This page is an archive. The contents have been moved from another page for reference purposes only, and should be preserved in their current form. Discussion or voting on this page is not current. Any additions you make will probably not be read. The current version of this page can be found at Uncyclopedia:Votes for deletion.
Delete - I echo that sentiment. Sir Roger 06:24, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Delete The title made me laugh when I saw it. The article was a disappointment. --Dexter111344 06:37, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Delete It's a lyric from Dana Lyons' song "Cows with guns". Doesn't seem to warrant an article though, at least not this one... -- (but) UntrueWhhhy?Whut?How?*Back from the dead* 07:19, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Delete From Lounge. Good concept, but after the first sentence it's just rank description (in either sense of the word). -- (but) UntrueWhhhy?Whut?How?*Back from the dead* 22:40, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
Delete From Lounge. Goes fighty before it goes anywhere, and doesn't even have the decency to be about a real acronym. -- (but) UntrueWhhhy?Whut?How?*Back from the dead* 22:35, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Trash. --Under user 10:43, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Meaninglessness badly done. Intentionally irrational articles have to be done quite carefully. This one isn't. ----OEJ 13:01, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Keep I nearly huffed this, then decided actually we haven't got anything like it that I know of, and parakeet is one of the best words to write two hundred and forty-two times. -- (but) UntrueWhhhy?Whut?How?*Back from the dead* 22:23, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
Strong Parakeep I was the one that added the in-jokes category, btw. I had suggested it last night before it was huffed and then un-huffed, but it was protected then(it isn't now), so I put it on the talk page. EugeneKaywuzhere(whinethank) 22:50, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
I don't want to appear to be a puppet of the admins, but Spang and Savethemooses like this, and for that reason I have to vote Keep. SirCs1987UOTM.t.c 00:49, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Delete. A one-note gimmick. One involving a bird of some kind, apparently. Repetition can be used for humour. This is excessive. Also, pointless. SirModusoperandiBoinc! 22:34, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
Del33t. Euroi**ds was better. This isn't meta-humour, it's meta-meta-humour. --thematrixeætsyou, the ^_^ (talk) (flames) 08:47, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
De-parakeet - I was actually gonna QVFD this, but then dinner came. --AAA! (AAAA) 09:05, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Are you guys serious? Jesus. There's already other nonsense pages like this, do we really need another one? Roman Dog Bird 20:54, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Polly wanna crack 'er! Too similar to more popular (and older) pages. --Ye Olde Luke 21:55, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Comments
I am going to nominate this for deletion next month if this doesn't get deleted today. --GeneralInsineratehymn 02:01, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
And unless the page has changed significantly since then, the nomination would be void... rule 1.3 up at the top there would apply, as something that has already been VFD'd in its current state and kept should not appropriate for VFD without a significant change in circumstances. If it's deleted, it's deleted, if it's kept, it's kept. Just live with it - and don't game the system to get your way. •Spang•☃•talk• 03:04, 08 Aug 2007
Actually, it says nothing about requiring a significant change, so it could be nominated again. --SirStarnestommy (Talk • Contribs • CUN • Capt.) 09:07, August 8, 2007
Want to try it and see what happens? •Spang•☃•talk• 10:09, 08 Aug 2007
Kept Because I can't be bothered to climb over STM's cold dead body to huff it. -- (but) UntrueWhhhy?Whut?How?*Back from the dead* 23:53, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Random stub. --Under user 10:04, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Comments
I was working on a rewrite a few months back and then ran out of steam about half way through. If anyone wants to poke me (or the article) with a stick, I might get back on it. The only pee review I got on it was "I'm too stupid to get this article" or something to that effect. --monika 01:31, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
It's a good rewrite. It now rules the page - now make it even better! -- (but) UntrueWhhhy?Whut?How?*Back from the dead* 23:53, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Blackula? --GeneralInsineratehymn 19:20, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
Blackula, old women smoking, James Brown, and so many other stupid things... I guess I can say delete this randomcruft. --Dexter111344 20:43, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
Delete - Very random and stupid. SirCs1987UOTM.t.c 01:21, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Old stub --GeneralInsineratehymn 23:39, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
It took me exactly 4 seconds to read the whole thing. Just three paragraphs. This didn't even say what instrument he plays. Delete this crap! --Dexter111344 00:34, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
This page is in Dire Straits. Get it? Ha ha hah heh...huh...um, yeah. DeleteSirModusoperandiBoinc! 19:53, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
Delete. It'll be nice at home in the Underworld along with that piece of MO's soul. --TKFUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUCK 01:17, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Weak keep It's not brilliantly written, but the idea's alright. -- (but) UntrueWhhhy?Whut?How?*Back from the dead* 19:25, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
Keep - Interesting idea. SirCs1987UOTM.t.c 02:36, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Keep - Concept is good, needs some work, though I'm characteristically unprepared to do it ;P I'd like to, but lets face it, I won't get around to it. ~ Dame Ceridwyn ~ talkDUNVoNSEarc2.003:37, 06 August 2007
Weak keep It's a great idea and the first half (what was put there by the first author) is good. Somebody please write more of it? -- (but) UntrueWhhhy?Whut?How?*Back from the dead* 09:33, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
Keep. I expanded upon the chocolate money part and added an awful picture. Still, a picture is a picture, and the old version had none. --TKFUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUCK 23:09, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
Old stub (2005) --GeneralInsineratehymn 01:53, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
Delete Uggh, I liked the chocolate money part but it went quickly downhill from there! :(( ~ Dame Ceridwyn ~ talkDUNVoNSEarc2.010:51, 04 August 2007
Reread as per TKF and sorry, but my vote stands. ~ Dame Ceridwyn ~ talkDUNVoNSEarc2.006:33, 05 August 2007
*Delete - I didn't like any of this. SirCs1987UOTM.t.c 13:12, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
Delete I disagree with you, SbU. I think this is a pretty terrible idea. It also is written variably between first and third person narrative. Fairly obvious in its attempts to lean left, this article also falls victim to namedropping. No good on any counts, I say nay.-SirLjlego, GUNVFHFIYCWotMSGWHotMPWotMAotMEGAEDMANotM+ (Talk) 17:18, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
Reagan loved jellybeans. So this joke is just stupid. --Dexter111344 19:18, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
Expanded here - more delete votes?
