Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Bad Jokes and Other Deleted Nonsense/Willy on Wheels (on wheels)

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete.

I count 36 users for deletion (one anon discounted) and 13 users for keep (one anon and one probable troll discounted).

The primary argument for deletion was that this was an incentive for further vandalism. The primary rebuttal was that the content was sufficiently isolated (as a sub of the BJAODN space) that the damage was contained.

The secondary argument for keeping was that this was a part of Wikipedia's history and that this page would help to stop future vandals. The primary rebuttal to this point was that the vandalism is more completely documented at Wikipedia:Long term abuse/Willy on Wheels.

All these arguments were made early in the discussion. Comments continued to accumulate in about the same proportion indicating to me that neither side was convinced by the other's arguments. The discussion failed to reach true consensus but did reach standard for rough consensus. I'm calling this a "delete" decision. Rossami (talk) 22:42, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Bad Jokes and Other Deleted Nonsense/Willy on Wheels (on wheels)[edit]

Some months back I tried to obtain consensus to delete Willy on Wheels' entry at Vandalism in Progress. That failed because a number of users thought the page as a useful tool in the hunt. Fair enough, but a BJAODN entry? BJAODN should be for humorous entries which are funny, but it should contain things which were made in good faith. What Willy on Wheels is doing is pure vandalism, it is not good faith, and, in truth, it is not funny. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:00, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I thought it was funny. Proto t c 14:03, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Funny. He'll be vandalizing whether or not he gets attention. ~~ N (t/c) 14:18, 26 August 2005 (UTC) Weak delete as per Android79's evidence. ~~ N (t/c) 21:52, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete. Having a shrine to WoW seems like a bad idea, even though I find it mildly amusing. He's been adding to this page himself (or an imitator has), so maybe it's time for this to go, as it will only attract more crap. android 79 17:09, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
keep please we need to maintain a sense of humor when dealing with these kind of people Yuckfoo 17:50, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete68.212.98.100 17:54, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not quite funny enough for BJAODN, and vanity is vanity, wherever it may be. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:20, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
Delete s/he's just some lame vandal that doesn't need a page in the Wikipedia: namespace. The page is also not particularly funny. CDC (talk) 18:49, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not funny. Dpbsmith (talk) 19:32, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Really not funny. Groeck 21:15, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not only not funny, but inappropriate publicity for a dirtwad. Zoe 21:18, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
- You go, Zoe! Denni ☯ 01:01, 2005 August 27 (UTC)
~~Keep~~Weak Keep Not particularly funny, but an important part of Wikihistory Karmafist 21:49, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not funny. "Wikihistory" will just have to make do with WP:VIP/WOW. JRM · Talk 21:54, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete vandals like WOW generally are attention seekers, and we should keep things like this about specific vandals to a minimum. Y0u (Y0ur talk page) (Y0ur contributions) 22:28, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
Deletion on wheels. --Carnildo 22:42, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete hugely unfunny vandal. Denni ☯ 01:01, 2005 August 27 (UTC)
strong Keep or move This page is funny and It is under Wikipedia:Bad Jokes and Other Deleted Nonsense. That contains humorous content and the plase for bad jokes and other deleted nonsense can rest in peace. This page was made in good faith by showing part of willy on wheels(willy sockpuppet ) in Wiki history.**My Cat inn @ (talk)** 04:56, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Willy is not just a vandal willy is a dog and automobilethe page can by merged with Wikipedia:Long term abuse/Willy on Wheels or Move to some place beter then this. I notice when I was looking at willy on wheels sockpuppets some of the contributions and sockpuppets user names were funny.**My Cat inn @ (talk)** 20:35, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. -Sean Curtin 05:02, August 27, 2005 (UTC)
Very Strong Keep as Karmafist and also, deleting BJAODN pages is extremely unusual. CAPS LOCK 08:36, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Move, or Weak keep - I agree the article title is godawful and it doesn't really belong in BJAODN. And this phenomenon (ehm) was kind of wider than WP alone. Move to Meta? --Wwwwolf 14:01, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, attention is precisely what our daily vandal wants. Let's not give him any. On wheels. Radiant_>|< 23:46, August 27, 2005 (UTC)
- Actually now that I think of it, speedy delete per WP:CSD #A6. On wheels. R adiant _>|< 23:47, August 27, 2005 (UTC)
Strong Keep as per CAPS LOCK. Penelope D 23:59, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete. Not funny at all. *drew 00:59, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Doesn't anyone find it a little obvious considering Willy wrote this about himself? Dmcdevit·t 04:01, August 28, 2005 (UTC)
Speedy Delete. I was under the impression that editors exhibiting the behaviour of WoW were blocked, and their work reverted/speedied/whatever --- why is this any different? Also, it's not all that funny & it's not done the way, AIUI, BJAODN is done. Style of fing. --fuddlemark 14:35, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- What do "AIUI" and "fing" mean? android79 15:22, August 28, 2005 (UTC)
  - "AIUI" is an abbreviation of "As I Understand It", common on USENET. "fing" is a cutesy alternative to "thing", actually used by many people in speach. --fuddlemark 15:48, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, sadly. This does encourage vandalism. -- Visviva 16:35, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

