Uncyclopedia:Votes for deletion
From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia.
Rules and procedures:
- Before doing anything else, make sure that you are well versed on Uncyclopedia's deletion policy.
- If you're too lazy to read the deletion policy, please, at least, carefully read this list of rules.
- But seriously, read the deletion policy.
- 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 may 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 very much.
- 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 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.
- Do not revert edits of the administrators.
- If you are neither an administrator nor a designated poopsmith, do not remove anything from VFD; doing so will get you banned for a very long time.
VFD: Where bad articles go to get
recycled.
Pages for Deletion
Make sure that you have read the rules (above) and the deletion policy. Please don't nominate Main Page or Votes for Deletion; that joke has been done so many times we might just beat you with a nailbat before we tear our hair out in frustration. This also applies to Uncyclopedia In jokes.
How to quickly find VFDable articles (using special pages):
Notes for Administrators:
- Remember to delete any unused images from deleted articles and, if nessessary, 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.
If VFD is full, or if you are an IP or a user of less than 4 days, and you want to report something as potential rubbish for us to vote on in the future, please proceed to the Poopsmith's Lounge. Just remember not to sit on the chairs.
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 |
|
| Delete |
 Gotcha! I was re-reading Juslim when I found the link to this crap pile hidden within. ---Pelargonium  (Talk)
- Delete. --Mn-z 05:55, December 16, 2009 (UTC)
- Delete.. Abolish and merge with Atheism. --RomArtus (talk) 12:29, December 16, 2009 (UTC)
|
| Comments |
- Thought this would be a no-brainer, but it's adequately written, at least the part before the list. A gaping problem is that it serves only to flesh out Juslim, which it neither explains nor codes as a link. And if we huff Juslim, then that gaping problem would become a gaping hole and this would have to follow it into oblivion. Spıke ¬ 02:17 16-Dec-09
|
| Keep |
|
| Delete |
- Delete. A bad article about about a fictional religion that combines Judaism and Islam, hence "Juslim." ---Pelargonium (Talk)
- Delete. "Hey! Juslims where the only Jews that the Nazis actually liked! Wow, this is crazy shit!" Just stupid. Spıke ¬ 20:12 15-Dec-09
- Delete. Have a possible good idea and then go and ruin it. However a merger between religions is not a bad idea for an article. This isn't it though. --RomArtus (talk) 12:31, December 16, 2009 (UTC)
|
| Comments |
- Islam contains a better comparison of the two faiths. Spıke ¬ 20:12 15-Dec-09
- This is true. ---Pelargonium (Talk)
- For that matter, Your estimate of how long to reheat the lasagna contains a better comparison of the two faiths.
 pillow talk 00:17, December 16, 2009 (UTC)
- Comment It appears the article is about Karaism, so its not as random as it looks. --Mn-z 05:53, December 16, 2009 (UTC)
|
| Keep |
 Keep. Relates to something real and is occasionally funny. Points off for being Brazilian, for botching English, and for showing the South American tendency to use acute accent instead of apostrophe. Spıke ¬ 20:08 15-Dec-09
|
| Delete |
- Delete. This seems to be an article about a Brazilian Myspace that you've probably never heard of. Unless you're brazilian.---Pelargonium (Talk)
- Delete. Not that good. --Count of Monkey Crisco 00:14, December 16, 2009 (UTC)
- Delete. --Mn-z 05:42, December 16, 2009 (UTC)
- Delete.. I am making a wild guess...it is crap in all languages.--RomArtus (talk) 22:08, December 16, 2009 (UTC)
|
| Comments |
|
| Keep |