Delete Not worth keeping. And anything with a pic of Reagan is a minus. Sir Roger 05:38, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
Still crap --Dexter111344 17:36, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Comments
I expanded upon the original idea and got rid of the parts no one liked, so reconsider your votes, everyone who voted against :) --TKFUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUCK 23:20, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
I changed the pic again, since a non-paint job is better than a bad paint job. --TKFUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUCK 23:10, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
I was a meh before, and I still am. --Under user 08:22, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
Kept because I'm totally confused on who's voted for what now. Re-VFD the new one if you really object to it. -- (but) UntrueWhhhy?Whut?How?*Back from the dead* 23:53, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Keep "Students make up the majority of the Cambridge population; as a result, if insufficient tourists visited Cambridge during the periods when students were home for the holidays, the entire town would rise half an inch from the fens due to isostatic rebound." It does need some pruning though - I don't know why I'm surprised that it's attracted so much juvenile content considering the other Uni articles we get, but somehow I expected more of Cambridge! -- (but) UntrueWhhhy?Whut?How?*Back from the dead* 19:35, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
Weak keep --Dexter111344 21:43, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
Very weak, watered-down keep. Has the occasional decent idea buried in the dross, but a lot of pruning is required. (I don't have the necessary green fingers to do it though). --Under user 09:07, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Strong Keep Definately keep worthy, far above the usual standards around here. Has relatively few memes or in-jokes, hardly any randomness and reasonably well-structured sentences which show some inkling of intelligent thought. ~ Dame Ceridwyn ~ talkDUNVoNSEarc2.003:08, 07 August 2007
Delete How do so many n00b IPs find out about Kitten Huffing? Have we a giant sign on the front page now? -- (but) UntrueWhhhy?Whut?How?*Back from the dead* 00:11, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
I blame it on this. Perhaps we should get rid of the Kitten Huffing reference there, now that e|m|c has done a great job of updating of the other pages. SirCs1987UOTM.t.c 04:44, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
Hmm... maybe. In which case why don't we get more "i burning your dog" references? I think people must mainly just find it from all the other articles like this one, in which case we're helping here already! -- (but) UntrueWhhhy?Whut?How?*Back from the dead* 08:56, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
Delete - Stupid, random, not funny. SirCs1987UOTM.t.c 04:44, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
Delete "Bad Flirting for Males" section is mainly just a list of completely idiotic pick-up lines(says the man who is behind much of Worst 100 Pick-Up Lines of All Time...), while the rest continues to be crap. Also, don't forget the redirect. --Dexter111344 17:43, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Delete One good line I'll salvage here: "In conclusion, you are guilty of bad flirting, and so is your grandpa. Please tell him to stop calling me." -- (but) UntrueWhhhy?Whut?How?*Back from the dead* 00:08, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
Delete. The article was not worked on since 2006 and it isn't funny either. Alot of clean-up would be needed but I don't think its worth it. --Eiyuu Kou 15:11, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Old stub filled with randomness. --GeneralInsineratehymn 23:18, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Delete Nazis, Soviets, etc. A better article on the poppy connection might have been a better way to go. Maybe. -- (but) UntrueWhhhy?Whut?How?*Back from the dead* 23:53, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Delete - Stupid, random, unfunny. Also, the whole article is basically just a list. SirCs1987UOTM.t.c 04:52, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
Delete - As per the above. --Under user 08:33, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
Keep Needs some editing for sure. Some people may not be familiar with the numerous Gowan songs incorporated in the article. Sir Roger 03:13, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Delete
Delete Fightcruft - roundhouse kicks aplenty. You know, one of these days I must find out what a roundhouse kick actually is... -- (but) UntrueWhhhy?Whut?How?*Back from the dead* 19:01, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
Delete That is on hell of a misspelling of Osama bin Laden's name right at the end. --Dexter111344 21:40, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
Roundhouse kick it into oblivion --Kip > Talk•Works••
Delete - This has been created multiple times now. We should really keep our eyes out for it. SirCs1987UOTM.t.c 02:43, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Delete. I don't think this can be edited into anything coherent and amusing. If Sir Roger wants to prove me wrong, I'm ready to learn... --Under user 09:02, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Delete Sbu, I think its a high kick where your leg comes up at a right angle out to the side then around and kicks. That doesn't have any bearing on how bad this article is though. ~ Dame Ceridwyn ~ talkDUNVoNSEarc2.010:38, 06 August 2007
Delete A character from the Bond films, not that you'd know it from this. Hitler, starfleet, etc. -- (but) UntrueWhhhy?Whut?How?*Back from the dead* 18:18, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
Delete random in a bad way. --Dexter111344 21:12, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
Delete - More random unfunny stuff. SirCs1987UOTM.t.c 02:41, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Delete. I shouldn't look at VFD on a monday morning. Stuff like this really doesn't set me up well for the week. Random and unfunny. --Under user 08:59, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Delete I really have no idea... Transcript with bits altered to be crude I think? -- (but) UntrueWhhhy?Whut?How?*Back from the dead* 18:04, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
I only read half of the transcript. Sue me. --Dexter111344 21:28, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
Delete - Crap in many respects. SirCs1987UOTM.t.c 02:39, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Delete I stopped reading at "Estelle Getty: Yo Yo Mutha FukkahhhhZZ!!1!!."~ Dame Ceridwyn ~ talkDUNVoNSEarc2.003:44, 06 August 2007
Delete. Random, unfunny, incomprehensible, more unfunny gay jokes... --Under user 08:56, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
I created this article and I think I cannot actually make it into a particularly funny one. It seems to have just turned into a stupid imitation of the Daily Mail article. The jokes either do not make sense or are just stupid. --Hydraton31 13:52, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Comments
