Uncyclopedia:Votes for deletion
From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia.
(Redirected from
Uncyclopedia:VFD)
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 (see: Category:Uncyclopedia In-Jokes).
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 |
 Delete. Old joke. LOL MICHAEL PHELPS S00 FUNY  Dylanlip (talk) 15:24, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
- Delete. Sorry Sys, but this has outlived it's usefullness. Now it's just another AAAAAAA type article. -OptyC Sucks!
 CUN16:04, 9 Jul
|
| Comments |
- Comment This is the 20th active nom. 2 noms here are inactive. No banstick please. Dylanlip (talk) 15:24, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
- Actually, it's the 19th. Should I ban you for not being able to count? --UU - Oim frum Englund!
 15:48, Jul 9
- It was the 20th when I first posted it. Dylanlip (talk) 16:35, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
|
| Keep |
|
| Delete |
|
| Comments |
- you're treading in dangerous lands, increasing the number of noms to 21 while some are inactive. or you would be, if you couldn't just unblock yourself. Lance AdmiralGerrycheeversGunTalk 14:17, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
- That's 19 active noms right? Maybe I need my glasses... MrN
   14:24, Jul 9
- yup, 2 are deleted. just seems weird to see the table of contents go up to 21, you can almost hear the banstick whistling through the air...Lance AdmiralGerrycheeversGunTalk 14:35, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
|
| Keep |
 Keep. It could use a steamroller, but not a full delete. It'll only come back even crappier than before. I personally suggest Colonization. Dylanlip (talk) 11:09, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
- Keep. The older versions in the history are not too shabby, actually. It just needs someone with more patience than me to sift through, pick out the best one, revert it all the way back, and it'll be OK. --UU - Oim frum Englund! 11:15, Jul 9
- ...such as MrN, for instance... --UU - Oim frum Englund! 15:09, Jul 9
- Keep MrN 14:48, Jul 9
- eh, keep. Lance AdmiralGerrycheeversGunTalk 15:11, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
|
| Delete |
|
| Comments |
|
| Keep |
- Keep Did a big revert, and cleaned out some crap. Think this is better than nothing now... MrN 00:33, Jul 9
- weak keep. hm, looks better now. Lance AdmiralGerrycheeversGunTalk 14:57, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
|
| Delete |
|
| Comments |
|
| Keep |
|
| Delete |
- Delete. It's a one-line joke that's already been done a number of times but it's been fleshed out with a bundle of nothing. Redemption cometh in the form of a bulldozer. --Puppy On The Radio Bark!
 22:54, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
I couldn't even bring myself to read it.  pillow talk 23:23, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
|
| Comments |
- Changing to abstain. I don't like it very much, but upon actually reading it, at least it's coherent. pillow talk 00:16, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
|
| Keep |
|
| Delete |
|
| Comments |
- Comment. Hmm... Interesting one. Can't make up my mind on it. Also, if you level that accusation at it, then you level it at all of Category:War Games as well. Mind you, there's one on there we could do without, I reckon... --UU - Oim frum Englund! 13:29, Jul 8
|
| Keep |
|
| Delete |
- Delete. Oh jeez. Albumcruft? 2005cruft? Listcruft? It's all here, folks. It may have been created by insertwackynamehere way back when, but as far as I can see it's another example of "good in 2005 =/= good now". The history doesn't yield any gold either. Any objections to this going? --UU - Oim frum Englund! 11:45, Jul 8
- delete. it was a decent stub by 2005 standards, but it's become really crufty. Lance AdmiralGerrycheeversGunTalk 13:01, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
- Now this has always sucked. --
 Roman Dogshit  16:18, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
|
| Comments |
|
| Keep |
- Keep. Rewrite or colonise - this will return, and return in far worse form. It needs hefty improvement, but how about having a word with Guildy and setting one of his UnWhateveritis mob on it? --UU - Oim frum Englund! 12:02, Jul 8
- This is one of the first articles that I ever read here. I still think it's funny. Why? Beats the hell out of me. I don't even like the band anymore, and it certainly is crap compared to, uh........whatever most of you think is good stuff (I really don't read jack on this website, to be quite honest with you all). So, yeah. I dig it. Cuz I'm stupid. -- Roman Dogshit 15:43, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
- Don't be silly. It's got thousands of edits.MrN 23:05, Jul 8