- weak keep looks like there is some method in that madness. --Mn-z 18:29, December 15, 2009 (UTC)
- keepnot so bad but can be improved by "somebody who knows humor"you know who.joke about 12-25 year old males is funny--jupiterfox
|
| Delete |
- Delete. Your article appears to be having a seizure, an unfunny seizure. --Count of Monkey Crisco 18:16, December 15, 2009 (UTC)
- Delete. Looks like some n00b(s) attempted to make a different POV, but failed to execute it properly. ---Pelargonium (Talk)
- Delete. Pass the methadone . I feel a madness coming on. --RomArtus (talk) 12:27, December 16, 2009 (UTC)
|
| Comments |
- All right, I get it, this is another article in a point of view different from the usual encyclopedia one. Two, in fact, bitchily going point-counterpoint just like Spock and McCoy, or perhaps The Fockers. This may be the "method in that madness" that Mn-z cites. To me, though, alternate voices are an excuse for bad writing, for nagging and chest-thumping, for the cheap humor of cut-downs, creating caricatures in order to ridicule them, rather than real humor. Then again, I don't watch cartoons, so maybe this reaches the target audience. But why is an article allowed to start with a link to its own Pee Review? Spıke ¬ 18:46 15-Dec-09
|
| Keep |
- Keep but perhaps move to the UnBooks space. I thought it was weird and quirky but kind of charming. pillow talk 21:16, December 14, 2009 (UTC)
- Strong Keep There are tons of savable lines in this one. I found many parts very funny. Woody On Fire!
 Talking Woody Stalking Woody 17:35, December 15, 2009 (UTC)
- conditional keep if this gets cleaned up. --Mn-z 17:56, December 15, 2009 (UTC)
- Keep I like the name.
 FUCK YEAH I AM SO PUNK ROCK! 18:10, December 15, 2009 (UTC)
|
| Delete |
Delete random and poorly formatted. --Mn-z 19:31, December 14, 2009 (UTC)
- Delete. - Although famine has been known to eat said babies. -- Kip the Dip
 TalkWorksTreat WHORE! ☃ 19:39, Dec. 14, 2009
- Delete. Spıke ¬ 20:17 14-Dec-09
- Delete. Very bad article by a user who hasn't contributed anything since August 22. ---Pelargonium (Talk)
- Delete. Craptacularly awful. I see it was also signed by --SuperNinja HoboNika 09:10, 22 August 2009 (UTC) - so we know where you live. --RomArtus (talk) 07:17, December 15, 2009 (UTC)
|
| Comments |
- I'd say "saveable," the "silent e" remaining to signal that the preceding "a" doesn't change. Spıke ¬ 18:48 15-Dec-09
- Well, if you want to do it the American way, you can drop the "e" and write "savable". The British would rather have you writing "saveable" though. However, none of that matters since there is no officially acknowledged authority allowed to prescribe English orthography. English dictionaries should therefore only describe the spelling that is commonly accepted according to observed spelling rules. —Sir Socky
   (talk) (stalk)  KUN SotM UotM PMotM 02:41, 16 December 2009
|
| Keep |
- Keep It's actually kind of funny. --Ozymandiaz 17:48, December 14, 2009 (UTC)
- Keep. It is funny if you know the history of the IWETHEY group on the Internet. They were opposed to Uncyclopedia and vandalized a lot of pages here. We need this page as well as Digg, Reddit, LiveJournal, Facebook, MySpace, etc. The try harder to be funny means a rewrite not a deletion. They are even quoted here in the Uncyclopedia is the worst article. --Lt. Sir Orion Blastar (talk) 18:52, December 14, 2009 (UTC)
- I have to object to that. IWETHEY is nowhere near the same level of Digg, MySpace, etc. It doesn't have a Wikipedia article and practically fails UN:CM. In fact, this article up for deletion is the 2nd result on a Google search for IWETHEY. Taking a look at their defunct homepage that looks like it was designed in 1992, I'd say we "need" on article on them as much as we "need" an article on the GNAA. --Pleb SYNDROME CUN medicate (butt poop!!!!) 22:48, December 14, 2009 (UTC)
