (outside of pontificating wiki users) that I am not aware of? And why isn't humor a relevant argument for a project called "Bad Jokes and Other Deleted Nonsense"? ˉˉanetode╦╩ 03:11, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Request substantiation of claims

Keep with heavy cleanup. I have so many objections to this nomination I had to create a section of my own for them:

If the nominator could respond to any of these -- in particular, the copyvio-related parts -- I would really appreciate it. Thanks. —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 06:11, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Non-arbitrary section break[edit]

(Further discussion, unrelated to the above, can go after here. —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 06:23, 22 August 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Comment -- Am I the only one who finds it ridiculous to use a licence which makes not crediting the anonymous illegal? Assuming of course that the consensus here is right about that; are there any qualified IP lawyers reading this page?

The m:Foundation issues page gives "copyleft licencing of content" as the core principle, achieved in practice by using either GFDL or CC-BY licences. The copyleft principle is quite rightly "beyond debate", but is the practice currently used to achieve it (applying the GDFL) also set in stone forever, despite the licence not being designed for either wikis or encyclopedias?

BJAODN isn't important enough by itself to try changing the licence for, but if every throwaway comment ever made in any namespace has to be attributed, despite the author not even caring enough to register an account, isn't that tons of unproductive work for nothing? And what about out of date mirrors which store unattributed "work" - if there's any real liability, wouldn't WP share it for having published the content in the first place, however briefly?