Put it on QVFD and say it is a deletion request from the author. Don't use VFD for new pages you wrote yourself. SirCs1987UOTM.t.c 13:57, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
But if you don't want this cute little critter to encounter the grim reaper, gather up some of your friends and expand it. --GeneralInsineratehymn 02:43, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Keep Its like a Ferrero Rocher, peel off the paper and theres a lovely little chocolate treat inside! ~ Dame Ceridwyn ~ talkDUNVoNSEarc2.003:25, 06 August 2007
Keep It was actually rather vandalised: this might help to explain. Reverted, it's probably more up to the expectations raised by the first paragraph. -- (but) UntrueWhhhy?Whut?How?*Back from the dead* 09:52, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
Keep - mediocre, but if we were to delete every article of this quality on the site it would take us years. SirCs1987UOTM.t.c 13:16, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
Needs to be rewritten but I'm not going to do it. --Dexter111344 19:36, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
Keep Actually not so bad if not for the redlinks. It's also a little short and begs to be expanded, but hey, I don't mind it.-SirLjlego, GUNVFHFIYCWotMSGWHotMPWotMAotMEGAEDMANotM+ (Talk) 23:22, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
Keep. It's not too bad. Didn't raise my delete hackles. --Under user 17:04, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
Keep It's not that bad. At one time Halo was the top of Special:Wantedpages. If we delete it there will be tons of red links, leaving room for vandalism. --Kip > Talk•Works••
Keep The reverting really cleaned it up, its now keepable imo. Changed my vote. ~ Dame Ceridwyn ~ talkDUNVoNSEarc2.002:45, 06 August 2007
Delete aside from the packshot which is actually quite good, the concept fails after the first paragraph. The idea had potential but fails to be funny from there. ~ Dame Ceridwyn ~ talkDUNVoNSEarc2.007:22, 04 August 2007
Delete every article of this quality, even if it takes years. Sir Roger 06:14, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
Comments
Comment: Um, Ljlego, you know that your "delete" is in the "keep" section, right? If we start letting them mix together, they might start breeding with one another, and we all know how that would turn out. P.M., WotM, & GUN,Sir Led Balloon(Tick Tock)(Contribs) 02:48, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
weak keep I took out the awful last sentence mentioned by Lj. I think this has potential, if expanded. If only I had the time... P.M., WotM, & GUN,Sir Led Balloon(Tick Tock)(Contribs) 02:44, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
Keep Someone will eventually expand this. For anyone who doesn't know, it's the name of a play and movie. I'll put a link to Wikipedia. Sir Roger 05:46, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
Weak Keep. Not an obvious delete like many here, although it does need expansion by someone with enough spare time. --Under user 16:52, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
Keep I've thought about it, and while this may not be feature-worthy, we should have an article on it and this probably devotes enough words to cover the topic unless anyone wants to rewrite it :) ~ Dame Ceridwyn ~ talkDUNVoNSEarc2.002:20, 06 August 2007
Old stub (2005) --GeneralInsineratehymn 01:55, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
Weak Delete Call me a delete-happy freak, as it's not horrible, but allow me to explain my rationale for the deletion of this. The concept is completely out of left field, which is always a minus unless well done. While the prose is somewhat more well put-together than most articles around here, it's still completely random. Historically accurate names are sort of OK, but all in all, this unnotable topic doesn't need to be here. Plus, it ends with "Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf is also the name of a little known pulp novel about racy goings on in suburbia by obscure gayporn actor and pottery enthusiast Edward Albee." Need I say more?-SirLjlego, GUNVFHFIYCWotMSGWHotMPWotMAotMEGAEDMANotM+ (Talk) 17:22, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
Comments
Undecided I'll sleep on it. At first it seemed really bad, but then it kinda grows on you. Needs expanding, though I'm not the one to do it. ~ Dame Ceridwyn ~ talkDUNVoNSEarc2.010:55, 04 August 2007
Delete Poor formatting, duplication, (haven't we just seen Need for Speed?) riddled with spelling mistakes and bad concept, oh and its not funny. ~ Dame Ceridwyn ~ talkDUNVoNSEarc2.007:20, 04 August 2007
Delete - stupid and random. SirCs1987UOTM.t.c 13:20, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
None of this is salvageable, especially the Need for Weed crap. --Dexter111344 19:41, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
Delete I feel like it's the same article I read twice with the NFW series that was previously deleted. All that went for that goes for this.-SirLjlego, GUNVFHFIYCWotMSGWHotMPWotMAotMEGAEDMANotM+ (Talk) 23:20, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
Delete - Random, lists. SirCs1987UOTM.t.c 13:22, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
Random and unfunny. And God has an ATM card. --Dexter111344 19:29, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
Delete ATM Card, eh? What with the Latin, I thought this thing was going to be promising, if short. Sadly, it was not. The Latin reads as randomness in this context, and we all know how bad that is. It then gets even more random, adding numbers to the mix and even more random humor. That, its prose sucks, and its length all scream to kill this puppy. Sorry, dog. The tribe has spoken.-SirLjlego, GUNVFHFIYCWotMSGWHotMPWotMAotMEGAEDMANotM+ (Talk) 23:19, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
Delete Ya had to go and name drop God and Oscar Wilde :( ~ Dame Ceridwyn ~ talkDUNVoNSEarc2.006:36, 05 August 2007
Delete. A total mess. --Under user 16:59, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
Delete - Not funny, big list. SirCs1987UOTM.t.c 13:25, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
Delete It went off the original topic. And it didn't even pull off the original joke well. --Dexter111344 19:13, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
Delete While the original joke is humorous, it devolves rather quickly to a mishmosh of random numbers, a giant list, and then something completely different. I don't get why mentioning the future as if it happened is supposed to be funny, but it isn't, especially not here.-SirLjlego, GUNVFHFIYCWotMSGWHotMPWotMAotMEGAEDMANotM+ (Talk) 23:14, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
Delete This is a new page from an IP who I believe I placed on Ban Patrol for something else. However, it is too long to QVFD, but notice the long lists. They make up essentially the entirety of the article, and they're (as usual) not funny.-SirLjlego, GUNVFHFIYCWotMSGWHotMPWotMAotMEGAEDMANotM+ (Talk) 12:18, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
Comments