- Actually Wikipedia cites them three times as a reliable source. Two are articles on SCO and one is a user page. So Wikipedia lists IWETHEY as notable enough to be used as a credible source. Their Forums are down due to a Linux error and they claim to be Linux experts. So they set up a temporary form, but they used to have thousands of Google results before their main forum crashed and as I recall the number of Google hits is a factor. You can see thousands of web pages linking to IWETHEY web sites and forums. This article moved up to number two after their forum crashed last year and Google removed their forum links. Ask Elvis about it, he was the admin that had to deal with them. So it passes the Admins know about them test. Look I admit it can be funnier, but I am not the one to do it, someone else can rewrite it so it is funnier. --Lt. Sir Orion Blastar (talk) 04:53, December 15, 2009 (UTC)
- Keep. Though I wasn't around at the time this happened, I think the article's good enough to keep. ---Pelargonium (Talk)
|
| Delete |
- Delete. We got rid of IWETHEYvandals, now to the main course, which has not been nominated for VFD for 19 whole months. IWETHEY is a consortium of memes with a horrible acronym and a loud template that warns the reader to expect humor. Like Godot, it never arrives. Spıke ¬ 13:43 14-Dec-09
- Delete. This is the article's third nomination. I read through the other two nominations, and the rationale for voting keep was "This is an important part of Uncyclopedia history; IWETHEY is a notable forum whose history is intertwined with ours." Well, fair enough. You've convinced me that this is allowable vanity and that a page with this title should be allowed to exist. But this article is not fucking funny. It's a sophomoric repetition of all the Uncyclopedia memes I'm sick to death of. So let's delete it, and if anyone wants to try again and try harder, be my guest. My two cents. pillow talk 17:49, December 14, 2009 (UTC)
- Delete. Like above, it's not actually funny. Bit of an insult to Queen's too. I know some quite clever folks who went there. PTQ is funny. This is a load of crap. Myocardialinfarction 20:08, December 14, 2009 (UTC)
- Delete. 2005 meme vomit. --Mn-z 17:23, December 15, 2009 (UTC)
- Delete. See if ED wants it, because it's got no right to hang around here. --Count of Monkey Crisco 00:07, December 16, 2009 (UTC)
|
| Comments |
- WJU is good writing (despite some overlong titles) about an unremarkable institution. IWETHEY is Us writing about Us, and how we are so darned funny we drive people mad. Behind many double standards is a single standard that varies depending on whether it's Us doing it. Spıke ¬ 17:08 14-Dec-09
- Comment. I just want to remind everyone that UN:CM is a much different policy than Wikipedia:WP:N or Wikipedia:WP:V. On Wikipedia, if it fails N or V, it's deleted, if it passes, it's kept. Simple. But on Uncyclopedia - well, Martial Arts passes UN:CM, and we deleted it. Tapheselachophobia fails UN:CM, and we featured it. The real, true test for whether we want an article here is: does it make me laugh. pillow talk 05:19, December 15, 2009 (UTC)
- Comment Apparently if you want an article gone, this is proof that if you submit it to VFD multiple times that eventually it will be voted for deletion. Though I've countered all points that it isn't notable and I cited Wikipedia links, that Google has 75,000+ hits on it, that the Admins know about it, and that it was considered funny enough to keep twice, that eventually if you get enough people to consider voting to delete it because they don't understand the history about the group or that it was written in 2005. I may have to create a new and updated version after it is deleted and hope others join in to make it funnier. Though it should really be rewritten for modern humor, and written so that even people who don't know the history can find it funny, I feel it will be deleted anyway as the type of humor for this web site has changed from 2005 when the article was written. --Lt. Sir Orion Blastar (talk) 23:41, December 15, 2009 (UTC)
