Uncyclopedia:Votes for deletion

From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia

(Redirected from UN:VFD)
Jump to: navigation, search
Shortcut:
UN:VFD
Deletion Policy
QuickVFD
Votes for deletion

Intensive Care Unit

del log

The goal here is to improve the quality of Uncyclopedia, not to win a vote. You can edit a page during a vote. You can flip your vote if the page improves or if other voters convince you.

To nominate a page for deletion
  • Read these rules and the deletion policy.
  • Do not increase the number of active nominations on VFD to over 20, as a 1 day ban often offends. (Inactive votes, which are grayed out, don't count in the limit of 20.)
  • Please check an article's history before nominating it. If there has been vandalism, revert it to the best past version. Also, check the article's talk page to see if it is in Category:Deletion Survivor. If so, Special:WhatLinksHere will find the relevant VFD archive(s); read about how the previous vote(s) went.
  • Add {{VFD}} to the article in question. Failure to do so will invalidate the vote.
  • If an article survives VFD, do not resubmit it for at least 1 month.

Add a new article here


How to quickly find VFDable articles (using special pages)

To vote to delete or keep an article
  • Edit the section for the article in question.
  • To vote, start a new line at the end of the delete= or keep= section, beginning with #. This creates a numbered entry. Do not put a space before #. Increment the delnumber or keepnumber, whichever applies.
    • To post brief indented replies to a vote, start lines with #: with one or more colons; anything else breaks the numbered list.
  • To type a comment, start a new line at the end of the comments= section, beginning with * (as comments need not be numbered).
  • Votes with an explanation, and comments, are more helpful in analyzing the quality of an article.
  • ~~~~ - Sign and timestamp your vote. Unsigned votes will be removed without prejudice.

Do not delete any content without authorization. To change a vote, strike your old one and add a new one. Do not change other users' posts. At least 24 hours must pass before a nomination is closed or an article is deleted.

Moderated by Spike or any Admin • Now hiring for Poopsmith • Engineered by Pup (report bugs here)

HowTo:Play chess H D

Score: 4
Elapsed Time: 54 hours
Delete (4)
  1. Symbol delete vote Delete. Nothing worth saving. Just a load of old ranty pants in my view. --LaurelsRomArtus*Imperator ITRA (Orate) ® 12:38, September 19, 2014 (UTC)
  2. Symbol delete vote Delete. Written in 2008 by DangerousMan, this ramble leads with Jew-bashing, bickering quote-cruft and the trite "nobody knows." The only work has been in correcting the coding and appending the bit about shoving the pieces up one's ass. Spıke ¬ 13:44 19-Sep-14
  3. Symbol delete vote Delete. It's pretty bad. Snarglefoop (talk) 14:17, September 19, 2014 (UTC)
  4. The beginning and middle are taken up by a somewhat random ramble about the history of chess; the last two paragraphs, all the article has to say about actually playing chess, are about as bad. Adding Chuck Norris did not improve matters. -– Llwy-ar-lawr (talkcontribs) 19:57 19 Sep 2014
Keep (0)

No keep votes.

Comments
  • Symbol comment vote Hmmm Actually there's one bit which might be salvageable, which is the idea that the black and white pieces represent characters in a race riot (OK it doesn't exactly say that in the article but it hints at it). Tie that in with the (real) origin of chess somewhere sometime in India, and with the invasion of India by some (presumed) white tribe or other at the end of the Bronze Age and there might be a hook to hang something on. Maybe throw in some obscure references to the caste system as India's apartheid, and voila, an article with jokes that only an anthropologist would get. Oh, well, whatever.... Snarglefoop (talk) 14:17, September 19, 2014 (UTC)
    Yes, there's some merit there but it seems like the sort of thing that should be given centre stage in Chess and perhaps just a side mention in HowTo:Play chess. -– Llwy-ar-lawr (talkcontribs) 19:57 19 Sep 2014
  • Llwy placed {{VFD}} tag; clock is reset. Spıke ¬ 20:15 19-Sep-14

Conservative Reform Alliance Party H Archive

Score: 5 • voting closed
Elapsed Time: 31 hours
Delete (5)
  1. Symbol delete vote Delete. An article no one is going to look up, on a party that doesn't exist. The humor strategy, see, is that the initials are C.R.A.P. After pointing this out, the article descends into listcruft. Spıke ¬ 19:08 20-Sep-14
  2. A bunch of random stuff about anuses. Doesn't go anywhere useful. -– Llwy-ar-lawr (talkcontribs) 19:38 20 Sep 2014
  3. Symbol delete vote Delete. Bleagh. Why do people think making something so stupidly impossible that nobody could believe it for a second is funny? Like setting a Canadian political party in the second century BC. Somewhat akin to writing an article on Chuck Norris's tenure as Prime Minister of Canada (except CN as PM is actually possible, at least in principle). Snarglefoop (talk) 22:21, September 20, 2014 (UTC)
    I think the reason is that they haven't read (or taken to heart) HTBFANJS: Nonsense dates aren't funny by themselves. Nor acronyms. It's not clear he actually meant to "set" the topic in the second century BC — only that he probably didn't mean anything. Spıke ¬ 01:36 21-Sep-14
  4. I like the name. That's all. --Nikau (talk) 05:07, September 21, 2014 (UTC)
  5. Symbol delete vote Delete. Reads like a twelve-year-old's idea of political satire. Capt. Gull (talk) 00:33, September 22, 2014 (UTC)
Keep (0)

No keep votes.

