## St. Valentine's Day Massacre

Score: 6
Keep (0)

Delete (6)
1. A giant pile of feces. --Scofield 19:45, March 1, 2011 (UTC)
2. We won't miss this. -- 20:09, March 1, 2011 (UTC)
3. Ugh. --Wilytank can be a pain in the ass. 21:34, March 1, 2011 (UTC)
4. He'll rip your fucking heart out. Emo Kid wrote these four paragraphs one day during his hour in detention.  22:06 1-Mar-11
5. Delete. I haven't felt this nauseous since I saw Encyclopedia Dramatica's "Kittens" page. -- 22:08, March 1, 2011 (UTC)
6. Violent, but funny? Not really. 22:12, 1 March 2011
• Just saw the kittens article u were talking about, Lollipop. AAGH MY EYES! GET IT OFF, GET IT OFF, GET IT OFF! --Scofield 12:27, March 2, 2011 (UTC)

## Christopher “Kris” Kringle

Score: 5
Keep (0)

Delete (5)
1. Delete. Inane and irritating article about Santa. 16:27, March 1, 2011 (UTC)
2. Delete. and redirect to Santa. -- 16:29, March 1, 2011 (UTC)
3. Delete. Finish it. --Scofield 18:48, March 1, 2011 (UTC)
4. Delete. Santa is a fugitive after the "43rd War for the North (Pole)." Wow.  22:04 1-Mar-11
5. ...right. 22:10, 1 March 2011

## Hiccups

Score: 4
Keep (0)

Delete (4)
1. A list of hiccup cures, some of which are fake, some of which are real, none of which are funny. 18:27, February 28, 2011 (UTC)
2. Delete. In the mold of "Articles written in the style of the thing they're about," this article's narrator--Did you guess it?--has the hiccups. That's the article's only joke, and it is beaten into the ground, around HowTo content.  19:05 28-Feb-11
3. De<hic>lete (talk) 20:27, February 28, 2011 (UTC)
4. Random and irritating. The interspersing of hiccups would be easy to replicate on a proper article, although I'm not sure why anyone would, as it's a rather cheap gag. 06:19, 1 March 2011
• Abstain. It's stubby, but I like the con<hic>cept. 19:38, February 28, 2011 (UTC)

## Secret page

Score: 7
Keep (0)

Delete (7)
1. This is just annoying. 18:31, February 28, 2011 (UTC)
2. Delete. That seems to be its point--rather than amusing the reader, amusing the author at the reader's expense.  18:58 28-Feb-11
3. Delete. Per Hyperbole and Spike. 19:09, February 28, 2011 (UTC)
4. Delete. (talk) 20:19, February 28, 2011 (UTC)
5. What a lot of linebreaks... but they're xhtml-compliant ones! 06:37, 1 March 2011
6. Delete. --Wilytank can be a pain in the ass. 15:49, March 1, 2011 (UTC)
7. Delete. Concept is workable, though. --Scofield 19:50, March 1, 2011 (UTC)
8. Not much. It's a good concept, but it just doesn't make sense. --Gamma 03:25, March 2, 2011 (UTC)

## Hidden Page

Score: 6
Keep (0)

Delete (6)
1. I am unable to detect any humor, satire, or even concept here. It looks more like someone found a wiki and wanted to play with it by creating some pages. 18:31, February 28, 2011 (UTC)
2. Delete. The concept may be--on the pretense of being a sort of disambiguation page--to boost traffic to Secret Page, which you nominated for deletion above.  19:00 28-Feb-11
3. Delete. Mock disambiguation which isn't useful or funny. 19:09, February 28, 2011 (UTC)
4. Delete. (talk) 20:20, February 28, 2011 (UTC)
5. Cute. 06:36, 1 March 2011
6. Delete. --Wilytank can be a pain in the ass. 15:50, March 1, 2011 (UTC)

## George

Score: 12
Keep (0)

