- 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 keep per a nearly unanimous consensus, with "space research" and Moe in the minority. The first MFD was also a nearly unanimous keep. As suggested by several people here, I will take a few minutes to check the list for any material that needs to be removed. Non-admin closure. Shalom Hello 17:02, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Deleted articles with freaky titles
Firstly, I'll say that I actually find this page amusing to some extent. I mean, "Dog Fart Neutralizing Thong" made me laugh. However, I don't think it belongs on Wikipedia, per WP:DENY, and the fact that it is just a collection of nonsense.- h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 13:42, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep for several reasons: I seriously doubt that many vandals will have heard of this page (so it's not likely to encourage them), not all of the titles listed were vandalism, the list does not glorify individual vandals, we are not obliged to delete everything that violates WP:DENY due to its status as an essay, and WP:COMMUNITY. If there is evidence of a significant number of vandals creating pages to get in here I might reconsider. Prior MfD closed as "keep". Hut 8.5 15:08, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep, and Hut made all of my arguments more eloquently than I could. :) -- Masamage ♫ 16:54, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep - it's an in-joke, so as Hut points out it's unlikely to violate WP:DENY (which is an essay). Also, I'm not keen on this current fad for deleting all joke pages. Yes, BJAODN is dead, but that doesn't mean that everything vaguely humorous has to go. Pages like this help to make us a community. Walton One 17:08, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep per above comments. A good and humorous way to chronicle the oddness that can comes with with something like wikipedia. And it shows that wikipedians have a sense of humor too. We need to stop being so politically correct all the time. MrMurph101 18:04, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete A shrine to vandalism. How in the hell is a title called: "FUCK OFF YOU FUCKING CUNTING COUPLES. THERE IS NOT ROOM IN AISLE 6 OF TESCO FOR YOU TO EAT EACH OTHERS INNARDS OUT. THERE IS NOT ROOM IN MY LIFE TO HAVE YOUR SNOGGING SHOVED IN MY FACE ALL DAY EVERY DAY. JUST FUCK OFF" funny, amusing and/or not a shrine to someone trying to create disruption to Wikipedia? It encourages people to try and get into this list by creating some absurd title that hopefully someone will find "freaky". There isn't any amount of arguing that could make me see how this page is useful of even humorous is any way. Making Wikipedia into some joke by trolls isn't what were here for. — Moe ε 19:40, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
- Note that the entry Moe ε quoted has been removed in the meantime. — DragonHawk ( talk| hist) 15:07, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep I agree with Walton that not everything vaguely humorous has to go. This is not a shrine to vandalism. Indeed, few vandals are creative enough to get articles listed in DAFT. Odd as it may seem, I believe that many of the article titles in DAFT were created in good faith. -- orlady 19:57, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep, because I like it. Grue 20:07, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. Okay, I'll admit to being one of the prime movers of starting this page, so I am biased, but I'd say a good 80% of the titles on this page were not intended as vandalism (there does indeed seem to be, for example, such a thing as a dog-fart neutralising thong, though not marketed using that name). A few vandalous ones have slipped in, sure, but to call this a "shrine to vandalism" is patently false. And I seriously doubt that any vandal would deliberately create something with a weird title just to have the title memorialised here - unlike BJAODN, where a permanent preservation of their entire article was possible. Grutness... wha? 00:21, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
- Can you consider removing the vandalous ones if you feel that ones may be inappropriate to keep? — Moe ε 05:58, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
- Seems a reasonable suggestion. It probably does need pruning from time to time. The "Aisle six of Tesco" one mentioned above - though an outstanding example of a freaky title - probably shouldn't be there to start with. Grutness... wha? 09:41, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
- Concur. I decided to be bold and removed it. — DragonHawk ( talk| hist) 15:03, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
- And someone else put it back. Oh well. — DragonHawk ( talk| hist) 19:58, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