- Either that, or we just weren't very good in 2005. Anyway, like I said, I hope you do rewrite it, regardless of the outcome of this vote. pillow talk 00:19, December 16, 2009 (UTC)
- The problem with persecution theories is that there is usually an easier explanation. I heartily agree that "it should really be rewritten...so that even people who don't know the history can find it funny"--with all comparable Uncyclopedia articles. I didn't find it funny, and you understand! And I too hope you step up, given either outcome of the vote. Spıke ¬ 02:25 16-Dec-09
- Oh I will rewrite it. While I didn't start the article I did contribute to it over the years. Many others did write it with me, but they are gone now and moved on to other things. I got a feeling it will be deleted. Then he will lose the history of IWETHEY members vandalizing the article and blanking the page. I think they blanked and vandalized other pages as they usually use anonymous IP addresses and proxy servers. Some of them may have been Anonymous Slashy, Powershot, and other trolls that tried to disrupt our community. They are hacktivists and had an axe to grind with Microsoft and SCO. While they promote Linux and claim to be Linux experts their forum and wiki sites are often down due to Linux issues they cannot resolve. So it has taken a year to recover their data to the phase it is now and they got started in 1995 leaving Infoworld forums to start up their own, so they are tied with Infoworld and some worked for Infoworld and EzBoard. So if I do rewrite it I'll have to explain that type of history for people who don't know it. Avoid the MEMEs, and tie it into the Forums article somehow. --Lt. Sir Orion Blastar (talk) 05:13, December 16, 2009 (UTC)
- Once you rewrite it, talk to an admin about restoring the history so we can see the blankings, if you think that's important for the article. --Pleb SYNDROME CUN medicate (butt poop!!!!) 06:17, December 16, 2009 (UTC)
- Yes can some admin please copy it to my User Space so I can edit it and save the blanking evidence? That is if it gets deleted. I am going to rewrite it so it is funnier. I do this for some articles that get deleted but deserve a rewrite. --Lt. Sir Orion Blastar (talk) 22:13, December 16, 2009 (UTC)
|
| Keep |
- Keep. A week in Intensive Care first. The first third is well-written and relevant, though the rest is generic listcruft. Spıke ¬ 12:08 14-Dec-09
- Keep but remove the listcruft at the end. I'd do that right now, but it might seem like too radical an alteration when voting is ongoing. pillow talk 17:52, December 14, 2009 (UTC)
- Well, I guess it's keepable as a stub. —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) KUN SotM UotM PMotM 10:19, 15 December 2009
- Keep. per above. --Mn-z 17:26, December 15, 2009 (UTC)
|
| Delete |
|
| Comments |
|
| Keep |
|
| Delete |
- Delete. Would you like some red links with your tea? pillow talk 23:35, December 13, 2009 (UTC)
- Delete. I... uh... Wha? Get rid. --UU - natter
 10:32, Dec 14
- Delete. This is a demonstration of the soloist's virtuosity at free association (hence the red links). Not humor. Spıke ¬ 11:05 14-Dec-09
- Delete.. All those red links remind me of a school essay where the teacher crosses incorrect spellings, concepts and bad language with a red ink pen. --RomArtus (talk) 07:09, December 15, 2009 (UTC)
- Delete. looks like the remnants of an orphaned saga. --Mn-z 17:27, December 15, 2009 (UTC)
- Um...what? ---Pelargonium (Talk)
|
| Comments |
|
| Keep |
|
| Delete |
- Delete. Strange, and not in a good way. pillow talk 23:21, December 13, 2009 (UTC)
- Delete. per above. --Mn-z 17:29, December 15, 2009 (UTC)
- Delete. What is it? East Germany? An arcade game? An acronym for computer memory? Something to do with dancing? None of the above; it is a catch-basin of memes. Spıke ¬ 17:36 15-Dec-09
