Wikibooks:Requests for deletion/Wikibooks:Bad Jokes and Other Deleted Nonsense (3)

Bad Jokes and Other Deleted Nonsense
I am aware that this has been nominated twice before (1 and 2). This page is a collection of inside jokes and nothing more and is an embarrassment. The Jokebook was deleted, so why is this kept? I don't buy the argument in the second nomination that this serves as a historical record of people who've left the project. I came here after this page was created and I can't make any sense of it. There are no references to individuals and most of the references are to deleted books. This page is frankly nonsense and even Wikipedia's equivalent (Wikipedia:Silly Things) at least makes sense and actually documents a historical record through narration and links. This needs to go. – Adrignola talk 21:00, 19 July 2010 (UTC)


 * per the box on the talk page of this article - " Do not nominate this book for deletion again unless significant new problems are discovered. " - If you've found any new problems, fine, otherwise this RfD shouldn't be here - It needs cleaning up and fixing, not consigning to the bin, Adrignola BarkingFish (talk) 23:13, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * People continually fixate on the need for the page to change in order for it to be nominated again. Here is the other side of the equation: the community could change.  I believe the community has evolved to the point that this page is nonsensical to anyone still around.  There is absolutely no way I could improve this page without wiping it out entirely. – Adrignola talk 23:26, 19 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm fixating on the fact that there is a clear statement on the talk page that the article has survived 2 RfD's and it's not to be nominated again, unless anything new is found in relation to it, which your RfD doesn't fulfill. There's no significant new problems since the last time someone nommed it.  I see no reason for its deletion, although a little background wouldn't go amiss on some of the material, as you've already requested.  BarkingFish (talk) 13:01, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I've addressed this already. I'm not rehashing it. The talk page box is not a policy. I guess if we're going to go this route, then all the books nominated multiple times shouldn't be nominated again. Then we can get more people leaving due to disagreements over material, like Thenub.  That's one way to ensure the community doesn't change. – Adrignola talk 13:12, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I hope you don't mind that I'm adding asterisks in front of the colons, so that the indentation is clearer. Adrignola, IMHO the community changing isn't the best justification for renomination, as that would mean that the deletion of a page can be based off personal preference; rather, the change in policy, standards and suchlike will be suitable explanations for renomination. BTW (this is unrelated) Barkingfish, you may want to look at pjoef's talk page at WP, on the message about himself. (Yeah, I'm spilling the beans so don't tell him I told you :D) Kayau ( talk &#124; email &#124; contribs ) 13:27, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * as per Adrignola. The issue here is that, while this may be historical, none of the jokes make sense out of context, and the necessary context no longer exists. The only way to make this page useful is to re-animate some of the departed Wikibookians who originally put these things there, and ask them to provide contextual links that would give some relevance to the text. Chazz (talk) 23:56, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Symbol keep vote.svg Keep I see no reason in principle why there can't be turnover, over time, with the quality and durability of the items gradually improving. Three of the last four I understand, and would consider of at least mediocre lasting quality; the second to last I enjoyed.  Deletion, the most extreme measure possible, is not called for.  --Pi zero (talk) 00:27, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * And you are one of those to whom the jokes make sense having historical context. If you're intent on keeping it, maybe you could provide some background on the jokes for others.  – Adrignola talk 12:18, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I've added it to my list of things to do. --Pi zero (talk) 23:03, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I will then withdraw my nomination. – Adrignola talk 23:30, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Very Strong Keep, per Pi zero and Barkingfish. There is no harm in keeping it; it can always give us a good laugh. Also note that WP's version has motivated the creation of uncyclopaedia, which means these pages can be useful. And, don't forget, we have essays too, and essays can be humorous. Mind you, Wikipedians should !vote keep, and Pi zero and Barkingfish are Wikipedians, and so am I. :) Kayau ( talk &#124; email &#124; contribs ) 07:38, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Is there some minimum number of contributions one needs to be a Wikipedian? Otherwise I am one too... – Adrignola talk 12:18, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Em, keep per Kayau. Diego Grez (talk) 00:02, 21 July 2010 (UTC)