*'''Delete''' Destroy Dis Doo-Doo [[User:Kip the Dip|Dip da Dip]] 19:36, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' Destroy Dis Doo-Doo [[User:Kip the Dip|Dip da Dip]] 19:36, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
*'''-elete''' --[[User:Dexter111344|Dexter111344]] 20:25, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
*'''-elete''' --[[User:Dexter111344|Dexter111344]] 20:25, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
−
|-
+
*I was hoping to read a tale about a drifting tofu delivery boy. Instead I read this random ''whateveritis''. Even Itsuki wouldn't think this was cool. {{User:Modusoperandi/sig}} 00:42, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Do not put anything up for VFD that is not appropriate for VFD.
Abusers of the policy will be abused by the claw end of a hammer. You have been warned.
If you have an article that meets the criteria for VFD:
Check the revision history of the page. It may have been vandalised, or just badly edited over a long period of time. If so, find a better version and revert the article. It may not be suitable for deletion.
Add {{vfd}} to the article in question. Failure to do so will invalidate the vote.
Provide an initial vote (see below) and include a comment as to why you have placed the article on VFD.
If you are here to vote on the deletion/salvation of articles:
Thank you.
No really, thank you.
Edit the section for the article you are addressing.
Pick a space under the appropriate heading (Keep, Delete, Comment), add your sig/comment preceded with a #
# - Creates a numbered bullet for your entry and makes sure that things are formatted correctly (do not put a space before the #).
Comment - If you care to, leave a comment, even if it is as short as "The article is not at all funny". Votes without comments are less useful in analyzing the quality of an article.
--~~~~ - Sign and timestamp your vote. Unsigned votes will be removed without prejudice.
Allow at least 24 hours before closing a nomination or deleting an article.
Remember to delete any unused images from deleted articles and, if necessary, check what links to the article and remove any backlinks. Make sure to delete any broken redirects created as well.
To avoid confusion, try to remove closed nominations which cause the page to exceed to 20 articles.
If a nomination is kept, please add {{Oldvfd}} to the article's talk page.
To add an article, edit this section, and follow the directions in the comments.
Don't flood VFD full of articles, or at least leave a space between your nominations.
If you increase the number of articles on VFD to over 20, you will be blocked for 1 day, no exceptions.This means do not increase the number of active votes on VFD to over twenty.Inactive votes are shown with either a red link (where they have been deleted), or with the Closed nomination tag to indicate that the article has been kept.You have been warned.
Please remember to check an article's history, in case of recent or long term vandalism, before nominating an article. Also, check the article's talk page and 'What links here' for prior nominations. If the article has been nominated before there will be a link from a VFD archive page.
Keep Humour by means of extreme stating-the-obviousness. I reverted all the recent rubbish (ironically back to its 2005 days...) -- (but) UntrueWhhhy?Whut?How?*Back from the dead* 23:20, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Keep. The oatmeal of obviousness can be used in moderation to cleanse the palate of comedy. SirModusoperandiBoinc! 23:36, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Delete --GeneralInsineratehymn 22:18, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Delete The CBC is always Channel 2. It's the only channel we get. Canadian remote controls only have Power and Volume buttons. True story. SirModusoperandiBoinc! 23:41, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Comments
Make mine a delete, if somebody includes the rest of the good channels into the UnMedia template and volunteers to take all the inclusions away after it's deleted. -- (but) UntrueWhhhy?Whut?How?*Back from the dead* 23:33, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
What about the television category. Isn't that enough? If that's too much, how about a telev category? SirModusoperandiBoinc! 23:41, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Old stub --GeneralInsineratehymn 22:00, 30 July 2007 (UTC)\