- Sure; there are actually at least four things that share the acronym. My rhetorical question above was to state that the article seems disinterested in having a theme, or sticking with a theme. Spıke ¬ 18:51 15-Dec-09
- Delete. It threatens to have a concept, but never really delivers. --Count of Monkey Crisco 00:25, December 16, 2009 (UTC)
|
| Comments |
- Umm... I have been too heavily involved with the article to ethically vote Keep, but please note that the article is already a substantial rewrite of what was originally created. If deleted, please userfy to User:Pentium5dot1/Storage facility/DDR. --Pentium5dot1(read this)t~^_^~c 02:08, December 14, 2009 (UTC)
- I don't think it's unethical to vote keep for any article if you like it. pillow talk 02:11, December 14, 2009 (UTC)
- (outdent) My above comments were probably confusing; I just want to clarify them. In summary, if this is deleted, then do all of the following: 1) userfy as specified above, 2) redirect to Dance Dance Revolution (delete resulting double redirects instead of fixing them since they wouldn't make sense afterwards), and 3) maybe consider copying to Illogicopedia. --Pentium5dot1(read this)t~^_^~c 19:33, December 14, 2009 (UTC)
|
| Keep |
- Keep. It's generally coherent and certainly salvageable. WIP tag abuse isn't a reason in and of itself to delete an article. pillow talk 08:05, December 14, 2009 (UTC)
|
| Delete |
- Delete While this isn't horrible as towncruft goes, it has been improperly tagged as WIP since April. I don't think it would have survived had the tag been placed correctly. --Pleb SYNDROME CUN medicate (butt poop!!!!) 18:15, December 13, 2009 (UTC)
- Delete. Yes, "coherent and salvageable"--but completely unremarkable. Spıke ¬ 10:49 14-Dec-09
|
| Comments |
- Wait! College students flouting gayness? A cinema with too many mandated wheelchair seats? That doesn't happen anywhere else! except Winchester, New Hampshire (see below) (at least, if it were big enough to have a college or a cinema). Spıke ¬ 10:49 14-Dec-09
|
| Keep |
- Keep. Griping about the Winchester Pickle Festival is hardly a generic gripe. I've confirmed that that's real, and if there were ever a legitimate target for satire... pillow talk 23:48, December 14, 2009 (UTC)
- There are legitimate targets for satire in my backyard! And no one cares! Surely we have no readers in Winchester other than the author(s)! Spıke ¬ 13:02 15-Dec-09
- If you wrote an article called The stupid-looking duck in my backyard, I would not vote delete based solely on UN:CM. In fact, I think that article has some potential. pillow talk 00:21, December 16, 2009 (UTC)
- It's not stupid-looking, dammit! Spıke ¬ 02:29 16-Dec-09
- If no one else wants it, I just might write that article over the holiday. --Pleb SYNDROME CUN medicate (butt poop!!!!) 06:19, December 16, 2009 (UTC)
|
| Delete |
- Delete. Codeine's Mum will never even locate on a map this town of 1,832 in the southwestern corner of the state. A page of generic gripes. Spıke ¬ 10:49 14-Dec-09
- Delete. per above and also UN:N about said Pickle Festival. --Mn-z 18:06, December 15, 2009 (UTC)
|
| Comments |
- Nashua (pop. 87,000) is the only other N.H. city with an Uncyclopedia article. Manchester (108,000) lacks one and it will be a while before the Muse mugs me. Spıke ¬ 20:16 15-Dec-09
|
| Keep |
- NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!! —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) KUN SotM UotM PMotM 23:12, 11 December 2009
- Weak keep. It's a massively overlong fucking mess peppered by random nonsense, sex jokes, and memes - but there are at least nine or ten fairly witty quips about Evangelion buried in the mess. It badly needs a rewrite, but until then, I guess this is better than a big red link. pillow talk 23:33, December 11, 2009 (UTC)