Delete (12)
1. Holy crap, this sucks. Nothing funny about it, just bashing a bunch of people, with what looks like a wee bit of cyberbullying and vanity added by several people... also, blame Coronium. VFDing this was his idea. 19:23, 28 February 2011
On second thought, a revert solved a lot of that... now it's just stupid. And unfunny. And sucky. 19:28, 28 February 2011
2. I'm looking at the reverted version?? Jesus Christ. 19:29, February 28, 2011 (UTC)
3. Delete. George who? The only feint toward explanation goes through, yawn! Chuck Norris. Toward the end, George seems to be Bush, but if you want fun at Bush's expense, you go to one of our at least two articles on him. Ultimately, George is just a backbone around which to ramble.  19:31 28-Feb-11
4. Obliterate. I actually preferred it before the revert. 19:36, February 28, 2011 (UTC)
5. Agree (talk) 20:15, February 28, 2011 (UTC)
6. Ultra Agree Horrible. Why isn't it on QVFD? -- 21:53, February 28, 2011 (UTC)
7. DIE!!! I hate this article. It its short and unfunny, like an angry midget. --Gamma 22:49, February 28, 2011 (UTC)
8. Combustinate. Wow. I actually found this article's blatant awfulness somewhat funny in itself, sort of like those error messages that say "your computer go boom." --TheSlyFox 10:14, March 1, 2011 (UTC)
9. Delete. Who is this George? --Scofield 11:21, March 1, 2011 (UTC)
10. Obliterate. George. George. George of the Jungle. Strong as he can be...--Wilytank can be a pain in the ass. 15:59, March 1, 2011 (UTC)
11. Delete The only article that mentions 'Chuck Norris' that shouldn't be deleted is Chuck Norris. mAttlobster. (hello) 16:52, March 1, 2011 (UTC)
12. MY EYES! THEY BLEED!!! -- 17:08, March 1, 2011 (UTC)

## Internet Crash of 1864

Score: 4
Keep (2)
1. Meh It's no that bad. --~  13:19, February 27, 2011 (UTC)
2. Keep. like a barrel of purple monkeys, it's worth keeping. - LOL vandalz
Delete (6)
1. Delete.. Too much random humour and memes, too little concept. 13:16, February 27, 2011 (UTC)
2. Internet brutally buttfucked! The title tells you the article is about nothing, and refuses to be bound to be funny, or to be anything.  14:48 27-Feb-11
3. Scary meme-ridden piles of nonsensical crap with no cohesive anything should be taken out back and shot. 23:56, 27 February 2011
4. Delete. Garbage. --RomArtus*Imperator ® (Orate) 12:08, February 28, 2011 (UTC)
5. Delete. --Wilytank can be a pain in the ass. 15:54, February 28, 2011 (UTC)
6. Explodonate. The title is quite amusing; unfortunately, that's the only good part about it. --TheSlyFox 09:50, March 1, 2011 (UTC)
• Comment. Someone might consider rewriting this, as I think it has potential. Or at least it will once it's been nuked into a blank page. --TheSlyFox 09:50, March 1, 2011 (UTC)

## Cheddar monkeys

Score: 5
Keep (0)

Delete (5)
1. Randumbo What is this? It's just useless randumbo that spirals into screaming an yelling. And by the way, what's up with the pictures? -- 01:39, February 28, 2011 (UTC)
2. SMITE THE DEFILER! GRIND HIS BONES INTO DUST AND DANCE ON HIS GRAVE! (That is from the article.) Starts with an encyclopedia cliché and descends into a rant at the reader.  01:55 28-Feb-11
3. Delete. A load of unfunny cobblers. --RomArtus*Imperator ® (Orate) 11:40, February 28, 2011 (UTC)
4. Huh? --Wilytank can be a pain in the ass. 13:49, February 28, 2011 (UTC)
5. Delete.. Terrible. -- 17:00, February 28, 2011 (UTC)

Some one save that weight lifter picture!!!! -- 02:19, February 28, 2011 (UTC)