Comments

Worst 100 reasons to become a Christian H T D

Score: 2
Elapsed Time: 23 hours
Delete (2)
  1. Symbol delete vote Delete. More like 100 reasons to roll your eyes. Good old random yet still fairly intolerant trash that will drive away users, especially the part where it goes "priest molestation lol" without even making a joke. --Nikau (talk) 02:35, September 21, 2014 (UTC)
  2. Symbol delete vote Delete. Simple Ricky Gervais humour with half the effort. I'm sure the article on Christianity would have the same jokes, only funnier and written in the form of a paragraph. If you need 100 bulletpoints to elaborate your joke, it simply isn't funny. ConCass2 (talk) 10:00, September 21, 2014 (UTC)
    Indeed, our whole "Worst 100" family actively recruits crap to make them "complete." Recently, we've done a few of these without the "100" target. Spıke ¬ 14:16 21-Sep-14
Keep (0)

No keep votes.

Comments
  • I am more comfortable with "intolerant" than "random." If a bigot wants to write a truly entertaining article, fine. This one starts out with a fanboy intro, a big long list where none of the items are developed but most are simple slaps expected to be funny on their own; and ends with a gigantic UnScript of hilarious bickering between opposing caricatures playing out in some Uncyclopedian's mind. But I'm not yet convinced it couldn't acquire a comedy strategy. "of All Time" in the title is surplus. Spıke ¬ 02:46 21-Sep-14
I'm not comfortable with intolerance (unless it's a parody), there's a line between taking the piss and being hateful. On second viewing this isn't too intolerant, but it is still offensively unfunny. I despise most of the 100 lists because they're always about 75 entries too long and 3/4 entries are filler. --Nikau (talk) 04:06, September 21, 2014 (UTC)
  • I don't know... some of the list items are sort of funny. There shouldn't be so much bold text, though. And it's one of the 'Worst 100 of All Time' things, hence the title and the listness. Worst 100 are generally in a form similar to this, though the list items could be developed. -– Llwy-ar-lawr (talkcontribs) 03:14 21 Sep 2014
    They are bold text because they are "unnumbered headlines." But elaboration would be funnier than just one-liners. Spıke ¬ 03:23 21-Sep-14
  • Renamed. Spıke ¬ 14:22 21-Sep-14

Emo Prison H D

Score: 4
Elapsed Time: 21 hours
Delete (5)
  1. Symbol delete vote Delete. - Dated like hell. Who's even said Emo since 2008? --Nikau (talk) 05:10, September 21, 2014 (UTC)
  2. Symbol delete vote Delete. The 2006 creation of Evilcorporatemetaljesus takes something real (the Emo craze) and joins it to something unreal in the way that no reader will guess. The result is a springboard to randomness that never really gets clever. Spıke ¬ 12:50 21-Sep-14
  3. Symbol delete vote Delete. Dated, not dated, whatever, doesn't really matter -- but unfortunately it's not funny. Snarglefoop (talk) 13:51, September 21, 2014 (UTC)
  4. What everyone else said. -– Llwy-ar-lawr (talkcontribs) 13:57 21 Sep 2014
  5. What Spike said which means Symbol delete vote Delete. The preceding unsigned comment was added by TheWikiMan026 (talk • contribs)
Keep (1)
  1. Symbol keep vote Keep. An article being "dated" is not a valid condition to be delete on. By that logic, World War 2 should be deleted because it happened in the fourties. It's not a bad article. ConCass2 (talk) 09:53, September 21, 2014 (UTC)
Comments
  • The problem is not that the Emo fashion is now out-of-fashion. We could have an article on Lava lamp; but an article Lava Lamp University or War of the Lava Lamps might not even be saved by good writing. Author lives on, through his other Uncyclopedia contribution, Samuel L. Vacuum, a made-up person who becomes a springboard for navelism about what it's like to write an article — God-help-us, a Featured Article that we aren't supposed to touch. Spıke ¬ 12:50 21-Sep-14
    Is there any reason we're not supposed to touch featured articles, other than 'because I said so'? On Wikipedia they can be de-featured, and presumably they can be taken to AFD any time you like. I see no reason why we shouldn't work the same way. If any ballot-stuffing goes on we can always strike the undesirable votes. -– Llwy-ar-lawr (talkcontribs) 13:57 21 Sep 2014
    FA status doesn't amount to much anyway. It goes in a big category, the end. As for the article, fads are nothing like historical events or objects. Nudge nudge humor about an ancient joke isn't funny with nothing to back it up. Something like Kennedy being a womanizer is in the public consciousness today and so jokes about that work, the behavior of an old highschool clique isn't so they don't. --Nikau (talk) 15:01, September 21, 2014 (UTC)
    Yeah, all FA status amounts to is immunity from deletion, which increasingly seems to me to be rather a bad thing. I'm not fond of Samuel L. Vacuum either, since it goes on and on about itself and I prefer articles that don't try to give themselves away. If it weren't featured it might be deletable, since most of the people who voted for it on VFH aren't here anymore. 'If only, if only,' the woodpecker sighs... -– Llwy-ar-lawr (talkcontribs) 16:51 21 Sep 2014