Delete. Extremely cliche follow through on a somewhat amusing concept. I liked this article more before I clicked on it. --TKFUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUCK 22:20, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Stubby, listy, introduction is a rephrasing of subject. Image caption is vanity. Chop --Alksub - VFHCMWARV {talk} 22:59, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Delete I don't think the first line is even make-sensable. (P.S. - Bravo Ins!) -- (but) UntrueWhhhy?Whut?How?*Back from the dead* 00:14, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Delete Yes, this is a concept worthy of writing. However, it should not be written like this. Placing a rewrite tag on it is not the answer, because most writers don't even spare those categories a passing glance. If deletion is the only way to draw people's attention to this article's need to be rewritten, so be it. And it needs to be rewritten. "In January of 2007, a release of the Epic Movie sequel opened in theaters. The sequel was directed by Mel Gibson" is an example of the dumbness exuded by this article.-SirLjlego, GUNVFHFIYCWotMSGWHotMPWotMAotMEGAEDMANotM+ (Talk) 19:35, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Going to surprise you by voting delete. It's just pure random - maybe there are glimmers of what might have been in the last paragraph, but barely enough to even give you the idea for a rewrite. -- (but) UntrueWhhhy?Whut?How?*Back from the dead* 00:10, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Delete per Strange but untrue. --Alksub - VFHCMWARV {talk} 00:22, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Delete The crappiness of this article is undeniable. Somehow, Dr. Phil is a rapper. This conept alone makes it worth killing. But, if not, consider this: it is random, with random numbers and random humor, it is all over the place perspective-wise, and "The Sandman has made such valuable musical contributions such as "Who the Fuck was That", recorded in early 2000" is arguably the funniest one in the article.-SirLjlego, GUNVFHFIYCWotMSGWHotMPWotMAotMEGAEDMANotM+ (Talk) 19:30, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Quite horrible, really. ----OEJ 19:50, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Delete From the first edit, looks like it was vanity hastily reattributed. -- (but) UntrueWhhhy?Whut?How?*Back from the dead* 23:52, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Never says what Plan 11 entailed, which may be the joke. If so, it is not well done at all -- misses nearly all openings to satirize pointlessness. ----OEJ 19:33, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Weak keep Some funny bits, if a little random. Also; I know it's a pathetic excuse, but it would make a big redlink hole in the middle of the keyboard! -- (but) UntrueWhhhy?Whut?How?*Back from the dead* 23:56, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Alright, SbU, how about this. I will personally guarantee you that, should this be deleted and that hole exist, I will recreate the article. Personally.-SirLjlego, GUNVFHFIYCWotMSGWHotMPWotMAotMEGAEDMANotM+ (Talk) 00:36, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
I was hoping to read a tale about a drifting tofu delivery boy. Instead I read this random whateveritis. Even Itsuki wouldn't think this was cool. SirModusoperandiBoinc! 00:42, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Delete I would say something like "well-written satire on the plight of immigrants today." However, it is not that. It is not funny, nor well-written. It devolves into a rant halfway past the long list, and it is not a topic that I care to see here. Also, I feel like it was on here before, but that could just be the voices in my head.-SirLjlego, GUNVFHFIYCWotMSGWHotMPWotMAotMEGAEDMANotM+ (Talk) 19:15, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Summaries of imaginary plotlines are not funny. 90% of this piece is simply summarized plot with no jokes, no scenes (therefore no situational humor), and little coherence. ----OEJ 19:41, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Weak keep I'd say de-expand actually - get rid of the technical stuff and it might be better. I'm voting thusly mainly because I might have a look at it a bit later to see if something wonderful can be made of it. -- (but) UntrueWhhhy?Whut?How?*Back from the dead* 00:04, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Delete
Delete Pseudo-factual, unfunny, and a non-notable, not-worth-salvaging concept. Some may say {{expand}}, perhaps, but consider this: would we miss this article if it were gone?-SirLjlego, GUNVFHFIYCWotMSGWHotMPWotMAotMEGAEDMANotM+ (Talk) 17:25, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Delete I assume it's supposed to be some kind of comment on Japanese whisky. RabbiTechno 17:46, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
