Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Best of BJAODN

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 no consensus. Given that the discussion of the most recent MfD for BJAODN was closed as delete most on the grounds that it should be deleted with the purpose of denying vandalism recognition, I have considered this argument the most closely. The addition of new material to a bloated BJAODN did certainly encourage vandalism. There is no solid entreaty in policy that mandated the past closure (GFDL arguments having been set aside), but community consensus for deletion was (fairly) clear. The community consensus here is much less clear. Does a more or less historical page encourage vandalism? This is the crux of the issue. BLP and copyright issues can ultimately be trimmed as they can be in any article that is not wholly unsalvageable. IronGargoyle 02:10, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Best of BJAODN[edit]

Nomination[edit]

As with the closing of BJAODN MFD, which this was excluded, I am nominating the best of for deletion. This follows the same arguments from the prior MFD's, it's an shrine to vandalism, it's not what Wikipedia is, and it encourages vandalism and abuse of policy. Some material meets WP:CSD#G4 as recreation of deleted material. WP:BLP issues could be present. If you want to play the attribution card, it's no more attribution than the other sub-pages of BJAODN were.

Nominating these together, theres no need to do them seperatly, all the same conditions in which they were created apply. — Moe ε 00:35, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Background info: For the discussion that led to most other "BJAODN" pages being deleted, see Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Bad Jokes and Other Deleted Nonsense (6th nomination). —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 05:16, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion[edit]

Keep - The closer of BJAODN's MfD struck a good compromise in keeping these. Having been filtered twice, I think people would agree that most of the entries are funny, unlike most of what they came from. As BJAODN is now gone, and these pages will presumably remain stable, there is no reason to think they are still encouraging vandalism or abuse of policy. I don't believe CSD G4 applies as these are a collection and not recreated pages. As for attribution, Wikipedia is "an encyclopedia" and like every other encyclopedia, exists as a single document (comprised of the multi-gigabyte database dumps) and is only accessible in separate parts as a matter of convenience (articles start with H2s instead of H1s for that reason.) As such, for the purposes of the GFDL, Wikipedia as a whole is a single document (indeed, what the GFDL calls "sections" are in described in all ways exactly as our articles) and thus attribution requirements are met when the move to BJAODN is still visible in the source article history. ←Ben^B4 00:48, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Really? So you think Wikipedia:Best of BJAODN#Jimmy Nuetron: Boy Satan is funny and is non-encouraging of vandalism? The fact is we took vandalism and shrined it to say 'This is our very best BJAODN' and with all the attention from 1) Previous dicussions, and 2) the media, do you really think material like that isn't going to be noticed? It was just a week ago that BJAODN was just in the media. Do you really want Jimmy Neutron: Boy Satan being the 'best of' anything on Wikipedia, which we are trying to establish as a reliable source for information? And yes, there still is recreated deleted material on these pages: Wikipedia:More Best of BJAODN#Newton's fundamental ratio, which I am inclined to removed by hand. — Moe ε 01:05, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I said "most." And if you look carefully at WP:CSD#G4 I think there are multiple reasons that it does not apply here, e.g. collections aren't "substantially identical" to the deleted pages; the move to BJAODN addressed the reason it was deleted, and it's moved away from article space. ←Ben^B4 01:47, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Userfication doesn't applies to the project namespace, if thats what your refering to. I would also like for you to point out the discussion of why it was placed there or to show how it isn't "sustantially different" from the deleted content, which without adminship, you won't be able to do. — Moe ε 02:03, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CSD#G4 is intended for situations where someone is trying to circumvent consensus — for when a deleted page's proponent just re-posts the same content. We don't waste time doing a full WP:DPR on such; we speedily delete it. BJAODN is different: Someone taking the deleted content and saying, "This is nonsense". It's being added to a list of such nonsense, not re-posting as an article. As such, I don't see it as covered by CSD G4. • Note that this doesn't mean the "Best of" pages shouldn't be deleted, just that CSD G4 doesn't apply here. —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 05:00, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see, thank you for explaining that. — Moe ε 06:55, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above, and mark as historical. These were retained as part of the compromise that allowed consensus in the earlier deletions. To delete these would thus both be going against the earlier compromise and risking reopening the whole sorry mess of deletion/reinstatement/deletion/reinstatement that BJAODN has gone through in the past month or two. Grutness...wha? 01:01, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The 6th BJAODN MfD was closed without prejudice to immediate renomination of individual pages. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 23:22, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reluctantly delete. Not because of WP:NOT, which doesn't forbid project-space Wikipedia community pages (even silly ones). Not because of WP:CSD#G4 (see my comment above). Not even because it might encourage further vandalism. Delete these pages because they are a "A monument to vandalism". They honor vandalism for vandalism's sake alone. There is no objective criterion that distinquishes the selected vandalism from other vandalism that isn't "best". I believe BJAODN MfD #6 did show that consensus was that such content should be deleted. I respect the community's decision. —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 05:11, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, this is the Banksy of vandalism though! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ajuk (talk • contribs) 21:34, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Yet another BJAODN debate??! Consensus was reached, what needed deletion was deleted. Can we please give it a rest? Evouga 06:09, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as consensus was reached? If you want to make that argument, I think you would need to find a recently successful BJAODN MFD. — Moe ε 06:47, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Request clarification: "Successful" by who's POV, the MfD nominator or the objectors? The close of BJAODN MfD #6 was to retain these. That part of the decision has not, to my knowledge, seen significant community review. Indeed, that would be what this MfD is for. If you can demonstrate otherwise, please do so. —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 17:11, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - The 6th BJAODN MfD was closed without prejudice to immediate renomination of individual pages. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 23:22, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Right, that's what I meant. :) The purpose of this MfD is to determine consensus as to whether the "Best of" pages should also be deleted, or not. —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 00:03, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Evouga.--WaltCip 11:07, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Contradiction: Evouga appears to advocate "Keep". —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 12:25, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think that may be the point :) — Moe ε 16:36, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - In that case, WaltCip needs to clarify his/her position. With respect, it isn't your place to speak for others here. —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 17:07, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - I don't someone who would post a very lengthy reason for deletion against the existance of BJAODN as a whole would accidently make the mistake of typing delete when he meant keep. And with respect, it isn't your place to tell me where I can and cannot comment. — Moe ε 17:21, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because arguments for deletion don't hold water. In particular, these pages can't encourage future vandalism if they have historical status and are not added to - unless Mr. Hypothetical Vandal has a time machine, maybe. Gandalf61 15:24, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not a elite shrine to vandalism? — Moe ε 16:36, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment: I think you should do a bit more than just repeat "it's a shrine to vandalism", as that is starting to sound like WP:IDONTLIKEIT. The idea behind WP:DENY (which has unclear community support) is that "Providing recognition encourages more vandalism". People in this MfD are maintaining that because BJAODN is "frozen" and "historical", it does not recognize new vandalism, and therefore, WP:DENY does not apply. That argument is not without merit. If you have a counter-argument, please present it. —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 17:07, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - What are you talking about? Marking a page as historical doesn't stop anyone from viewing the nonsense or see the fact that we in the past have encouraged this behavior. Marking with the banner {{historical}} also doesn't prevent those pages from trying to be expanded upon, and it certianly doesn't encourage that we shouldn't vandalize. All it says to me is that "We used to have BJAODN, here's the good vandalism left over from the past". And DragonHawk, you need to stop pretending like you are an offical moderator that owns this MFD. — Moe ε 17:31, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Ahem. I don't believe I've ever claimed to be a moderator or an official. As you noted above, anyone has as much right to comment in this discussion as anyone else. You yourself have replied to practically every single comment in here, so far. The nominator also does not own the deletion discussion. Remember that this is a discussion, not a vote. The entire point is to reach consensus on what to do, and that means we're supposed to explain our rationale, not just proclaim our desired outcome. Wikipedia:Guide to deletion#Discussion has more on this. —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 20:05, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Stop spewing crap out your mouth, I'm not interested in being treated like I don't know what I'm doing. I do, so you need to back off. Linking to every guide or help page "for" me to help understand something is just as insulting as templating me. — Moe ε 20:22, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        For someone who claims to know what he is doing, you seem to be unaware that civility is policy. If you feel it is insulting to ask you to respect policy, well, then I am afraid I disagree. If you really feel insulted by that, perhaps you should take a break. —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 03:23, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. No one has ever presented any evidence