66.196.22.65 (talk) |
204.52.215.107 (talk) No edit summary |
||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
====[[Wikipedia:Bad Jokes and Other Deleted Nonsense]]==== |
|||
'''''Holy Wood (In the Shadow of the Valley of Death)''''' is a [[Rock & Roll]] album by [[Marilyn Manson]]. |
|||
:{{lx|1=|2={{ucfirst:Wikipedia:Bad jokes and other deleted nonsense}}|3=Talk|4=talk}} |
|||
(''[[Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Bad Jokes and Other Deleted Nonsense 2|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 [[WP:AN#BJAODN Deleted|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the body when its original spirit is actually gone; we're '''not''' deleting general humor on Wikipedia, which can be superseded by [[Wikipedia:Humor]]. If the argument of GFDL violation is correct, then this page itself still contains tainted revisions. |
|||
Released on [[November 13]], [[2000]], it was Manson's first album since the [[Columbine High School massacre]] of [[April 20]], [[1999]], which some elements of the media had blamed him for. The album is focused on [[gun]]s and [[death]], and especially the fame--driven by the national media--which violent death can bring. |
|||
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). - [[User:Mailer diablo|Mailer Diablo]] 12:31, 31 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
For example, "The Love Song" appears to target [[United States|America]]'s [[gun culture]], suggesting guns rather than people have become the objects of true love. Lyrics include: |
|||
*'''Delete''' per nom. '''[[User:Majorly|<span style="color:#002bb8">Majorly</span>]]''' (''[[User talk:Majorly|talk]]'' | ''[[User:Majorly/MU|meet]]'') 13:05, 31 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:''I've got a crush on a pretty pistol, should I tell her that I feel this way?'' |
|||
*'''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.''' |
|||
"Lamb of God" on the media's presentation of death: |
|||
** 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 [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Bad_Jokes_and_Other_Deleted_Nonsense&oldid=28094]? - [[User:Mailer diablo|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). [[User:YechielMan|Yechiel]][[User talk:YechielMan|<span style="color:green">Man</span>]] 13:18, 31 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:''If you die when there's no-one watching, then your ratings drop and you're forgotten.'' |
|||
** 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. - [[User:Mailer diablo|Mailer Diablo]] 13:27, 31 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:''If they kill you on the TV, you're a martyr and a lamb of God.'' |
|||
:*Your keep opinion may be given more weight if you give a reason to keep it. [[User talk:H|<small><sup><font color="#000">(</font><font color="#c20">H</font><font color="#000">)</font></sup></small>]]<!-- Was HighInBC --> 13:44, 31 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Delete''', there's nothing there. <span style="color:red;font-weight:bold">^</span>[[User:^demon|<span style="color:black;font-weight:bold;">demon</span>]]<sup>[[User_talk:^demon|<span style="color:red">[omg plz]</span>]]</sup> <em style="font-size:10px;">13:21, 31 May 2007 (UTC)</em> |
|||
*'''Keep''' It's been here for so long, it's practically become ''part'' of Wikipedia! Besides, I like to see what happens to nonsense... [[User:Dark Ermac|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". [[User talk:H|<small><sup><font color="#000">(</font><font color="#c20">H</font><font color="#000">)</font></sup></small>]]<!-- Was HighInBC --> 13:45, 31 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Delete''' It is full of liable, copyright infringements, and down right nastiness. It is [[WP:NOT|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. [[User talk:H|<small><sup><font color="#000">(</font><font color="#c20">H</font><font color="#000">)</font></sup></small>]]<!-- Was HighInBC --> 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. [[User:Salaskan|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. --[[User:Jeffrey O. Gustafson|Jeffrey O. Gustafson]] - ''[[User:Jeffrey O. Gustafson/Shazaam|Shazaam!]]'' - [[User_Talk:Jeffrey O. Gustafson|<*>]] 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. [[User talk:Orderinchaos|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. '''[[User:Ikiroid|The ikiroid]] ([[User talk:Ikiroid|talk]]·[[User:Ikiroid/Desk|desk]]·[[User talk:Ikiroid/Help Me Improve|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.--[[User:Dexter111344|Dexter111344]] 15:16, 31 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
**'''comment''' reality check even moving it there is a copyright violation [[User:Gnangarra|Gnan]][[User_talk:Gnangarra|garra]] 15:23, 31 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Keep'''<s>as a copyright violation, [[WP:CSD#G12]] could have been applied without this discussion. Yet</s> 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. [[User:Gnangarra|Gnan]][[User_talk:Gnangarra|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. [[User:Gnangarra|Gnan]][[User_talk:Gnangarra|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). [[User:Whstchy|'''W'''hs]][[User talk:Whstchy|'''i'''tc]][[Special:Contributions/Whstchy|'''h'''y]] 15:35, 31 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
** '''Comment''' - Yes, the history proposal is provided for in the nomination as the second option. - [[User:Mailer diablo|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. [[User:Whstchy|'''W'''hs]][[User talk:Whstchy|'''i'''tc]][[Special:Contributions/Whstchy|'''h'''y]] 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. [[User talk:Orderinchaos|Orderinchaos]] 23:48, 31 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Neutral''', I misread the scope once again. [[User:Sean William|Sean William]] [[User talk:Sean William|@]] 18:04, 31 May 2007 (UTC) <s>'''Delete''' (possibly Speedy Delete under G1, patent nonsense) This crap isn't funny. We've got [[:Category:Wikipedia humor]] for the actually funny stuff. [[User:Sean William|Sean William]] [[User talk:Sean William|@]] 16:07, 31 May 2007 (UTC)</s> |
|||