sorry but, if we start listing BJAODN pages on VfDs they might all wind up deleted--172.158.73.213 17:32, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Don't tempt anyone... -Sean Curtin 02:02, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

Delete. The page is quite funny, but, like android79, I don't consider it appropriate to have a shrine of an active vandal. It can be undeleted when it's of historical interest only. -- Naive cynic 20:51, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's not even funny, so why put it on BJAODN? -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:45, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but move it somewhere else. Alr 23:50, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; break it on the wheel. It is pretty funny, but sorry, people like Willy feed on attention, and the less he gets, the less likely he is to return. Starve the trolls. Antandrus (talk) 02:20, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Funny. Funny stuff goes in BJAODN. Andrew pmk | Talk 03:44, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not especially funny, and tribute pages for vandals are inherently counter-productive even if they are funny. If somebody really wants they can save it as a User namespace page or something. Isomorphic 05:11, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dont say that! Oh no, this is the second time today I have to invoke WP:BEANS. Dmcdevit·t 05:17, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

Delete, not funny enough for BJAODN. — JIP | Talk 05:26, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete: unfunny self-aggrandizement by juvenile delinquents who view their trolling activity as an achievement. --RobertG ♬ talk 07:25, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I'm sure the people responsible are having a great laugh. violet/riga (t) 10:20, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --SPUI (talk) 17:32, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete keeping will encourage more vandalism Tuf-Kat 17:36, August 29, 2005 (UTC)
delete encourges vandalism. JesseW 22:41, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 86.135.157.142 20:23, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
A suggestion to those of you voting "Keep" on the grounds that this user's activity should be recorded somewhere: Would redirecting this to Wikipedia:Long term abuse/Willy on Wheels suffice? -Sean Curtin 02:05, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
Keep as the content is rather humourous. Such removal would only set a poor precedent on WP:BJAODN and do nothing to resolve the ongoing problems of vandalism from Willy on Wheels and others. Hall Monitor 20:46, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; it's in BJAODN; BJAODN is supposed to be funny; and this is funny. --Idont Havaname 00:05, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I've seen funny and this isn't it. --fvw * 00:19, September 1, 2005 (UTC)
Delete - I thought it was funny, but it would encourage the vandal. Plus, a very similar version could be viewed here: [1] --Ixfd64 05:51, 2005 September 1 (UTC)
Delete. ral 315 13:31, September 1, 2005 (UTC)
It's not really funny so it doesn't deserve to be at BJAODN. I suppose it could be kept under a better vandalism-monitoring page but there's nothing here that really constitutes evidence. The discussion about this vandal is already mostly at Wikipedia:Long term abuse/Willy on Wheels. Weak delete just because I don't see the purpose. Rossami (talk) 13:39, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, move to a subpage of Wikipedia:Long term abuse/Willy on Wheels. In some ways, WoW may be the most important member of this Community -- a limit case indeed. Everything about him is automatically notable to us. — Xiong 熊 talk * 20:20, 2005 September 2 (UTC)
Keep as Wikihistory. - ulayiti (talk) (my RfA) 13:33, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Rewards, flatters and thereby encourages vandalism. CalJW 21:59, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete BJAODN is not here to reward and preserve bad-faith vandalism. Such a thing would attract vandals. Ashibaka (tock) 00:16, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Funny, but keeping it will encourage more vandalism. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 16:44, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While the concept may be funny in a mischievous kind of way, but the actual article isn't funny at all, nor is the idea of encouraging vandalism. --EWS23 04:34, September 10, 2005 (UTC)
Delete Martin 00:04, 11 September 2005 (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 article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.