- SUPER NINTENDO, SEGA GENESIS! WHEN I WAS DEAD BROKE I COULDN'T PICTURE THIS! FUCK YEAH I AM SO PUNK ROCK! 23:34, December 11, 2009 (UTC)
- Keep. Save--Socky. Spıke ¬ 13:06 15-Dec-09
- Keep. --Mn-z 17:36, December 15, 2009 (UTC)
|
| Delete |
- Delete. Can we finally get rid of this shit? ---Pelargonium (Talk)
- Delete. A mess without merit. It looks horrible now and age will make it a lot worse by 2011.--RomArtus (talk) 13:19, December 12, 2009 (UTC)
|
| Comments |
 Comment. Oh, I get it...is this one of those articles that's too notable to delete? ---Pelargonium (Talk)
- Nothing's too notable to delete. When I consider deletion, my only question is "Is this article better than a blank page and a bunch of red links on other pages?" Here: barely. pillow talk 00:14, December 14, 2009 (UTC)
- Well, I did a few stuff. I hope it's better now, if only slightly. —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) KUN SotM UotM PMotM 01:49, 14 December 2009
- Comment. (Formerly Delete.) What I take from this article, from the paragraph before the first quote to the drum-roll animation to call attention to the fact that there is an actual joke, is that the author thinks he's really cool. I might rescind my vote if Socky stops shouting and tells me what I'm missing. Spıke ¬ 23:37 11-Dec-09
- Well, basically what Hyperbole said. Also, it used to be less of a mess. And I think we both know what usually happens when anonymous users continually edit an article. —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) KUN SotM UotM PMotM 11:11, 12 December 2009
- I rescind my Delete--but have also deleted Section 3 of the article, listcruft with repetition until only the authors are laughing, regarding what really happened at the end of the TV series: much speculation about the unknowable. 13:58 Reverted in part, but result is OK Spıke ¬ 14:32 14-Dec-09
|
| Keep |
- Weak keep. Concept is sound: Ridicule a TV star, mostly by anthromorphizing his beard. Execution is childish, with random crap from start to finish. It has attracted vandalism for years, which is indistinguishable from the article. Spıke ¬ 20:21 11-Dec-09
- Keep. Surprisingly, it kind of works for me. The random is offset by an awful lot of coherent. pillow talk 23:59, December 14, 2009 (UTC)
- Keep. per above. --Mn-z 18:02, December 15, 2009 (UTC)
|
| Delete |
- Delete. Richard Karn: affable sitcom co-star and quiz show host or Dutch mink farmer with laser beam eyes?!?!?! You be the judge. --Count of Monkey Crisco 18:42, December 11, 2009 (UTC)
- Delete. A mess, basically. --UU - natter 10:24, Dec 14
|
| Comments |
|
| Keep |
- Keep with edits. See comments below. Spıke ¬ 02:00 12-Dec-09
- Replace with Spike's rewrite. Or, alternately, delete and replace with Spike's rewrite. I still don't know whether we've figured out whether it's advantageous to keep a shitty article history. pillow talk 23:50, December 14, 2009 (UTC)
- This edit preserves the quotations, the photo and caption, and 2 paragraphs, so it's proper to credit the people who got it that far. Spıke ¬ 03:21 15-Dec-09
- Per Spike. Clearing the edit history is an internal copy-left violation. --Mn-z 17:58, December 15, 2009 (UTC)
- Hyperbole's point would be valid on a total rewrite, in which we'd huff the old article, move the new one, and the change history would be lost. But this isn't a total rewrite. Spıke ¬ 02:32 16-Dec-09
- Keep. As per Spike's edits. ---Pelargonium (Talk)
- Keep. The Revised Version as rewritten by Spike. --RomArtus (talk) 15:27, December 15, 2009 (UTC)
- With thanks to your knowledge of mythology for fleshing out Peter Pan's lineage. Spıke ¬ 15:32 15-Dec-09
- Keep. per the fixing. --Mn-z 17:59, December 15, 2009 (UTC)
|
| Delete |
Delete. Frequent claims of his alleged gayness and random crap throughout. ---Pelargonium (Talk)
- Delete. Per above, and SPIKE's