that the simple act of keeping a few humorous archives is in any way encouraging to vandals. I accept that the main BJAODN page is no longer operational (although the community "consensus" surrounding that was dubious at best). However, there is no reason not to keep these pages. We are a community, not just an encyclopedia, and the encyclopedia will not exist without the community. This is the last remaining piece of a long-standing Wikipedia institution, and it has sentimental value. Arguments for deletion are highly unconvincing IMO. Walton^One 17:37, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as with the BJAODN ruling, I believe that this is a shrine to vandals. And what about putting a "historical notice" at the top? That won't do anything since most vandals are inexperiences wikipedia users and wont bother to read it. Remember: Vandals are breaking the rules, so why should they care about a silly little notice? Futherly, most of the "articles" are barely funny, even disgusting, and have no place here. If you want, transwiki them to Unencyclopedia, that is a vandals heaven. We deleted BJAODN, so any wikipedia user that comes after the ruling will have no idea what the "BJAODN" in the title means. This is just confusing, encourages vandals and is something that should of been deleted with the original BJAODN. Chris DHDR 18:13, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Boggle - How are the vast majority of potential vandals even going to know about these pages? ←Ben^B4 21:09, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - If they stay, they could easily become a cult thing, like "Willy on Wheels". A lot of users will put a link on their userpage, and all you need is for one vandal to get some ideas, and you could have a HUGE problem. Chris DHDR 08:55, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and tag as historical - As I note Chris's argument above, I would like to ask - will Mr. Hypothetical Ne'er-Do-Well be more likely to actually take the time to hunt down the remains of BJAODN, or is he simply going to vandalize whatever article he can get his hands on, get blocked, and call it a day? AFAIK, most vandals here don't bother reading ANYTHING in the Wikipedia: namespace, and if they do, it's because they're vandalizing it themselves. You need to realize that the vandals are only here for lulz and to give their own (absurd in many cases) take on things, not to read deleted nonsense and try to copycat it. This is the equivalent of accusing someone of being lazy while committing murder - the accused overlooks the hidden. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Kacheek!)} 19:53, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't even see why we should keep them? They're not even funny anyway. Chris DHDR 08:55, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's your personal opinion, and evidently many people would disagree. Hut 8.5 10:38, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Why are these exempt? GDonato (talk) 23:11, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:DENY, WP:BLP, WP:CSD#G4, and WP:NOT. It took me one click and a few seconds to find an entry that included libel against a living person (alleging sexual misconduct). I can understand the argument that we are a community, but is this how we want to define ourselves? Through a collection of nonsense, libel, and hoaxes? Also, the fact that these were not deleted by the previous MfD is irrelevant, since that MfD was closed without prejudice to immediate renomination of individual (groups of) pages. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 23:19, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment It has already been stated that G4 is not a legitimate criterion in this case, as these are the remains of BJAODN, not reincarnations of it. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Kacheek!)} 01:25, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - CSD G4 applies to "a copy, by any title, of a page deleted via a deletion discussion". Parts of BJAODN are just that: copies of revisions of articles deleted via AfD. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 01:33, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - You left out "...provided ... any changes to it do not address the reasons for which it was deleted". I think moving to BJAODN does address the reasons it was deleted. :-) See my comments above for more on why I don't think WP:CSD#G4 applies here. • Again, this doesn't mean the "Best of" pages shouldn't be deleted, just that CSD G4 doesn't apply here. —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 01:41, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - You certainly make a good point. However, I don't view moving to BJAODN as a change that addresses the reason for deletion because no actual improvement to content takes place. In any case, G4 justifies (in my opinion) deletion not of the entire collection, but rather specific entries/revisions. My argument for deleting the pages in their entirety lies in WP:NOT. — Black Falcon ^(Talk) 01:54, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Post MfD#6, these pages still are active[1]. The BJAODN project was ended as an ongoing project. These pages are a shrine to vandalism, it's not what Wikipedia is, and it encourages vandalism and abuse of policy. Some material meets WP:CSD#G4 as recreation of deleted material. WP:BLP issues are present. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 08:37, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I am not impressed with the arguments to delete. WP:NOT does not necessarily preclude the existence of funny or dumb pages. None of the speedy deletion criteria apply. No-one has presented any evidence that this is encouraging vandalism, WP:DENY is an essay with questionable support and application, and I think the vast majority of vandals will not know that these remnants of BJAODN still exist. Yes, the pages do contain BLP violations, but we don't need to delete everything to get rid of them. Hut 8.5 10:38, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, we do.