- Sorry, I was voting on the quality of the article. My mistake. (THIS IS SARCASM!!! I am employing sarcasm as my low paid bitch.)OBLONGLobster. (hello) 11:26, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
- The quality of the article at which version? MrN 12:23, Jul 9
- How about the one that's there now. OBLONGLobster. (hello) 18:33, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
- In fact how about any of the 1000's of versions Mr Clever-remark. Actually I'm going to leave in a huff, this whole process is a big pile of cock these days -not like the glory days...those...beautiful sunny afternoons spent deleting based on the quality of an article. OBLONGLobster. (hello) 21:44, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
|
| Delete |
- Delete None of it is at all funny. The concept established in the introduction is quickly forgotten and then deteriorates into what I can only describe as nothing. OBLONGLobster. (hello) 11:33, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
- Purple tights I don't think there is much of quality in this piece, either, and I've been struggling to work out a way to improve it short of a direct nuclear strike. I do like the Wikipedian idiot image, but nothing in the rest of it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by PuppyOnTheRadio (talk • contribs)
|
| Comments |
|
| Keep |
- Useless keep. It tickles me. With some cleanup it could be okay. When this gets deleted put a copy in my userspace please. -OptyC Sucks! CUN16:13, 9 Jul
|
| Delete |
|
| Comments |
|
| Keep |
|
| Delete |
- delete. slogged through the history for a while but couldn't find anything decent. delete & redirect to the far, far, far, far, far superior Lord Sauron. Lance AdmiralGerrycheeversGunTalk 14:29, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
- Delete. And redirect, per Gerry. --UU - Oim frum Englund! 08:38, Jul 8
- “That fucking prick...I forged the One Ring to spy on little boys and this bastard steals it and starts yelling about how he's going to use it to "rule them all". All he's ever going to rule is my foot up his ass!” -- Roman Dogshit 17:12, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
- Delete. And redirect, per Gerry. MrN 15:52, Jul 9
|
| Comments |
|
| Keep |
|
| Delete |
- Delete Local town that may as well not exist. Cleaned up quite a bit of vanity and cruft, but what's leftover is simply random and local humor. -
 RAHB 16:39, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
- delete. Lance AdmiralGerrycheeversGunTalk 14:20, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
|
| Comments |
 Abstain. I think for any small town/city to be kept - they should at least have some interest outside their immediate area. eg. somewhere like Waco (or is that going to be renamed Wacko after Michael Jackson ?--RomArtus (talk). 06:44, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
- Comment, just to be clear here, the size of the city or whether I've heard of it or not is hardly a reason to delete. The reason to delete is the content, which I think is really not good. -RAHB 06:16, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
- No, it isn't good, but I don't think it's so awful that we can't just let the editorial process deal with it. pillow talk 18:03, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
|
| Keep |
|
| Delete |
|
| Comments |
- {{AAP}} is intended to be placed directly on the article, while {{reqphoto}} is designed to be placed on the corresponding talk page. Do we need such a template for talk pages? If so, then consider creating {{AAP-talk}} using wording derived from {{AAP}}. --Pentium5dot1(read this)t~^_^~c 23:08, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
- It's still used on a few pages... MrN 07:38, Jul 5
- suggest the template be reqill - i.e. require illustration (i.e. photo, painting,drawing, sticky finger etchings etc). --RomArtus (talk). 10:19, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
- Changing to abstain. Note: To see the names that Wikipedia uses for image request templates, see wikipedia:Category:Image request templates. --Pentium5dot1(read this)t~^_^~c 18:52, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
- Abstain. I wouldn't mind if people used this template. —Sir Socky
   (talk) (stalk)  KUN SotM UotM 14:22, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
- I cannot bring myself to care. pillow talk 22:00, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
- I personally think it should be moved to Reqimage instead of photo or ill. Dylanlip (talk) 21:01, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
|
Archived VFD Discussions
Closed nomination tag to indicate that the article has been kept. You have been warned.