ICU. Actually, I just tagged it. I see no need to get rid of this immediately. SirCs1987UOTM.t.c 13:41, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
I figured I'd put it here instead of ICU because the concept is irredeemable. We don't need another retarded gay joke on here. ICU takes too long, and as long as the author adds more to the lists it will just be pushed back more. That's why I didn't ICU it.-SirLjlego, GUNVFHFIYCWotMSGWHotMPWotMAotMEGAEDMANotM+ (Talk) 14:29, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
Acctaully, the point of ICU is that it take "too long". Well, I like to think of it as "just long enough". Also, Kept. -- BrigadierGeneralSirZombiebaron 17:37, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
Delete - Very listy and not funny. SirCs1987UOTM.t.c 13:44, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
Delete How off-shore whaling and politics are related to an invented game show that I still don't understand, I don't know. This, ergo, makes it random, and awful randomness at that. Plus, it's very listy and bad.-SirLjlego, GUNVFHFIYCWotMSGWHotMPWotMAotMEGAEDMANotM+ (Talk) 15:54, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
Huge article (over 1 mb) that begins with a giant text block, then dissipates into an even bigger list. Based on a weak concept that the article stretches so unbearably thin. Delete --TKFUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUCK 22:25, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Two sentences and a random Russian does not an article make. --TKFUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUCK 23:31, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
Delete This is too short for me to actually say anything about it besides that. Wow. I'm disappointed...../me wanders aimlessly around the bus stop.-SirLjlego, GUNVFHFIYCWotMSGWHotMPWotMAotMEGAEDMANotM+ (Talk) 23:42, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
DeleteIn Soviet Russia, article deletes YOU!!Sir Roger 06:01, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
Fuck this shit It needs to be hit with a bat in it's fucking back. --Dexter111344 22:50, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
Delete While I'm all for making fun of Stalin, this is not the way to do it. This suffers the same ranting tone that exudes from all the liberal crap that also hits the site. And the conservative crap. If this was at all subtle in its efforts, then yes, I'd say keep. But since it's not, this tripe needs to go. Plus, it's a concept that won't be missed.-SirLjlego, GUNVFHFIYCWotMSGWHotMPWotMAotMEGAEDMANotM+ (Talk) 23:41, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
Delete While I laughed aloud at the "Helpful Comparison Chart," everything else was rather shitty. I can't really stress enough how randomness is bad unless executed well! WELL, DAMN YOU! In any case, it's also formatted bad and all-around sucks. Sorry.-SirLjlego, GUNVFHFIYCWotMSGWHotMPWotMAotMEGAEDMANotM+ (Talk) 23:37, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Couldn't bring myself to read it all, I was just bored. There may have been a humdinger of a final line. Doubt it though. --Under user 17:37, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
Delete Yeah, its rampant namedropping begins in the very first sentence and doesn't let up from there. It reminds me of this time when Oscar Wilde and Chuck Norris had a gay sex orgy with Tom Cruise, who complained about how randomly saying Robert Ludlum and Jack Bauer isn't fucking Billy Crystal!-SirLjlego, GUNVFHFIYCWotMSGWHotMPWotMAotMEGAEDMANotM+ (Talk) 23:33, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
Delete --GeneralInsineratehymn 22:08, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
Delete A partially racist (Fat-wa), all stupid concept that is carried to even more miserable fruition than it promises. Yes, the last line made me chuckle. However, as the last line is 1/3, and 2/3 are the other parts of the article that I didn't laugh at, this is a Delete vote. Plus, who is Andy Bruce?-SirLjlego, GUNVFHFIYCWotMSGWHotMPWotMAotMEGAEDMANotM+ (Talk) 23:30, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Wasn't even that keen on the last line. --Under user 17:06, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
Delete It has an idea, but it isn't expanded on, nor is it funny. SirCs1987UOTM.t.c 13:28, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
Delete Finally, someone has Mickey Rourke even less attractive than he already is. Dame GUNPotYWotM2xPotM17xVFHVFPPooPMS•YAP• 17:12, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
Crapola,I just read an article that is pure Crapola. And suddenly it seems, that nothing can be rhymed with this Crapola! Dame GUNPotYWotM2xPotM17xVFHVFPPooPMS•YAP• 17:16, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
Delete Woohoo, more random tripe. This is like pure crappiness, bottled. I really have no more to say other than random random random pie.-SirLjlego, GUNVFHFIYCWotMSGWHotMPWotMAotMEGAEDMANotM+ (Talk) 17:27, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
Delete This is a very strange, very random, very very article. I probably don't need to list what exactly is wrong with it, but I can try. It's probably vanity, albeit poorly written even by those standards. It's nonsensical, its prose doubles up on itself like there's no tomorrow, and all in all is just pure crap. No way.-SirLjlego, GUNVFHFIYCWotMSGWHotMPWotMAotMEGAEDMANotM+ (Talk) 17:30, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
The system was atrocious. This article is even worse. --GeneralInsineratehymn 01:51, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
I should have stopped when I got to "Winston Churchill and Leon Trotsky". Sadly, I went on. Delete --TKFUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUCK 01:53, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
Delete Hmm... CD player, Islam. Spot the connection. Because I can't. -- (but) UntrueWhhhy?Whut?How?*Back from the dead* 09:24, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
Delete :( I can't think up good reasons why, they just should be deleted! ~ Dame Ceridwyn ~ talkDUNVoNSEarc2.010:20, 04 August 2007
Delete --GeneralInsineratehymn 01:50, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
Delete "The first thing RJL ever did was to enact the Oedopus complex when he was born, not before being flung out of the maternity ward by his own mother." -- (but) UntrueWhhhy?Whut?How?*Back from the dead* 09:26, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
Keep. Erm im not sure if im allowed to post here but if im not i spose you can just remove my post eh.. anyways... i thought it was good... i mean i made it and was hoping it would be good with you guys... maybe not --Drifter 04:35, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
Delete
Delete. Proof that sequels can be just awful, even when it comes to articles. --TKFUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUCK 01:47, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
Delete --GeneralInsineratehymn 01:49, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