- I'm not surprised! Perhaps if you'd used "Delete per MFD discussion" as your edit summary, rather than the spurions "Delete profanity", it would have stayed deleted. It was reverted by someone who may not have been aware of the discussion here but is aware that WP isn't censored for profanity. I'll try. Grutness... wha? 23:56, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
- Hi. Sorry about restoring the thing after someone removed it. I did see the MFD tag, but did not read it because I was too bored to, and I also had to go somewhere. I'll try to be more careful when making edits like this in the future. I would say keep, because it is "kept becasue it is humour". Please do not [delete] every part of Wikipedia that is unrelated, humourous, or fun. It stabs our community and cuts an ugly gash into the red pillar. Also, if some of these pages everybody is MFDing can't be kept, should they be moved to userspacesubpagesandboxes? Thanks. ~ A H 1( T C U) 00:22, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
- Yah, I could have used a clearer edit summary there. My bad. — DragonHawk ( talk| hist) 01:31, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. WP:COMMUNITY (which is not policy, but has valid points, just as with WP:DENY). Wikipedia need community to work. Humor is one of the lubricants that makes a community work. We need to be able to laugh at ourselves and others as we build this encyclopedia. I do not see this page as encouraging vandalism. Unlike BJAODN, which was explicitly about vandalism, this page has plenty of non-vandalism entries. BJAODN also tended to preserve vandalism intact and whole; there is no opportunity for that here. If someone has an evidence to the contrary, please present it. If there is a particularly egregious entry, just delete the entry, not the whole page. — DragonHawk ( talk| hist) 02:04, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep, as unlike BJAODN it is reasonably funny; but I'd suggest this needs pruning every now and then to keep it from getting out of hand (just like we prune WP:LAME these days). >Radiant< 08:52, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep I agree that the entries need monitoring, but don't see how the page glorifies or encourages vandalism. -- Nick Dowling 01:28, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep I might cry if I see one of the last remaining fun bits of this website disappear. It's things like this that bring a smile to my face and help me continue my editing. Pursey 15:37, 5 September 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.
- 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 keep per a nearly unanimous consensus, with "space research" and Moe in the minority. The first MFD was also a nearly unanimous keep. As suggested by several people here, I will take a few minutes to check the list for any material that needs to be removed. Non-admin closure. Shalom Hello 17:02, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Deleted articles with freaky titles
Firstly, I'll say that I actually find this page amusing to some extent. I mean, "Dog Fart Neutralizing Thong" made me laugh. However, I don't think it belongs on Wikipedia, per WP:DENY, and the fact that it is just a collection of nonsense.- h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 13:42, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep for several reasons: I seriously doubt that many vandals will have heard of this page (so it's not likely to encourage them), not all of the titles listed were vandalism, the list does not glorify individual vandals, we are not obliged to delete everything that violates WP:DENY due to its status as an essay, and WP:COMMUNITY. If there is evidence of a significant number of vandals creating pages to get in here I might reconsider. Prior MfD closed as "keep". Hut 8.5 15:08, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep, and Hut made all of my arguments more eloquently than I could. :) -- Masamage ♫ 16:54, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep - it's an in-joke, so as Hut points out it's unlikely to violate WP:DENY (which is an essay). Also, I'm not keen on this current fad for deleting all joke pages. Yes, BJAODN is dead, but that doesn't mean that everything vaguely humorous has to go. Pages like this help to make us a community. Walton One 17:08, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep per above comments. A good and humorous way to chronicle the oddness that can comes with with something like wikipedia. And it shows that wikipedians have a sense of humor too. We need to stop being so politically correct all the time. MrMurph101 18:04, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete A shrine to vandalism. How in the hell is a title called: "FUCK OFF YOU FUCKING CUNTING COUPLES. THERE IS NOT ROOM IN AISLE 6 OF TESCO FOR YOU TO EAT EACH OTHERS INNARDS OUT. THERE IS NOT ROOM IN MY LIFE TO HAVE YOUR SNOGGING SHOVED IN MY FACE ALL DAY EVERY DAY. JUST FUCK OFF" funny, amusing and/or not a shrine to someone trying to create disruption to Wikipedia? It encourages people to try and get into this list by creating some absurd title that hopefully someone will find "freaky". There isn't any amount of arguing that could make me see how this page is useful of even humorous is any way. Making Wikipedia into some joke by trolls isn't what were here for. — Moe ε 19:40, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