I'm not a lawyer and can't offer a better alternative myself, I'm afraid. Moyabrit 11:10, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Up to this point consensus might well been formed, I'm writing a draft closure to try and gauge it. The actual closing admin is free to use if he/she wishes to, and modify if consensus changes - Mailer Diablo 13:52, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was to delete the subpages with no prejudice on BJAODN's future or restart; the BJAODN main page itself should not be touched. There is consensus from editors that the BJAODN pages present possible problems of copyright, BLP and GFDL; even those who advocate keep on cultural/historical/humour grounds (which are valid arguments) have acknowledged these issues.
If a judgment on the future of BJAODN as a concept is determined now, we are going to play ping-pong between deletion review and MfD. Even if we restart BJAODN, at least if it ever returns to MfD there should be much less problems because editors would now aggressively monitor its contents for policy violations. Discussion for BJAODN's future begins here.
For transparency the pages that were deleted they should be listed properly on the main page or subpage. (I learn this from WP:ESP the hard way) Whether the community chooses to restart BJAODN or not, a history of it up to now on its main page is strongly recommended. - Mailer Diablo 13:52, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
The result of the debate was to delete the subpages and tag the BJAODN main page as ((historical)). There is consensus that the BJAODN pages present possible problems with the GFDL, WP:BLP, and WP:NOT; even those who advocate keeping on cultural/historical/humour grounds have acknowledged these issues. Moreover, as the discussion illustrates, there is no consensus to restart BJAODN on Wikipedia (any changes to the off-wiki version are beyond the scope of this nomination).
Wikipedia is, first and foremost, an encyclopedia. Without making any judgment on the worth or appropriateness of BJAODN, it is clear that its continued existence is a point of contention. Aside from BJAODN, Wikipedia has numerous humour pages (many found in Category:Wikipedia humor), few or none of which are as problematic, contentious, or divisive.
I don't think there's consensus for that closure. .V. [Talk|Email] 15:58, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wa-hey ! Draft closures that allow us to push our own opinion, put down those who disagree with us and smuggle in an extra rant or two, all wrapped up in a nice purple box - what a cool addition to the MfD process - not ! Arguments are not improved by repetition. Gandalf61 16:05, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Arguments are not improved by repetition, but there's nothing wrong with summary. After all, this is a discussion. In addition, I don't believe that my final paragraph actually repeats anything stated in the discussion. I'm puzzled by your claim that my comments "put down those who disagree" ... how exactly would you disagree someone on this issue without holding/expressing the view that their arguments are not convincing? And since when is calling an argument unconvicing a "put-down"? I can't very well agree and disagree with them simultaneously. I'm equally puzzled by your "rant or two" comment. Since when is 5 sentences a rant? ... I could rant on more about the appropriate length for a rant ;) ... However, I've removed the purple box to avoid any confusion with the actual closure. — Black Falcon (Talk) 16:19, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think any decisions (or lack thereof) on BJAODN's future as a subject matter (rather than the current subpages) is likely to make or break any truce we have here. - Mailer Diablo 16:03, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • If we can't discuss BJAODN's future here, can a discussion elsewhere decide to restore any of the old content? Assuming of course that some people including at least one admin are ready to work on it. Personally I think it's become too big to read, so the funny stuff is drowned in cruft anyway. But would anyone wanting to dig through it for lost gems be able to, without a full deletion review? Moyabrit 16:30, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • "Userfy" option is avaliable on request if you are willing to spend the time on a temporary user subpage, and if BJAODN is restarted by discussion fits the new parameters/standards. - Mailer Diablo 17:05, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's not clear there would be consensus to restart it, but per Mailer diablo we can postpone that discussion for later. — Carl (CBM · talk) 17:10, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Personally I wouldn't mind deleting the entire archive, given that it's been saved offsite. Restoring more than a handful of pieces would be too much work (and impossible for me as a non-admin), too contentious and would overshadow new BJAODNs. The important thing IMHO is to keep BJAODN as a concept. But if I adopt one or two (like the dinosaur rolypology theory), can I just move them now myself or do I need permission (from who)? Moyabrit 17:20, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Just noticed the WP:USERFY page suggests a cut&paste move of content; isn't that just as illegal as much of the existing BJAODN? Moyabrit 17:33, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • Good catch - I added a note there about keeping a list of contributors after a cut/paste move. — Carl (CBM · talk) 17:52, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I like Mailer Diablo's draft close, the only change I would make is to have the discussion about the future of BJAODN on seperate subpage of the talk page, for example Wikipedia talk:Bad Jokes and Other Deleted Nonsense/The future of Bad Jokes and Other Deleted Nonsense, just to keep the discussion seperate from the main talk page. --Phirazo 22:15, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • So, rather than address the specific problems, just delete the whole thing? That seems... disproportionate. —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 02:33, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Trying to get rid of all the humor isn't the issue. It's the contentious, liable, BLP violations and possible GFDL violations that are the issue. — Moe ε 21:08, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep BJAODN was one of the things about Wikipedia that first attracted me to be an editor: I liked to see an outlet for nonsense (and other sites, like Uncyclopedia, don't do that because they're, um, other sites). So it should be kept in the name of recruitment, as well as per every other 'keeop' comment here, which there's little point in going over again at this juncture. Lordrosemount 21:45, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I find nothing noble about BJAODN, nor it a great part of our history here. If you would, address the issues presented by the nominator instead of WP:ILIKEIT. — Moe ε 01:54, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • That was said at the last MfD, but nobody removed them. Are you going to remove them? ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 01:00, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • What is your problem? Is someone suing you? `'Míkka 01:01, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • For an admin you sure have a disregard for copyright. I don't think we should have to be sued to follow copyright here. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 01:04, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • For an admin I am surprized you don't know how to deal with copyvios: you see them, you delete them. Anticipating a possible "smart" retort, if some idiot cut'n'pastes a piece into History of Burundi, deletion of the HoB is not a solution. `'Míkka 01:23, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • If it was an encyclopedic article I might put in the bother, but since it has nothing to do with our project I don't see the point. The fact is that nobody is removing the vios, not even those who think it should be kept after the vios are removed. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 01:26, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not about winning anything. WP:ILIKEIT doesn't rebuttle the nomination at all, if you would like to look at that. — Moe ε 01:54, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well let's go through the nomination then shall we?
2. i. Completely frivolous. Nothing in Wikipedia license or policy suggests that material in non-article namespace has any extra protection above material in articles.
2. ii. The same tired GFDL complaints which have already been addressed time and again in both this MfD and the last one. Yes, there's currently a problem, yes, it only affects some subarticles and does not apply to BJAODN as a whole, and yes some editors have already volunteered to help fix it.
2. iii. Specious. The speedy deletion criteria only have consensus in article space.
2. iv. There's nothing here that hadn't already been said in i. and ii.
3. WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Seeing as how this is the only part of the nomination left to rebut, WP:ILIKEIT arguments are perfectly valid here. Evouga 04:28, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree with Evouga, with one exception: CSD G4 is general, so it does apply to non-article space. That being said, it only applies if "the copy is substantially identical to the deleted version". I don't think that BJAODN is substantially identical to anything that's moved there, so G4 doesn't apply. I'm also not sure there's a GFDL problem, at least for the BJAODNs that are named "From Article". — PyTom 04:49, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]