Delete Sorry Drifter, I know you feel protective of your articles, we all do, and you are more than allowed to post here in favour of keeping it, however you have to provide a reason. Unfortunately it isn't funny and has poor structure and not a lot of actual content. :( ~ Dame Ceridwyn ~ talkDUNVoNSEarc2.007:25, 04 August 2007
Delete. Marajuana? Marajuana? When the page loses the reader at the title an angel loses its wings. The page, sadly, doesn't improve from that sad start. SirModusoperandiBoinc! 07:43, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
Keep Fairly obvious spoof on the prescription culture, but some laughs. -- (but) UntrueWhhhy?Whut?How?*Back from the dead* 23:40, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
Keep I laughed quite enough for its length. It simply needs to be radically expanded and/or rewritten. I am not guaranteeing I will do it, but this deserves some more life.-SirLjlego, GUNVFHFIYCWotMSGWHotMPWotMAotMEGAEDMANotM+ (Talk) 02:21, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
Nom and Delete Two stupid lists and a whole load of other nonsense. Roman Dog Bird 20:39, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
Delete --GeneralInsineratehymn 20:46, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
"Hey, I'ma list a bunch of non-related people like Goku and Chuck Norris because it'll be funnah!" You were wrong. It wasn't funny. Maybe if you got rid of some of those people it'd be better. But, since you won't, DELETE!!! --Dexter111344 20:50, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
Delete I didn't even read it. It's two lists. Long long long long lists. This plus unnotable topic = bad article, the end.-SirLjlego, GUNVFHFIYCWotMSGWHotMPWotMAotMEGAEDMANotM+ (Talk) 00:36, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
Delete You might as well delete the pictures as well. --Dexter111344 21:35, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
Delete The use of {{USERNAME}} alone merits this thing's deletion. In case that tickles your fancy, consider this: we have an MS Paint-ed image of Ron White pissing himself. Needless to say, it's horribly unfunny. We have rants against souther culture in general. These are random and unfunny. We have the ubiquitous random numbers and obligatory sex joke. It uses the term "lol." In closing, to paraphrase, this article "gave me alcoholism at the age of -18".-SirLjlego, GUNVFHFIYCWotMSGWHotMPWotMAotMEGAEDMANotM+ (Talk) 00:34, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
As the mis-formatted Randy Travis quote says, I don't know who that is. --Dexter111344 21:30, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
Delete This article exudes badness. The picture of the panda itself shows that this article deserves not the meager spotlight it gets. It's random, it's random, it's random (three times still doesn't quite show it), and in all honesty, I think that it's vanity. To end tonight, here's your moment of zen: "After many millions of years, at the tender age of six..." What?-SirLjlego, GUNVFHFIYCWotMSGWHotMPWotMAotMEGAEDMANotM+ (Talk) 00:15, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
Hahaha. You said rectum, used the USERNAME template, and put a lot of red links. --Dexter111344 21:27, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
Delete Rather listy if I do say so myself. Also, it is nearly impossible to discern the concept of this piece. It's short, it's not funny, it uses random numbers, and all around is not very good. It is obvious that the author put minimal effort into this endeavor, so no.-SirLjlego, GUNVFHFIYCWotMSGWHotMPWotMAotMEGAEDMANotM+ (Talk) 00:07, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
By using my super-fast list reading skills, I quickly deduced that this articles author has no idea what a funny list is! Delete this crap! --Dexter111344 21:22, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
Delete This isn't really a list. However, there are still many reasons to delete it. For one, it uses almost every Uncyclopedia in-joke/meme in predictable ways. It is random (in-jokes perhaps), and is altogether of "damnably low quality."-SirLjlego, GUNVFHFIYCWotMSGWHotMPWotMAotMEGAEDMANotM+ (Talk) 00:00, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
Delete Had I realized this was bad enough for the Poopsmith's Lounge, I would never have attempted to organize a feeble cleanup effort. Pentium5dot1 00:31, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
Delete It starts off promisingly enough. The beginning is so coherent it's impossible to believe that the rest of the article is attached. But it is, so for randomness, unfunniness, and a plethora of other reasons that I've iterated many many times, delete this garbage.-SirLjlego, GUNVFHFIYCWotMSGWHotMPWotMAotMEGAEDMANotM+ (Talk) 23:10, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
Delete For the last time people! thesearefunnylists! Learn what makes them good, you fucks! --Dexter111344 20:59, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
Delete Lists notwithstanding, this still deserves to go. It jumps from random thought to random thought in, obviously, no coherent pattern. It seems to think namedropping and memes are funny, and more importantly, thinks Harry Potter is a funny thing. It's not. The only genuine chuckle I got out of this was "J.K. Tolkein" and I feel like I've seen that a billion times. So, even without the lists, this thing doesn't deserve to live anymore than it already has.-SirLjlego, GUNVFHFIYCWotMSGWHotMPWotMAotMEGAEDMANotM+ (Talk) 23:04, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
Delete "Sirius is a bi sexual man whore who likes to huff kittens and play the bagpipes." I'm quite surprised how few edits there have been under this title considering. How come every single anime title gets spammed to pieces while characters from one of the most popular books ever written get left alone? -- (but) UntrueWhhhy?Whut?How?*Back from the dead* 23:53, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
My first time putting up something nominated for deletion. But anyways... this is an obvious Pokecruft article. I vote for Delete. -- Hanyouman 20:32, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
Delete --GeneralInsineratehymn 20:46, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
Fucking kill itRoman Dog Bird 20:55, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
KILL I swear it won't get better!!! Trust me on that! --Dexter111344 21:07, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
Comments
I think normally you don't nominate ICU'd articles for deletion - the writer gets a chance to improve it first. Sir Roger 20:35, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
Really? Hmmm. Well, I wasn't entirely keen about that so I apologize for not knowing. However, I have the feeling that it's really not going to improve... maybe it's just me? -- Hanyouman 20:38, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
You're definitely right, Hanyouman. This will not improve. Unless it is exceptional, the fanboy tone this takes will be its death. However, if we let the ICU run its course, it will get deleted. That's part of the deal. If it's not better within a week of the last edit, it will be killed. Which it will be, eventually.-SirLjlego, GUNVFHFIYCWotMSGWHotMPWotMAotMEGAEDMANotM+ (Talk) 23:01, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