* (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. |
|||
"The Nobodies" seems to deal directly with the Columbine massacre: |
|||
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. [[User:YechielMan|Yechiel]][[User talk:YechielMan|<span style="color:green">Man</span>]] 16:16, 31 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:''We are the nobodies, wanna be somebodies.'' |
|||
*'''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. '''''<font color="#FF0000">[[User:Hut 8.5|Hut 8.5]]</font>''''' 16:26, 31 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:''When we're dead, they'll know just who we are.'' |
|||
*'''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. --'''<font face="Perpetua" size="3">[[User:The Random Editor|<font color="RoyalBlue">Tλε Rαnδоm Eδι</font>]][[User talk:The Random Editor|<font color="Black">τ</font>]][[User:The Random Editor|<font color="RoyalBlue">оr</font>]]</font>''' 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. --[[User:tjstrf|tjstrf]] <small>[[User talk:tjstrf|talk]]</small> 18:19, 31 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
also: |
|||
*'''Keep everything''': As it says on the top of the page, it's a tradition on WP, and no denying it. --S[[WP:EL|l]]<font color="#006400">[[WP:GA|g]]</font>[[WP:RS|r]][[WP:AFD|a]][[WP:NFT|n]][[WP:DP|d]][[WP:DS|s]][[WP:NOR|o]][[WP:N|n]] <small>([[User:Slgrandson|page]] - [[User talk:Slgrandson|messages]] - [[Special:Contributions/Slgrandson|contribs]])</small> 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.--[[User:WaltCip|WaltCip]] 19:20, 31 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:''Some children died the other day:'' |
|||
** How would a different website have "no risk of legal action". Surely the risk would be, y'know, ''exactly the same''? -[[User:Halo|Halo]] 21:12, 31 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:''We fed machines and then we prayed:'' |
|||
*'''Keep''' and fix the process to comply with GFDL. If necessary start a massive project to dig out old diffs and find the data. -[[User:Nardman1|N]] 21:07, 31 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:''Puked up and down in morbid faith:'' |
|||
*'''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. — [[User:Moe Epsilon|<font color="FF0000">M</font><font color="EE0000" >o</font><font color="DD0000">e</font>]] [[User talk:Moe Epsilon|<font color="0000FF">ε</font>]] 21:11, 31 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:''You should have seen the ratings that day:'' |
|||
*'''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? --- [[User:RockMFR|RockMFR]] 21:36, 31 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
**Jeffrey O. Gustafson cited GFDL item 4.B on the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard#BJAODN_Deleted admins noticeboard]. Full text of the GFDL is at [[WP:GFDL]]. [[User:YechielMan|Yechiel]][[User talk:YechielMan|<span style="color:green">Man</span>]] 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. --- [[User:RockMFR|RockMFR]] 22:19, 31 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
==Track listing== |
|||
*'''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 [[WP:Deletion review|deletion review]]. <nowiki></nowiki> — [[User:Rickyrab|Rickyrab]] | [[User talk:Rickyrab|Talk]] 22:18, 31 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
All songs by Marilyn Manson. |
|||
**'''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. <nowiki></nowiki> — [[User:Rickyrab|Rickyrab]] | [[User talk: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.--[[User:WaltCip|WaltCip]] 22:52, 31 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
A: In the Shadow |
|||
**'''Comment''' not to sound rude, but why don't you help with the GFDL stuff, the more help, the easier it'll be. [[User:Whstchy|'''W'''hs]][[User talk:Whstchy|'''i'''tc]][[Special:Contributions/Whstchy|'''h'''y]] 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. <nowiki></nowiki> — [[User:Rickyrab|Rickyrab]] | [[User talk:Rickyrab|Talk]] 00:37, 1 June 2007 (UTC) |
|||
I "Godeatgod" - 2:34 |
|||
*'''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:<br> |
|||
A nonsensical page, [[Nonsense joke page]] is deleted - but then it should be restored, moved to [[Wikipedia:Bad Jokes and Other Deleted Nonsense/JOKEPAGETITLE/Nonsense joke page]] and the attribution history is kept for GFDL compliance.<br> |
|||
II "The Love Song" - 3:16 |
|||
I will move pages over if people request it, that way the GFDL history problem ''may'' be solved. --<font color="Red">[[User:SunStar Net|'''SunStar Net''']]</font> <sup><font color="Blue">[[User talk:SunStar Net|''talk'']]</font></sup> 22:57, 31 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Keep''' - Because even Wikipedia needs fun. --'''[[User:AAA!|<span style="color:red">AAA!</span>]]''' <small>([[User talk:AAA!|<span style="color:green">AAAA</span>]])</small> 23:23, 31 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
