Wikipedia talk:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Bad Jokes and Other Deleted Nonsense (6th nomination)

By the time something gets to its 5th AfD, something is wrong, and it should go through a different community process. +sj + 01:06, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, if this MfD gets no consensus too, the entire Wikipedia should be made inaccessible for two weeks and redirect to a deletion discussion about BJAODN. And if that fails too... there's no other option left. -- Prince Kassad 11:08, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is no other community process that I know of to get rid of these things except MfD. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:45, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I posted a notice about this MfD on the Community bulletin board and it was up there for a day. The Signpost also published a BJAODN story dated August 20, 2007 linking to this MfD. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 21:43, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus can change, so there should not be a limit on MfDs. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 23:59, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In other words, you can get anything deleted as long as you persist in nominating it for deletion. Grue 07:00, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have seen several people propose there be a fixed and firm minimum time period between nominations, and I would support that with about a 2 month window. But in the end, I don't see any way to work around the problem that, if there is ever consensus to delete something, it can get deleted even if there was previously consensus to keep it. That's just part of the "wiki process". — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:03, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Change is good. Forum shopping isn't. Whatever number of editors show up for any one XfD discussion, it's always a very small fraction of the total population. Any time there is an extremely small sample size, it's possible to get a different result simply by choosing the sample set over and over again. The consensus arrived at in this case is impossible to distinguish from one manufactured by repeated !votes. --Ssbohio 23:24, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I sure hope the closer takes into account the value of the arguments presented, instead of merely the quantity. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 04:52, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A little late to the discussion I know, but ... Some people round here have a serious sense of humour failure. Where would we be if we let the kill-joys win? - A society full of people who ban fun things just in case someone gets hurt, a society where no one does anything without running it past their lawyers first, where all risk is eliminated, and "fun" is strictly controlled by sour-faced suits - just the same kind of people who keep putting this "institution" up for deletion. Lighten-up everybody. Astronaut 01:26, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If anybody does not derive 'fun' from writing a reliable encyclopedia, then I seriously suggest they find another place to spend their time. --mav 23:17, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Writing is all well and good, but when you look at the maintenance side, it's all tedium. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 04:34, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. --mav 02:02, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I consider the portion of Phil Sandifer's close "with prejudice against recreation" to not be warranted by any consensus, and, moreover, as it occurred two and a half years ago, any such consensus is probably now stale anyway. I move to propose a new, GFDL-compliant version of BJAODN on Wikipedia itself, with prejudice against Phil Sandifer's close (but only with prejudice against that close and not necessarily against any consensus or lack thereof he based that close upon). — Rickyrab | Talk 01:59, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]