Old crappy stub from 2006(this would sometimes be called 2006cruft) that only had two edits. Any chance of ever being expanded upon are extremely slim. Delete --Dexter111344 20:14, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
Delete --GeneralInsineratehymn 20:46, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
Delete The sentence literally eat themselves. Every last one of them is a grammatical nightmare. Though the concept initially incites a chuckle, the article fails to deliver on any level. It's not bad satire, it's not random humor, it's just Illogicopedia at its worst. Also, the ending is horrible, the middle ain't too good, and the beginning sucks. So the whole article is tripe. What to do....SirLjlego, GUNVFHFIYCWotMSGWHotMPWotMAotMEGAEDMANotM+ (Talk) 22:59, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
Delete --GeneralInsineratehymn 20:46, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
Delete This rant-toned piece would be better off gracing the pages of Liberalpedia. It's really not funny, it has no possible grain of truth (why would he invade France? They have nothing to offer!), and, while it is satire, it is bad satire, which is arguably less funny than random.-SirLjlego, GUNVFHFIYCWotMSGWHotMPWotMAotMEGAEDMANotM+ (Talk) 21:41, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
Delete Am I missing something, or is it meant to be this craptastic? And yes, I said craptastic. You got a problem with that? --Dexter111344 20:14, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
Delete Simply the lead-in alone is delete-worthy. Randomness of this type should be illegal, and all proponents of it be banished to hell. Then, just as it got to be the worst it could be, it got worse. Much worse. It changed the name from "Mad People" to "Mad Men" (which is dangerously close to MadMax, heh heh heh), and did various other bad things. Point is, "the Mad Men have become a cult" is not funny the first time, nor the second one.-SirLjlego, GUNVFHFIYCWotMSGWHotMPWotMAotMEGAEDMANotM+ (Talk) 21:34, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
Delete --GeneralInsineratehymn 20:46, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
Delete I was on the verge of saying keep and rewrite. Then I saw the second paragraph, and that's where my mind changed. It contained a random number and referred to Rome "before Rome was founded." It's all downhill from there. Plus, its ending sucked. "That's it, more to come"? Puh-leeze. Let's not give it the chance.-SirLjlego, GUNVFHFIYCWotMSGWHotMPWotMAotMEGAEDMANotM+ (Talk) 21:29, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
Delete Violence jokes are usually hard to pull off. One must be careful not to become too crude or gross. This is not accomplished here. As a general rule, articles should not contain too many lists, memes, or seemingly random humor. All three of these are also ignored here. HTBFANJS would cry if it saw this tripe.-SirLjlego, GUNVFHFIYCWotMSGWHotMPWotMAotMEGAEDMANotM+ (Talk) 18:09, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
Delete Random, unfunny, etc. I shouldn't have to say anymore, but I will, just to bore you. It contains abhorrent grammar ("James also sung the theme song.."), it skitters from one concept to the next (One minute she's Japanese, then she's a Jew, then she's a linguistic professor...it's all over the place. And yes, I meant she.), contains sex jokes up to here /me points out here, and has so many memes I can't even count.-SirLjlego, GUNVFHFIYCWotMSGWHotMPWotMAotMEGAEDMANotM+ (Talk) 01:00, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
Delete This was quite a find: it contains multiple (unfunny) lists, random humor, namedropping, and redlinks that would make a bull go bat shit insane. Things like "It had a motor built from scratch by their employee Charlie Taylor" really exude strangeness. It's not quite shoot-on-sight (I myself looked twice before deciding to delete), but I doubt that this article would be missed. Perhaps one could spork the good parts for Airplanes if they wish.-SirLjlego, GUNVFHFIYCWotMSGWHotMPWotMAotMEGAEDMANotM+ (Talk) 00:55, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
Weak delete It could have potential with a different author...but, then again, they could always recreate the article from scratch if they had a better idea and better execution. -- CUNPLSVFH(Miniluv•Minitrue•Unsoc) 01:54, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
Strong Keep I see no reason to get rid of this. And also, beating a dead horse is a good way to vent anger, although I should probably get reported to PETA for saying that. --PhlegmLeoispotter* (garble! jank!) 03:23, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
Keep. Good series. --Under user 10:32, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
Keep per it being part of a good series, though if there is another added to the series, it should/will be deleted. --Dexter111344 14:36, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
Delete
Delete This is pointless repetition. It feels like a perversion of I Can't Believe It's Not Butter, and unfunny at that. Taking out all of the filler space occupied by various iterations of "Uncyclopedia's Article on....", this is about one sentence long. This has no potential, it's superfluous, and altogether reeks of non-effort.-SirLjlego, GUNVFHFIYCWotMSGWHotMPWotMAotMEGAEDMANotM+ (Talk) 00:48, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
Delete - Sorry Sbu, but [[Talk:Talk:Talk:Talk:Incompleteness Theorem|beating a dead horse is never a good idea]] </hypocrisy>. SirCs1987UOTM.t.c 01:02, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, it's usually a good idea to check who wrote the page before nominating it. As another sidenote, I noticed that [[Talk:Talk:Talk:Talk:Talk:Talk:Incompleteness Theorem]] now exists... SirCs1987UOTM.t.c 01:11, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
I don't find this page beating a dead horse. If another page comes up, we can just put it on QVFD. --Kip > Talk•Works••
Week keep. Redeeming value is present. It's bad, but there's worse. --TKFUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUCK 01:47, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
Though I'm a Hary Potter fan, and I found some this article, disturbing.... the author worked very hard on this, and always tried to make it better when they told her the problems. At ease, soldiers! --Lt.High Gen. GrueThe FewThe Proud,The Marines 02:21, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
As per High Gen. Grue I voted for even though I knew it wouldn't get featured. The writer put a lot of effort into whoring it, and the article itself isn't that bad. --Kip > Talk•Works••
I see the comments. The main point I don't find the article 100% horrible, so my vote remains. --Kip > Talk•Works••
Keep It isn't nearly as bad as you make it out to be, Ceridwyn. --PhlegmLeoispotter* (garble! jank!) 03:08, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
Although I have no clue why the hell I voted for it on VFH, it's definitely not worthy of a feature.--PhlegmLeoispotter* (garble! jank!) 03:16, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