--WaltCip 12:49, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - That's iff the pages can't be edited normally by users or administrators without going through hoops you'd expect from Vogons. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Kacheek!)} 19:33, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - No, it's possible to delete the BLP violations specifically, but what stops them from coming back?--WaltCip 02:02, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Full-prot after the libelous items are removed - other than exterminating remaining WP:BLP concerns, there is little reason to edit the "Best of Bijaowdan". -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Kacheek!)} 03:09, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        They would still be available in the page's revision history. I know that this is frequently tolerated in articles, but unlike articles, these pages have no actual encyclopedic value. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 15:42, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        AFAIK, it is possible to delete edits from the page history. I was not meaning just editing them out, I was meaning a complete oversight. Basically, someone would edit them out normally, the request oversight on the items removed. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Kacheek!)} 18:57, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        That is possible. However, that would require checking every edit in the revision history to identify which introduced BLP violations. Moreover, any subsequent edit made to that section would also have to be identified and deleted. Is it worth all that effort to fix what is just supposed to be a humorous distraction, but actually consists primarily of patent nonsense like Wikipedia:Best of BJAODN#Jimmy Nuetron: Boy Satan and Wikipedia:Best of BJAODN#From Cryptozoology? Even if someone volunteered and did that, the pages would still violate WP:NOT and serve as a shrine to vandalism. — Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:02, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        They're not a "shrine" to anything. They document one chapter in the history of this project, nothing more. --carlb 21:48, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Wikipedia is an encyclopedia project; since when do hoaxes and vandalism constitute a "chapter" of it? The BJAODN main page, Wikipedia:Silly Things, provides sufficient information to anyone who is interested about what BJAODN was. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 22:02, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        
        Wikipedia:Silly Things is a butchered page that provides no real information on anything. Hardly a replacement. --carlb 04:09, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        And no one wants it replaced except people who are on Wikipedia for all the wrong reasons. — Moe ε 19:46, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        
        False. The deletions have very much divided the community. Those who want or wanted BJAODN gone just keep listing and re-listing it for deletion figuring that maybe by the sixth go-around they might get lucky and have their way. That doesn't mean that there aren't long-standing Wikipedians on both sides of this issue. --carlb 11:24, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Content on this page is no different than the content that died with BJAODN. There is no logical grounds for exception here. Beyond that, it's libelous, in violation of WP:BLP, and is simply a shrine to vandalism. /Blaxthos 16:33, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Just more of the same, which has already been deleted. Atropos 20:15, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
'Keep keeping these is in effect part of the compromise by which the other pages were removed. Compromise is general a good solution when there are real differences of opinion among established and responsible WPedians, and this question is a prime example of that. Its the only way o end these debates. I mention I dislike these pages personally, but i accept keeping this subset as a compromise with those who feel otherwise.DGG (talk) 04:28, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - These are part of the history of this project and date back several years. While there are offsite archives (such as bjaodn.org), such a key portion of the history of the project belongs right here. I'd suspect that there is very little actual BLP content; the names were taken off before the content was put on this particular archive. This (and the GFDL-related excuses) are merely pretexts for an initiative to censor the history of the Wikipedia project in such a way as to pretend that all of the silliness that's gone on over the years here somehow never took place. It's revisionism and misleading. --carlb 05:26, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per many previous debates, and can we please put this to rest rather than throw it to Yet Another Hoop of red tape? >Radiant< 07:10, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If this has been through many previous debates, perhaps that should be taken as a sign that you do not have consensus for this deletion and are merely nominating and re-nominating the same pages in the hopes that one of these days this will inexplicably manage to slip past various members of the community unnoticed. That this has mention in a couple of media articles [2][3] would infer that the collection is indeed notable. --carlb 07:47, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- This is not an article. >Radiant< 10:30, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It being noticed by the media is more