2nd indented comment under Keep where there's little left that's really funny about this article. --TrekCaptain 21:44, December 10, 2009 (UTC)
- Delete. Despite the gayness removal - this is essentially a Cliff Richard bio, without ever bothering to explain that Cliff is known as the Peter Pan of Pop, and without bothering to be funny or interesting to read. I suppose something could be made of a Peter Pan/Cliff Richard crossover article, but this is not it. --UU - natter 12:58, Dec 11
- Delete. -OptyC Sucks! CUN16:41, 12 Dec
Delete. Despite some changes , it is still basically the Cliff Richard story except the name has been changed to Peter Pan. Really Peter Pants as it stands. --RomArtus (talk) 07:31, December 15, 2009 (UTC)
|
| Comments |
- An adequate replacement article is in User:SPIKE/Peter Pan. 00:41 PS--If you want to go with this, it should be a keep-plus-edit, as this version keeps 2 paragraphs of Cliff Richard and the photo, and should preserve the change history. Spıke ¬ 02:00 12-Dec-09
- Why does the template put Keep before Delete? Why do readers read the rebuttals before the nominator's argument? Spıke ¬ 12:06 9-Dec-09
- (Changed from Keep. Spıke ¬ 12:41 11-Dec-09) Of course, gayness is the obvious hook to a Peter Pan article. However, the frequent returns to that gimmick in this article, starting in the intro, seem almost like vandalism. A good writer, with more knowledge of pop-music history than I, has cast Pan as a solo rocker; then some n00b has slapped together some first-person crap about gayness. If the musical history isn't based on reality, it should be half as long, as it isn't funny on its own, but either way, what's Uncyclopedia without an article on Peter Pan? Spıke ¬ 12:06 9-Dec-09
- I've deleted the "gay" material that seemed added as an afterthought and made other clerical changes. However, is this massive bio just a verbatim lifting of Cliff Richard's bio? If so, it's an overlong non-joke and there is little left that's really funny about this article. Spıke ¬ 23:26 9-Dec-09
- This could all be shoved into a story about Cliff Richard and leave the Peter Pan idea for a different joke. It isn't a parody about Peter Pan which is surely what that this article really needs. --RomArtus (talk) 10:17, December 10, 2009 (UTC)
|
| Keep |
- Keep the main article (see my Comment); blow away the sub-articles and templates. Spıke ¬ 11:39 8-Dec-09
- Contain there is some humor in the main article, but the sub-articles are just unfunny. --Mn-z 16:11, December 8, 2009 (UTC)
- Keep.. Keep for reasons outlined above.Delete the rest. --RomArtus (talk) 14:41, December 10, 2009 (UTC)
- Keep. -- Kip the DipTalkWorksTreat WHORE! ☃ 13:25, Dec. 11, 2009
- Bandwagon keep. Let's close this nom and make room for deleting more stuff. pillow talk 00:01, December 15, 2009 (UTC)
|
| Delete |
- Delete. Some sort of made up sport about elephants and fish nets. It's a bit nonsensical but overall it's just boring. --Count of Monkey Crisco 08:00, December 8, 2009 (UTC)
- Delete. I must have missed the bits that were funny in this - it's dull, and completely not worth the effort of reading it. --UU - natter 12:53, Dec 11
|
| Comments |
- Unlike the myriad of Grand Theft Auto articles we've killed, this one has an intro that introduces, and actually gives an idea of how to play the game. It's a complete article (with separate main articles and even a template), though with (necessarily) awful illustrations. There is merely the nagging problem that it doesn't relate to anything. But people who note the excessive spectacle of major American sports might consider it
good satire. Major development ended in 2006, as well as the presence here of early contributors Das Boot and Rabarint. Spıke ¬ 11:20 8-Dec-09
- The rest of Template:Pasketmaul probably also should be nommed. --Mn-z 16:11, December 8, 2009 (UTC)
|
Archived VFD Discussions
Closed nomination tag to indicate that the article has been kept. You have been warned.
