Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2005 Britannica takeover of Wikimedia

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was BJAODN. – ABCD 22:25, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 2005 Britannica takeover of Wikimedia

This article was moved out of the article space, but it seems to have been moved back. This is a hoax article, and should be moved to the Wikipedia space, or deleted altogether.

  • BJAODN hilarious joke. This article is now important that encarta is becoming a peer-reviewed wiki/ matt me

RickK 23:41, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)

  • Move back to BJAODN and delete the freaking forest of redirects out of article space. —Korath (Talk) 00:09, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)
  • BJAODN. Meelar (talk) 00:59, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)
  • BJAODN, but I strongly suggest having it on its own protected page. Zzyzx11 01:07, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • As per Korath, including the redirects. (This isn't the worst redirect mess from 2005-04-01, though. See Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Willy on Wheels. I gave up tracking back through the redirects after 9 levels.) Uncle G 02:30, 2005 Apr 4 (UTC)
  • The article is now in mainspace via, I believe, cut-and-paste; Wikipedia:April 1, 2005/2005 Britannica takeover of Wikimedia is a fine destination for it, but is now redirecting. I don't care where it goes, so long as it is out of mainspace and the destination and all plausible redirects protected against all monkeyshines. — XiongImage:Xiong2char.pngtalk 04:10, 2005 Apr 4 (UTC)
  • 'BJADON oon its own separate page. r3m0t talk 06:32, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)
  • BJAODN, probably one of the best written candidates for BJAODN we've seen lately. Definitely worthy of a place there. Megan1967 06:36, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Why on earth was it moved back? BJAODN of course, delete anything that's in the article namespace. --Michael Snow 06:42, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete from main article space, speedy if recreated - David Gerard 09:58, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Move to /Wikipedia namespace If you're going to BJAODN it, every page from the Department of Fun should be BJAODN'd too.
  • I guess we should let the Britannica staff decide on this :) Radiant_* 14:08, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)

What I want to know is why this article has had so many deletions and edits. It is only about half the size that it was on April 1st. Please, someone revert this article and protect it on the BJADN.

  • I'm torn between BJAODN and Wikipedia:, but clearly, it doesn't belong in the article namespace. Equally clearly, it shouldn't be deleted permanently, and *the history shouldn't be lost, either*. Comedy by committee is always suspect, and the original should be visible. Let us note *also*, though, that many places (including me) probably *linked* to it, and the links shouldn't die. If it was originally in the WP namespace, and I think it was, let it be removed henceforth to the space time from which it came... --Baylink 15:27, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge (a sentence or so, not the whole article) and redirect to Wikipedia. JYolkowski 21:41, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Move back to BJAODN and protect the main namespace version as a redirect. Keep the redirect(s) on the article namespace, since there are links from the outside to them. --cesarb 21:55, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Is Wikipedia really being taken over by Britannica? If not, then the article is a bad waste of our space. Delete. Changed my mind, now that I know what BJAODN stands for. I specially liked actually the references to spirit's such as God and Elvis. BJAODN "Antonio one a Wikipedian Always a Wikipedian Martin"
  • BJAODN I thought it was funny, personally. However, make sure that it's in the form that it was after the last edit on 1 April. -Jeremiah Cook 02:36, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Move and Redirect Create some sort of archive of Wikimedia April Fool's Day jokes. --Kitch 12:22, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • This should be kept in some way, or form! This was an absolutely classic page! But there should be a disclaimer at the top declaring its status as a non-factual article/ parody. --Hoovernj 23:04, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • BJAODN. I've never had so much fun in the main article space! - Lucky 6.9 04:22, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Moved into the Wikipedia namespace for now. silsor 06:50, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)
  • Move to Wikipedia: and keep (as a separate article, although the idea of an index page to Wikipedia April Fool's hack articles is a good idea). Noel (talk) 16:28, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. This was funny. Samboy 21:13, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete all redirects to April Fool's articles from the article namespace. Might as well keep the "article" itself if it stays in the WP: namespace. -Sean Curtin 22:49, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete funny, sure. Does it belong in an encyclopedia that is trying to be legit? NO. protohiro 06:03, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Move to Wikipedia namespace or BJAODN, failing that. Protect it either way. --InShaneee 16:28, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Note we have a lot of incoming links to this article, see e.g. the front page of Alexa. By all means situate this in the WP namespace, and by all means have a notice saying "This was an April Fools joke in 2005" somewhere prominent, but keep the direct to satisfy the traffic. Pcb21| Pete 22:42, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep in BJAODN; disclaimer as hoax would be fine. -Fennec (はさばくのきつね) 18:04, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep as BJAODN. Greatest Internet hoax in recent times with all sorts of spinoff gags. -- Riffsyphon1024 22:14, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • BJAODN and Protect the redirect as above. This was a good article as a joke, but clearly doesn't belong in the main articlespace beyond April 1. --Deathphoenix 17:29, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • BJAODN. Revert back to April 2nd version. This was an excellent April 1 joke but some users simply can't move on in life. Thuresson 09:18, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.