I may not be Japanese but this article still offends me for some reason. --Dexter111344 17:52, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Delete Marked for expansion three months ago. It doesn't seem as if anyone has come along to help it since then. I have not the will nor the desire to expand it, so here we are.-SirLjlego, GUNVFHFIYCWotMSGWHotMPWotMAotMEGAEDMANotM+ (Talk) 17:11, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Delete because it can now be found here. --Dexter111344 17:50, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Delete --GeneralInsineratehymn 17:55, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Comments
Might be best to move it to UnDictionary. --Kip > Talk•Works••
Really quite funny, but terribly underdeveloped. I copied the text to my userspace, and will work on it at some future date if it gets deleted...I don't have the time right now, so I can't vote "Keep". ----OEJ 19:46, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Aww, I rather liked this one - very quick deletion there Zombie! Please do work on it OEJ... -- (but) UntrueWhhhy?Whut?How?*Back from the dead* 23:40, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Keep Seems quite unrandom and relevant to him, actually, and made me chuckle, at least when I worked out some of the jokes. You have to give points for using "piece of shit" in a vaguely intelligent joke. (/me now ducks in hope of not being Insinerated.) -- (but) UntrueWhhhy?Whut?How?*Back from the dead* 23:47, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Delete
2005cruft --GeneralInsineratehymn 16:54, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Delete It uses all of my favorite huff reasons. It's textbook horrible: random numbers, random "humor" (in quotes because it's not funny), poor spelling and grammar, and short. There is no reason to let this "flea" live.-SirLjlego, GUNVFHFIYCWotMSGWHotMPWotMAotMEGAEDMANotM+ (Talk) 19:47, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Gah! It not only has ruined one of my favorite childhood shows, its sentences run on and its content is offensive and unfunny at the same time.-SirLjlego, GUNVFHFIYCWotMSGWHotMPWotMAotMEGAEDMANotM+ (Talk) 19:44, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Delete Scattershot randomness that transcends crappiness. Rampant name-dropping and redlinks to boot, this stub doesn't deserve to live anymore.-SirLjlego, GUNVFHFIYCWotMSGWHotMPWotMAotMEGAEDMANotM+ (Talk) 19:41, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Delete From Lounge. It's a joke. No, literally, it's a joke. And either there's something I'm not getting, or it just isn't funny. -- (but) UntrueWhhhy?Whut?How?*Back from the dead* 16:35, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Delete A joke that made me laugh in the pub - after seven pints. Doesn't work when I'm sober. RabbiTechno 17:17, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Delete Uncyc is no place for jokes. Well, you know what I mean. --Kip > Talk•Works••
Delete From Lounge. Also from the Haskodrome series, which is strange enough that I haven't had the heart to nom it's few remaining pages. But this one doesn't stand alone, so here it is. -- (but) UntrueWhhhy?Whut?How?*Back from the dead* 16:35, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Delete My browser crashed while I read it - sure there's no connection, but I'm in a bad mood now. RabbiTechno 17:42, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Keep I had a quick tidy to see what was under the layers of grimy English and it turned out okay. If it gets deleted I'll nick the good bits for the Yocto article. -- (but) UntrueWhhhy?Whut?How?*Back from the dead* 00:21, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Keep It definately has merit now, post clean up. Thanks Sbu!! ~ Dame Ceridwyn ~ talkDUNVoNSEarc2.012:47, 30 July 2007
Keep this. It isn't that bad. --Dexter111344 17:36, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Delete Ends in a completely different place than where it started. While the Simpsons can get away with it, this article doesn't. -- (but) UntrueWhhhy?Whut?How?*Back from the dead* 23:49, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
Delete --GeneralInsineratehymn 04:23, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Weak Keep As per Kip the Dip. RabbiTechno 17:45, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Delete
Delete - Seems rather pointless and unfunny, never mind the fact that is is also very short. SirCs1987UOTM.t.c 16:49, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
Delete It's so short that the only thing I can make fun of it for is "phallic symbol." Oh, real original, comparing an obelisk to a penis.-SirLjlego, GUNVFHFIYCWotMSGWHotMPWotMAotMEGAEDMANotM+ (Talk) 18:01, 28 July 2007 (UTC)