Keep I'm usually against this sort of sex literature, but Harry Potter is awesome and erotic fan fiction about Harry Potter is awesomer. I also do love that audio...sure wish there was a *hint* "Uncyclopedia Radio" feature included *hint* --
Keep - And I'll rewrite it if I can think of some improvements for it. --SirStarnestommy (Talk • Contribs • CUN • Capt.) 03:12, August 3, 2007
Keep It's got room for improvement, and the author really is trying to make it a good article. Let's give it another chance and see how it goes. -RAHB 06:39, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
Keep please, it might not have made VFH but this is a bit much. And the audio is hilarious. --THINKER 06:44, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
Keep, Give it a chance. 04:51, 03 August 2007
Delete
Delete Really disgusting sexcruft about Harry Potter, poorly written with absolutely no concept other than the fact that every character is having sex with each other. ~ Dame Ceridwyn ~ talkDUNVoNSEarc2.011:42, 02 August 2007
Delete Heh, it's funny how this was on VFH not too long ago. It actually got a fair amount of for votes. Let's keep this on the down-low.-SirLjlego, GUNVFHFIYCWotMSGWHotMPWotMAotMEGAEDMANotM+ (Talk) 00:44, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
Fucking kill it Hillarious how it was on VFH though. Roman Dog Bird 03:03, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
Super-ultra-mega-delete. This is stuff that would get QVFDd. Keep the audio, okay, that was a lot of work, but kill the article. –SirSkullthumper,MD(criticize•writings•formspring) 03:48 May 23, 2013 03:04, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
The author of the article did not produce the audio, their friend did and the article is inspired by that from what I've gathered. Its available elsewhere on the internet so has no relevance in being kept here. ~ Dame Ceridwyn ~ talkDUNVoNSEarc2.003:07, 03 August 2007
Changed my mind At this rate it's going to be another Euroipods. I really don't want this to be an in-joke. --Kip > Talk•Works••
Too Late! I'm just about to Worst 100 Reflection it right now! Bwahahahaha!!! --TKFUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUCK 03:21, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
Son of a b*tch! I didn't get to be involved with Ct, but I was involved with THIS! --Kip > Talk•Works••
if the audio's the only good point of this article, why even bother writing the damn thing in the first place? --» >UF|TLK|▋» 03:31, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
Delete - Just because. --AAA! (AAAA) 06:47, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
Delete --GeneralInsineratehymn 06:51, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
Okay, right, calm down everyone. So this is basically a page on the subject of that audio, which has been imported into it (from elsewhere on the net, so this shouldn't factor into the keep or delete question). The audio is funny, not because of the content, but because they've "persuaded" the actual narrator to say really rude stuff. All this article has is the rude content, so unless they persuaded the narrator guy to type it, it's not all that funny just because it's rude. Hence Delete -- (but) UntrueWhhhy?Whut?How?*Back from the dead* 07:49, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
Kill it with fire. Crappy article, no comment on the audio. goshzillacorrespondence 07:55, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
Strong Delete - Just end this, please. That VFH nomination was the worst thing that I have ever done here. This is even worse than that goatse link that I got banned for. Killing this article will be the only way for me to forget this whole incident and move on. --SirStarnestommy (Talk • Contribs • CUN • Capt.) 07:58, August 3, 2007
Delete. Voted against this on VFH. Wasn't sure when I saw it here if it was delete-worthy, so I read it again. Got less than halfway and made my mind up. Awful. And a lot of people will never listen to the audio, so if it's the whole point of the article, the point will be lost for many. --Under user 10:16, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
Delete - I think this is just awful and not the slightest bit funny. And before you ask, Forest Angel, I have heard the audio and I don't think it's funny, nor do I think it gives the article any more reason to survive. However, a rewrite isn't out of the question, just as long as it contains real humour instead of random sexual references. Also, if the author wants this to be kept, I suggest she stops complaining and insulting respected users. SirCs1987UOTM.t.c 13:35, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
Strong Delete - Its just awful and cringeworthy...especially the audio --(Bonner) (Talk). 14:37, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
You've got to be kidding, VFH?!?! In its current state? I think I'd just up and quit Uncyc if tripe like this got featured. ~ Dame Ceridwyn ~ talkDUNVoNSEarc2.012:57, 03 August 2007
You've got to be kidding! How can anyone vote to keep this: "We also discover the reason why Dumbledore favored Harry so much. He likes to suck on Harry's dick, long and hard." Its disgusting, racist and far below our usual standards of writing. I will campaign tirelessly til it is gone, without a doubt the worst article I've seen here. Whoring an article out ceaselessly does not, I'm afraid, make it good. ~ Dame Ceridwyn ~ talkDUNVoNSEarc2.002:28, 03 August 2007
Sorry Ceridwyn, but I can't let an article with so much efort piled into it, just die like this. Remeber REO seedwagon? Remember how it turned out? At ease, soldier. --Lt.High Gen. GrueThe FewThe Proud,The Marines 02:34, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
And I can't let this sort of utterly retarded excuse for an article, which ought to have been insta-huffed or QVFD'd continue to bring down the name of this site. This is the sort of rubbish which IPs flock around and QQ over incessantly, replicating about every pop culture book/tv show/movie etc. There is no humour in obscene sexual references about characters in a children's book. Its the lowest attempt at humour and fails miserably. Not to mention the racist references sprinkled throughout. This sort of thing isn't tolerated on other pages, I don't care how much "effort" went into it, it wasn't enough as it fails to be funny and not just stupid. And I'm not one of your soldiers, so stop saying at ease. REO Speedwagon was not purely sexcruft. The author asked for feedback and received unhelpful criticism, so I attempted to have the article cleaned up. This is irredeemable in my opinion. ~ Dame Ceridwyn ~ talkDUNVoNSEarc2.002:48, 03 August 2007
i'm protecting this article with my life. Okay, maybe not my life, just a non-lethal BUT VERY PAINFUL Riot gun. --Lt.High Gen. GrueThe FewThe Proud,The Marines 02:54, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
Prepare to meet your match then my friend. I'm not stopping til its gone. You've yet to give a good reason why it should be kept other than the volume of "effort" (which is highly subjective) put into it by the author. I even listened to the audio, and while I appreciate the "effort" required to chop up that much audio, it is nevertheless disgusting and quite a poor concept.