- Note that the entry Moe ε quoted has been removed in the meantime. — DragonHawk ( talk| hist) 15:07, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep I agree with Walton that not everything vaguely humorous has to go. This is not a shrine to vandalism. Indeed, few vandals are creative enough to get articles listed in DAFT. Odd as it may seem, I believe that many of the article titles in DAFT were created in good faith. -- orlady 19:57, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep, because I like it. Grue 20:07, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. Okay, I'll admit to being one of the prime movers of starting this page, so I am biased, but I'd say a good 80% of the titles on this page were not intended as vandalism (there does indeed seem to be, for example, such a thing as a dog-fart neutralising thong, though not marketed using that name). A few vandalous ones have slipped in, sure, but to call this a "shrine to vandalism" is patently false. And I seriously doubt that any vandal would deliberately create something with a weird title just to have the title memorialised here - unlike BJAODN, where a permanent preservation of their entire article was possible. Grutness... wha? 00:21, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
- Can you consider removing the vandalous ones if you feel that ones may be inappropriate to keep? — Moe ε 05:58, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
- Seems a reasonable suggestion. It probably does need pruning from time to time. The "Aisle six of Tesco" one mentioned above - though an outstanding example of a freaky title - probably shouldn't be there to start with. Grutness... wha? 09:41, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
- Concur. I decided to be bold and removed it. — DragonHawk ( talk| hist) 15:03, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
- And someone else put it back. Oh well. — DragonHawk ( talk| hist) 19:58, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
- I'm not surprised! Perhaps if you'd used "Delete per MFD discussion" as your edit summary, rather than the spurions "Delete profanity", it would have stayed deleted. It was reverted by someone who may not have been aware of the discussion here but is aware that WP isn't censored for profanity. I'll try. Grutness... wha? 23:56, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
- Hi. Sorry about restoring the thing after someone removed it. I did see the MFD tag, but did not read it because I was too bored to, and I also had to go somewhere. I'll try to be more careful when making edits like this in the future. I would say keep, because it is "kept becasue it is humour". Please do not [delete] every part of Wikipedia that is unrelated, humourous, or fun. It stabs our community and cuts an ugly gash into the red pillar. Also, if some of these pages everybody is MFDing can't be kept, should they be moved to userspacesubpagesandboxes? Thanks. ~ A H 1( T C U) 00:22, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
- Yah, I could have used a clearer edit summary there. My bad. — DragonHawk ( talk| hist) 01:31, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. WP:COMMUNITY (which is not policy, but has valid points, just as with WP:DENY). Wikipedia need community to work. Humor is one of the lubricants that makes a community work. We need to be able to laugh at ourselves and others as we build this encyclopedia. I do not see this page as encouraging vandalism. Unlike BJAODN, which was explicitly about vandalism, this page has plenty of non-vandalism entries. BJAODN also tended to preserve vandalism intact and whole; there is no opportunity for that here. If someone has an evidence to the contrary, please present it. If there is a particularly egregious entry, just delete the entry, not the whole page. — DragonHawk ( talk| hist) 02:04, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep, as unlike BJAODN it is reasonably funny; but I'd suggest this needs pruning every now and then to keep it from getting out of hand (just like we prune WP:LAME these days). >Radiant< 08:52, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep I agree that the entries need monitoring, but don't see how the page glorifies or encourages vandalism. -- Nick Dowling 01:28, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep I might cry if I see one of the last remaining fun bits of this website disappear. It's things like this that bring a smile to my face and help me continue my editing. Pursey 15:37, 5 September 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.