Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:BJAODN:The Next Page Title

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 delete. Singularity 21:57, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:BJAODN:The Next Page Title

Overly bureaucratic. We do not need a full system of voting, candidates, etc for choosing the name of an archive of a joke page. Also, not allowing anonymous voters strikes me as overly bitey towards potential newcomers. ^demon[omg plz] 14:18, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete I find it amusing to debate the name of an archive of deleted content. · AndonicO Talk 14:40, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Frag Amusing, Andonic? I kinda find it sad... David Fuchs (talk) 18:29, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
  • BJAODN. Someone's gotta say it.--WaltCip 22:56, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. I agree with the nominator on this, and offer my philosophy: "if you bite too hard, you might break a tooth." THE DARK LORD TROMBONATOR 10:43, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Oh, I dunno... I voted on such things way back when, but I don't care. At any rate, this page is not GFDL violation, not featured vandalism, basically not in violation of any Wikipedia guideline or policy. If BJAODN kicks the bucket, I'd prefer to keep it as a historical artifact. Shalom Hello 15:06, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment It's not a GFDL violation here, and is more an in-joke for regulars. Abstain from voting. --SunStar Net talk 20:05, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. Nom is wrong in regards to anonymous voters; I have seen them voting in The Next Page Title and they have not been reverted for vandalism so far as I can tell. Also, need I remind you of possible snowball effects with the remainder of BJAODN? In any case, I Plead The Fifth. -Jéské (v^_^v Kacheek!) 21:50, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete I agree with the nominator: we don't need it. Acalamari 22:40, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, talk about an overly bureaucratic mess. The really sad thing is that I was actually once heavily involved with this process, voting on every entry, and I even rewrote the way the process worked. That was awhile ago, though, and I've come to the realization that we're better off without BJAODN. --Cyde Weys 00:49, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
  • comment I think that only Jeske has seen the joke. This page is a deliberate self-referential satire. (Most of the contributors to it seem also to have been fooled.) But it doesn't belong. it's too clever by far.DGG (talk) 02:13, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Lighten Up Everyone I found it quite funny. If it annoys you, see Wikipedia:BJAODN:The Next Page Title/Specific Page Number Suggestions
  • Delete Sad to be voting against something that makes me laugh, but it is not needed. themcman1 talk 20:50, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Meh, there's no point really. It looks highly likely that both will end in delete. No point in going through the motions of shutting one down and merging it into the other. --Cyde Weys 23:35, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 21:19, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete as with the entire 'project', per 6th BJAODN nom. -- nae'blis 04:08, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete: Nonsense. Nick 11:42, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete As above. — Moe ε 18:44, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete as per the 6th nomination (including 7 provisions of WP:NOT, 5-7 speedy deletion criteria, and the basic principle that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not Uncyclopedia) and per WP:NOT#BUREAUCRACY for preserving vandalism, hoaxes, libel, and other unencyclopedic content. — Black Falcon (Talk) 21:52, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Seriously, lighten up - What's wrong with this? The title has to come from somewhere. If you don't like BJAODN, don't look at it. Cool Bluetalk to me 00:54, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
  • It really doesn't take long for a bureaucracy to grow and envelop. And that makes everybody unhappy.--WaltCip 21:01, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, for a purported humor page this is not even remotely funny. >Radiant< 08:56, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Remove bureaucracy as unneeded bull; this kinda page is needed, but not with the bureaucracy. MessedRocker (talk) 14:48, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
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.