The things your family doesn't know H D

Score: 4
Elapsed Time: 6 hours
Delete (4)
  1. I tried to take a nap and a scene from this article haunted me. Everything's basically been said already in the VFH nomination. -– Llwy-ar-lawr (talkcontribs) 20:17 21 Sep 2014
  2. Symbol delete vote Delete. Or move it to the the letters column at Hustler magazine, where it would fit in perfectly. But it's not what I would call "humor" -- the only thing "funny" about it is the surprise value of finding it on a humor website instead of a sleaze-porn site. Snarglefoop (talk) 20:19, September 21, 2014 (UTC)
  3. Symbol delete vote Delete. No humor detected. Spıke ¬ 22:03 21-Sep-14
  4. Symbol delete vote Delete. Doesn't belong here. Capt. Gull (talk) 00:25, September 22, 2014 (UTC)
Keep (0)

No keep votes.

Comments

Rivethead H T D

Score: 3
Elapsed Time: 5 hours
Delete (3)
  1. Symbol delete vote Delete. If there's something funny here I missed it. Snarglefoop (talk) 20:45, September 21, 2014 (UTC)
  2. A random ramble involving Nazis and kitten huffing; Evilcorporatemetaljesus' other contribution. -– Llwy-ar-lawr (talkcontribs) 20:49 21 Sep 2014
  3. Symbol delete vote Delete. Template tells me how to read the article. Quotes from Wilde and Jesus are author's own rage put into the mouths of Wilde and Jesus. First sentence is a rant. Second sentence begins, "It is a well-known fact...." I would have never gotten to the Table of Contents if this were not VFD. Summary: Author dislikes Goths, and when he realizes he has written several paragraphs and will be expected to write something funny, trots out Cthulhu, Germans, and Jews. Finally links off-site to someone's blog. Was it all just an advertisement? Spıke ¬ 22:08 21-Sep-14
Keep (0)

No keep votes.

Comments

The Church of Ass and Nipple Slips H T D

Score: 3
Elapsed Time: 1 hours
Delete (3)
  1. Symbol delete vote Delete. Listy (Galleries are photographic lists) article in the trite Wacky Religion genre. Also: porn. Spıke ¬ 01:19 22-Sep-14
  2. Symbol delete vote Delete. Yeah. Please note that the talk page should be deleted as well. I can't figure out if this is a rant, an attack page, or just soft porn but it's sure not humor. And whatever it is, the page's content seems to have slopped over onto its talk page, which does not actually contain anything like the discussion you might have expected. Snarglefoop (talk) 01:38, September 22, 2014 (UTC)
  3. Another article written with the expectation that sex is automatically funny. -– Llwy-ar-lawr (talkcontribs) 01:47 22 Sep 2014
Keep (0)

No keep votes.

Comments

Jew/Classic H D

Score: 3
Elapsed Time: 0 hours
Delete (3)
  1. Symbol delete vote Delete, or explain how it's funny. And, to quote Gandalf, "who will laugh, I wonder?" Starts with a quote from Hitler, goes on to rehash a bunch of trite negative stereotypes about Jews -- how is this not just an attack page? The silliness about bagels really doesn't save it, IMHO. Snarglefoop (talk) 01:51, September 22, 2014 (UTC)
  2. As I have said before--on a site where I was ultimately proved wrong--this isn't Encyclopedia Dramatica. -– Llwy-ar-lawr (talkcontribs) 02:02 22 Sep 2014
  3. Symbol delete vote Delete. There are many ways of dealing with the subject of Jews, and the way we do it, at Jew (in the obvious voice of a rambling Rabbi) is fine. This older version, by comparison, starts ranty and continues ranty. As I suggest at CoW#Extremists, it is very hard to write anti-Semitism (or many other things), even, say, for the sake of ridiculing anti-Semites, and not give the impression of serious advocacy. Spıke ¬ 02:22 22-Sep-14
Keep (0)

No keep votes.

Comments
Personal tools
projects