I DO have a good reason! I've looked at the criteria for deletion, and my article meets none of those. Sure, it's low quality, but it's not damningly low quality. So there! --ForestAngelReceive Blessings! 08:21, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
Oh god, here it goes again. If you read the deletion policy carefully, you would realise that there is no criteria whatsoever with regards to what articles should be nominated on VFD. This is a place where we nominate any articles that we think deserve deletion, and if they are good enough, they are kept. As I said before, there is no criteria. SirCs1987UOTM.t.c 13:35, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
Not at all, this is not a flamewar. I'm not making any personal comments other than the comment about the way I perceived the author's attitude on the Pee Review page. I'm simply making a clearly stated and rational argument for why this article should be deleted. Han is a good friend of mine and I'm not making this personal. ~ Dame Ceridwyn ~ talkDUNVoNSEarc2.003:01, 03 August 2007
Honey, it's a flamewar. And a funny one at that. --Kip > Talk•Works••
One, its not. Flamewars are about senselessly attacking each others characters and being generally rude. Two, don't call me honey. ~ Dame Ceridwyn ~ talkDUNVoNSEarc2.003:09, 03 August 2007
Hey, a little note from the author: I didn't nominate it for being featured, Starnestommy did. So don't blame me. I've seen much shittier and racist articles here. Reason why I was so pissed off: Alksub, that fucking troll, kept spamming it. ForestAngelReceive Blessings! 06:30, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
I hereby accept any problems related to VFH, and I'd like to apologize to Ceridwyn for my ill judgement. To be safe, I have taken a vow never to nominate anyone or anything for anything ever again, or at least until my judgement improves. --SirStarnestommy (Talk • Contribs • CUN • Capt.) 06:50, August 3, 2007
Edit to above post: I honestly did not intend to harm this site or any of its users in any way. Yet, my poor judgment has caused a user to leave and has made me want to reevaluate whether or not I'm welcome here. Looking back on my contributions since December 26, 2006, most of them were either minor, very controversial, or vain. I have written but twoarticles, both of which are rather lacking. I have been banned numerous times, including one indefinite ban (which was lifted) and several shorter bans. I have been involved with the drama unfolding over TYATU, several banned users, and myself. I am not sure whether this means that I should stay or leave. --SirStarnestommy (Talk • Contribs • CUN • Capt.) 07:36, August 3, 2007
To give my two cents - you should definitely stay. Your useful contributions have outweighed the drama you have been partly responsible for. If you were a real troublemaker, you would have been permabanned by now (and not unbanned). SirCs1987UOTM.t.c 13:41, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
Tell you what, let's cover him in low fat yogurt and flog him in the town's square. That should make everyone happy. ~ 14:43, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
One of the original writers of this article has agreed to rewrite it, so I am moving it to their userspace. No need to continue to vote at this time. ~ Dame Ceridwyn ~ talkDUNVoNSEarc2.002:19, 03 August 2007
Delete "Son of a bitch stole my identity" was arguably the biggest laugh in this crapfest of an article. And, since that's not funny at all, this article doesn't deserve to have the last laugh.-SirLjlego, GUNVFHFIYCWotMSGWHotMPWotMAotMEGAEDMANotM+ (Talk) 18:16, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
Delete. From the Poopsmith's Lounge. Roman Dog Bird 14:59, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
Delete Erm, this article is kinda bad. Reading it, I might as well be reading "DESU DESU DESU." Both are comparatively stupid, and both don't belong on this site. It also contains two giant lists which, when removed, delete three-quarters of the article.-SirLjlego, GUNVFHFIYCWotMSGWHotMPWotMAotMEGAEDMANotM+ (Talk) 18:14, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
Kill Utterly crap. RabbiTechno 18:58, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
Delete Seemingly good idea, but it sucks. --Kip > Talk•Works••
Been around for months and will probably will never become any better than what it is now. -- BrigadierGeneralSirZombiebaron 13:41, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
Delete - random and stupid. SirCs1987UOTM.t.c 13:43, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
Delete This article namedrops a lot. I dislike articles that namedrop a lot. It also contains random numbers, random "humor", a pointless trivia section, and an ever-changing concept. Not good in any possible sense.-SirLjlego, GUNVFHFIYCWotMSGWHotMPWotMAotMEGAEDMANotM+ (Talk) 18:05, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but who? --Dexter111344 18:43, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
Delete Most pedophile jokes simply fall flat. Some manage to stay afloat. Whatever the personal tastes of someone may be (I happen to not see a problem with jokes about pedophilia), the content sucks in this article. Subject matter notwithstanding, this baby's gotta go.-SirLjlego, GUNVFHFIYCWotMSGWHotMPWotMAotMEGAEDMANotM+ (Talk) 18:00, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
Delete. I don't know some teenagers think anything mentioning pedophilia is automatically funny. It's not...90% of the pedophilia references are stupid and boring. Like this article. ----OEJ 00:34, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
...Delete This article gets no more than a blank stare from me. I think my head would explode if I tried to extract meaning from it. -- CUNPLSVFH(Miniluv•Minitrue•Unsoc) 02:00, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
Delete This article, a dead-end, contains an enormous list in the middle comprised of unfunny randomness. Using Creationism as its primary concept, it falls victim to everything I hate: long and poorly formatted sentences, changing its idea every moment, a ranting tone, and little to no effort put in by the author.-SirLjlego, GUNVFHFIYCWotMSGWHotMPWotMAotMEGAEDMANotM+ (Talk) 17:56, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
Delete Rather racist, very unfunny, and listy. Sentences like "On the faithful day of July 7th 2007. he showed up at the former presidents taco stand and procedded in kicking th ex-presidents can" and "Since his overthrow of the government the country has increased its trade of laborers, senoritas, cocaine, tacos, mariachi bands, tequila, chicle, starving children, more laborers, smog, beggars, sombreros, chihuahuas, chihuahuas with sombreros, jalapenos, even more laborers, wetbacks, mexican restaurants, wetback chihuahuas with sombreros, and many more things" make me sad.-SirLjlego, GUNVFHFIYCWotMSGWHotMPWotMAotMEGAEDMANotM+ (Talk) 17:50, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
Delete Unfunny racism. --Dexter111344 18:15, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Ljlego is right, this is a champ of the bad-writing genre. ----OEJ 00:25, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
Delete When I read the title, I thought it was about the televangelist. Then, it said he was a Coinstar Machine... Then it started to talk about the Miracle Water the televangelist sells. I'm confused. This could be a good article if it was rewritten and all of the random crap was removed. Too bad I doubt anyone wants to rewrite this. --Dexter111344 17:27, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
Delete Coinstar Machine...that's a new low. In all honesty, there is nothing I can say about this that isn't explained in the first paragraph.-SirLjlego, GUNVFHFIYCWotMSGWHotMPWotMAotMEGAEDMANotM+ (Talk) 17:49, 2 August 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)
Keep If only for the merit of the actually good Wilde Quote. The sheer astonishment I felt upon reading a quote that actually makes sense from him tipped my vote in favour of keep. Sadly t'is too rare a thing. ~ Dame Ceridwyn ~ talkDUNVoNSEarc2.002:07, 01 August 2007
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)
Delete Also Insineratehymn, do not use 2005cruft as a VFD reason. Try "Old stub". Unless you want to annoy a certain sysop... --Lt.High Gen. GrueThe FewThe Proud,The Marines 02:26, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