I do not feel the GFDL or deletion policy require deletion of BJAODN. Reasons are given in the arb case, but briefly:
  1. There is significant material correctly attributed
  2. Non-attributed material is easy to fix (any user can see the author of non-deleted pages; any of a thousand admins can see the author for deleted pages)
  3. Deletion policy and practice is very clear that if fixing is easy or significant non-copyvio content exists then rectification (or removal of remaining problematic content) is strongly preferred to deletion
  4. I am concerned about the double standard whereby this issue is pretty much entirely ignored for all internal copy/pastes (especially in the mainspace) except one topic which extensively uses identical moves for humor and education value.
  5. It is far from clear legally whether GFDL applies to individual "article X of a website" or whether users contribute to "Wikipedia" as a whole (if the latter then internal moves are as much a non-violation as moves within a page).
  6. (As a side comment, on Wikipedia, IP editors are considered 'authors' generally, and an IP is used to identify the authorship. Whether or not the author is anonymous by account name, or anonymous by IP, seems irrelevant; we do use IP to identify authors. Possibly worth mentioning this).
Along with GFDL concerns, the same rationale applies to any BLP concerns, libellous content and the like. These can be removed; they (like GFDL) do not necessitate deletion of the page. I also note that community pages have a value of their own, and are encouraged, in general. Provided they are secondary to the communal project of encyclopedia writing. When they conflict with that, conflict with policy, or cause problems, then it's a concern and may lead to deletion if the community agrees.
Unfortunately, for me, BJAODN probably hits that line.
GFDL and problematic content set aside, and looking at BJAODN as a whole, I support deletion 1/ WP:DENY and WP:BEANS. 2/ Unconvinced of merits of a place where if an edit is bad enough it will be preserved indefinitely to mark the editor's 15 minutes of fame. 3/ The usefulness of "BJAODN" as a label in debate does not require all 65 or 99 pages of "whatever caught people's attention" to be preserved too. (Saving the original page only, for historic value, wouldn't hurt.)
For me, one thing overrides all other concerns. I don't believe (as stated above) that advertizing in effect, "if you make a bad enough article edit or hoax, you might permanently get in the Wikipedia hall of fame", is a good thing. That concern (which broadly mirrors BEANS and DENY) is my main concern. I also don't think we need a 65 page archive. It was funny once, but 65 sequels dim the humor. FT2 (Talk | email) 08:32, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Here is the way I see it. These pages really don't serve purpose other than to be the dumping ground for Deleted Nonsense (yes I'm aware that is why it is called what it is) and hence has no real value to the project. While some see it as a way to release stress on Wikipedia or to have a good laugh there are other avenues that can be used for that (Uncyclopedia is one). Additionally the GDFL issues are another problem that most likely will not go away. Most likely what will happen is a very long debate will get started on how to fix BJAODN and no progress will be made to actually fix it, just like what happened with Esperanza and the AMA after there MfD's and discussions, which will result in these pages once again going up for MfD and cause even more drama. Humor has its place yes, but I think this got carried away (again do we really need several DOZEN pages of BJAODN?). Ok that is my two cents feel free to disagree ;) Æon Insanity Now! 15:11, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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.
More