of a reason to delete it. Thats exactly the wrong image we want to send to media outlets of what Wikipedia is. — Moe ε 19:44, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Walton. Dfrg.msc 10:30, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep I thought this was being kept as part of a compromise. I don't believe a clear consensus was reached in the previous debates anyhow. Pursey 10:51, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep As the closing admin said for the main deletion, these are being kept as part of a compromise between the institutional status of BJAODN and potential concerns about the page. I will also add for the record that while I agree that thirty-some pages of bad jokes was excessive, I will never agree with the manner in which the pages were deleted. To me anything tagged 'sixth nomination' is inherently an attempt to do by force what one cannot do by careful reasoning; ramrodding something through by sheer tenacity that discourages a page's defenders. This is a valid compromise, and BJAODN is a Wikipedia institution, it should be kept out of historical importance alone. Plus, there is no valid reason related to the core principles of wikipedia to delete this, more importantly. Concerns about 'a shrine to vandalism' as it's been put are purely based in essays and not in official policies and the core principles of Wikipedia. In the absence of any strong reason to delete a historic part of the Wikipedia it ought to be kept. Wintermut3 20:18, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd like to make a few points. First, the discussion to which you refer was closed without prejudice to the immediate nomination of any subpages, so there is no and never was any 'compromise' to keep these 5 pages. Second, BJAODN had circa 200, not 30, subpages. Third, Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. We don't need to keep a record of everything that's happened, especially when that record is (as in this instance) vandalism. Fourth, in dismissing concerns that this is a shrine to vandalism, you ignore the issues raised regarding violation of WP:NOT and the fact that these collections contain blatant WP:BLP violations. Finally, I think "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia" (see also WP:5P) is a "core principle". Black Falcon ^(Talk) 21:28, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
NUKE!, for being utter nonsense and completely unnecessary (whoever actually reads those ≈200 kilobytes of junk needs to rethink the meaning of Life, the Universe, and Everything ;-) ). · AndonicO ^Talk 20:53, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - For what is essentially historical documentation (documenting bad jokes over time), the 'kept for historical interest' tag is the same as a 'keep' (except for preventing further additions). And when BJAODN is deleted, that means everything about it should be deleted. The reasons are many - legal, vandalism glorification, makes WP look like a waste of donors' money, etc - but since BJAODN was already supposed to be deleted, its children have to go too, or else the deletion isn't real. The Behnam 21:02, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I see no legal issue here; to take GFDL material and reproduce it with attribution of "quoted from (name of Wikipedia page)" is exactly what pretty much every WP mirror out there is doing. If that's illegal, our problems transcend by far anything in BJAODN. And no, not every BJAODN candidate is deliberate vandalism per se. The likes of artificial limb or erectile tissue being marked as "stubs" was most likely inadvertent, as was tagging ejaculation and waste for cleanup. :) --carlb 21:21, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Taking into account all arguments for an against in addition to a quick scan through the errrr content I had to ask myself how is this helping Wikipedia. The answer, it doesn't. Also some have said there was a compromise with the last MfD, but there wasn't. The closing admin stated that he was not against these pages being nominated again. Really folks, stand back and take a good long look at this and ask yourselves do we really need this and does this help out Wikipedia.....and if you can't answer either of those questions yes then you might want to think about commenting delete. Æon ^{Insanity Now!} 22:43, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep Sorry some people have no sense of humor, but keeping a small piece of BJAODN history is not disruptive or bad. This is completely acceptable and is supported by the community, as noted extensively in recent discussions and attempts to preserve the good in BJAODN. -- Ned Scott 06:56, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Would the people who keep trying to get rid of BJAODN please get a life and leave it a lone, don't come here if you don't like it! Oh and all these constant nominations, reminds me of the constant elections they had in Germany in the 30's!!Ajuk 21:19, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ILIKEIT doesn't satisfy a reason to keep, nor do thinly vieled personal attacks. — Moe ε 23:28, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for so many reasons I could write a book. Lets just settle with WP:DENY. ALKIVAR™ ☢ 22:35, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's historified what more harm can it do? How does it hurt you? Just because it's funny it gets deleted? Really just get a life. Yamakiri on Firefox 00:01, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AFD is not a vote, sir.--WaltCip 01:17, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I can just about live with BJAODN going away, but I'm of the opinion that important history should be retained, and some of this stuff (for example, the edit war at Wikipedia:Edit conflicts) needs to be retained. ^Thanks, _{Luc "Somethingorother" French} 00:39, 6 September 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.