III "The Fight Song" - 2:55 |
|||
*'''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. [[User:Grutness|Grutness]]...''<small><font color="#008822">[[User_talk:Grutness|wha?]]</font></small>'' 23:47, 31 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Delete''', puerile. [[User talk:Hesperian|Hesperian]] 23:48, 31 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
IV "Disposable Teens" - 3:01 |
|||
*'''Delete'''. Send it to hell. --[[User:MichaelLinnear|MichaelLinnear]] 00:11, 1 June 2007 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Strong Keep'''' [[User:Belgium EO|Belgium EO]] 00:16, 1 June 2007 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Comment''' For you last three !voters, could we not straight vote? — [[User:Moe Epsilon|<font color="FF0000">M</font><font color="EE0000" >o</font><font color="DD0000">e</font>]] [[User talk:Moe Epsilon|<font color="0000FF">ε</font>]] 00:28, 1 June 2007 (UTC) |
|||
D: The Androgyne |
|||
**I didn't. [[User talk:Hesperian|Hesperian]] 01:02, 1 June 2007 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Comment''' - Any humour pages that can be properly attributed are quite welcome at [[Uncyclopedia:Uncyclopedia|Uncyclopedia]]. We'll we'll give your abandoned humour a loving home. [[User:Spang|Spang]] 00:38, 1 June 2007 (UTC) |
|||
V "Target Audience (Narcissus Narcosis)" - 4:18 |
|||
*'''Strong keep''' per Grutness above. [[User:JRG|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. [[User:204.52.215.107|204.52.215.107]] 01:08, 1 June 2007 (UTC) |
|||
VI "'President Dead'" - 3:13 |
|||
VII "In the Shadow of the Valley of Death" - 4:09 |
|||
VIII "Cruci-Fiction in Space" - 4:56 |
|||
IX "A Place in the Dirt" - 3:37 |
|||
A: Of Red Earth |
|||
X "The Nobodies" - 3:35 |
|||
XI "The Death Song" - 3:29 |
|||
XII "Lamb of God" - 4:39 |
|||
XIII "Born Again" - 3:20 |
|||
XIV "Burning Flag" - 3:21 |
|||
M: The Fallen |
|||
XV "Coma Black a) Eden Eye b) The Apple of Discord" - 5:58 |
|||
XVI "Valentine's Day" - 3:31 |
|||
XVII "The Fall of Adam" - 2:34 |
|||
XVIII"King Kill 33°" - 2:18 |
|||
XIX "Count to Six and Die (The Vacuum of Infinite Space Encompassing)" - 5:55 |
|||
XX "The Nobodies (Acoustic)"† |
|||
†Bonus exclusive to certain regions. |
|||
==Personnel== |
|||
*Marilyn Manson - Bass, Arranger, Keyboards, Vocals, Producer, Art Direction, Concept |
|||
*Paul Northfield - Engineer |
|||
*Dave Sardy - Guitar (Rhythm), Producer |
|||
*Twiggy Ramirez - Guitar, Keyboards |
|||
*D. Sardy - Producer, Mixing |
|||
*Bon Harris - Synthesizer, Programming, Editing, Electronic Percussion |
|||
*P.R. Brown - Art Direction, Design, Photography |
|||
*Greg Fidelman - Engineer |
|||
*Ginger Fish - Drum Loop |
|||
*Nick Raskulinecz - Assistant Engineer |
|||
*Joe Zook - Assistant Engineer |
|||
*M.W. Gacy - Drums, Ambience |
|||
*John5 - Guitar (Acoustic), Guitar, Guitar (Electric), Slide Guitar |
|||
*Kevin Guarnieri - Assistant Engineer |
|||
==External link== |
|||
* [http://www.drownedinsound.com/articles/218.html Drowned in Sound review] |
|||
[[Category:Marilyn Manson albums]] [[Category:2000 albums]] |
Revision as of 01:08, 1 June 2007
Wikipedia:Bad Jokes and Other Deleted Nonsense
- Wikipedia:Bad jokes and other deleted nonsense ( | [[Talk:Wikipedia:Bad jokes and other deleted nonsense|talk]] | history | links | watch | logs)
(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 Wikipedia: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)
- 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 [1]? - 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). YechielMan 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! - <*> 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)
- Keep
as a copyright violation, WP:CSD#G12 could have been applied without this discussion. Yetretaining 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. Gnangarra 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. Gnangarra 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). Whsitchy 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. Whsitchy 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 I know, I'm just saying that's what I would support if it is delete. Whsitchy 15:51, 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)
- 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. YechielMan 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 Eδιτоr 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. --Slgrandson (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. — Moe 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. YechielMan 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)
- Jeffrey O. Gustafson cited GFDL item 4.B on the admins noticeboard. Full text of the GFDL is at WP:GFDL. YechielMan 22:15, 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. — Rickyrab | Talk 22:18, 31 May 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. Whsitchy 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. — Rickyrab | Talk 00:37, 1 June 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. Whsitchy 22:54, 31 May 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 Wikipedia: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)
- 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? — Moe 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)