## :Category:People who didn't fuck your mom in the kitchen last night

Score: -9
Keep (11)
1. Per below, except it should. -- TKFUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUCK 01:03, February 28, 2011 (UTC)
2. lol This category came about when Hyperbole made it up as an example of a category that, say, he found on Joe Biden's page, and what to do with it (and later someone wondered if Rod Stewart had fucked his mother in the kitcher last night). One option of how to handle the category was to take it to VFD, which is where it is now. As for the quality of the page, it is relevant on a site where we never know from one day to another if someone was fucking our mother in the kitchen last night, and some of us do worry about that and are relieved to find that Joe Biden, at least, was not doing so. Aleister 1:09 28-2-'11
3. I fucked her. It's true. -- 01:31, February 28, 2011 (UTC)
4. Keep This shouldn't be here. MegaPleb Dexter111344 Complain here 01:32, February 28, 2011 (UTC)
5. Keep -- 02:21, February 28, 2011 (UTC)
6. Nope (talk) 02:32, February 28, 2011 (UTC)
7. Keep Give it up. mAttlobster. (hello) 07:32, February 28, 2011 (UTC)
8. Keep. Find a hobby.--(Talk 07:35, February 28, 2011 (UTC)
9. Keep. This is actually quite a funny category. -- 17:06, February 28, 2011 (UTC)
10. Well, even though I invented this as an example of a category that should be deleted, all of a sudden the flaming egotist in me wants to see it stick around. Also because Aleister did an unexpectedly funny job with it. Fucking Alesiter. 18:17, February 28, 2011 (UTC)
11. Keep. --Roman Dog Bird 19:23, February 28, 2011 (UTC)
Delete (2)
1. Delete. Per the fact that not every sarcastic statement Hype makes needs to be turned into an inside joke. --Mn-z 01:00, February 28, 2011 (UTC)
2. Delete. Categories should not crack wise, to the exclusion of taking you where you want to go. This one can't be useful.  01:03 28-Feb-11
• Abstain. I can't think of a good way to annoy everyone at once, so I won't even try. 02:35, 28 February 2011
I see great things in your future. -- TKFUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUCK 07:00, February 28, 2011 (UTC)
• Kept. -- 05:53, March 1, 2011 (UTC)

## Unpopular

Score: -1
Keep (6)
1. no way, this is most savable of the many many many articles put forward for deletion the last few days. -- 16:06, February 25, 2011 (UTC)
2. Keep. Not a horrible page, and if Shabidoo is passionate about it and maybe makes out with it, save. I'll put in a few minutes on it for Shabidoo's sake. Aleister 00:58 26-2-'11
my plan was to first caress the article, then fondle it a little, perhaps peck it on the kneck and then ravage it until it knew nothing more of this world. So no, make out wouldn't the the right phrase. -- 13:21, February 26, 2011 (UTC)
3. WTF Why delete this? This is awsome! It could be promising. -- 01:37, February 26, 2011 (UTC)
4. Keep. I know it's not good but it's not very bad either. --~  19:49, February 26, 2011 (UTC)
5. Keep Not that it's featureable, but it's definitely a good stub. MegaPleb Dexter111344 Complain here 19:52, February 26, 2011 (UTC)
6. I hate you all. 10:44, 27 February 2011
Delete (5)
1. Redirect to popularity - random little stub with no redeeming attributes. Coronium 11:23, February 25, 2011 (UTC)
2. Redirect The couple places it gets witty are apropos of nothing. Author's concept of unpopularity boils down to acne and retards. Why not unpopularity on account of one's beliefs? Such an article could cover everyone from Christ to Hitler--make the demise of both out as though it were just a result of their "unpopular" ideas.  12:28 25-Feb-11
3. Redirect (talk) 23:03, February 25, 2011 (UTC)
4. As above, unless Al or Shab keep on with the fixing. -- 02:53, February 26, 2011 (UTC)
5. Delete A horrible mess of nothing. A sandwich without a filling...or bread. mAttlobster. (hello) 10:33, February 26, 2011 (UTC)
• Kept. -- 05:49, March 1, 2011 (UTC)

## Monkey ball

Score: 0
Keep (6)
1. Weak keep. Horrible grammar in places; horrible coding. But it is about a real videogame, and it does have a concept: Imagine an absurd scenario in real life that gave rise to the game. It's somewhat clever.  21:29 24-Feb-11 Keep weakened. I got rid of the red-links and minced some words. However, after putting forth his comedy concept, this horrible writer has virtually nothing to say about it. He is better at stating his conclusion (before stating the facts) than stating the facts so as to lead the reader to the conclusion.  22:17 24-Feb-11
2. Its not fucking and its not horrible. Not delete worthy. -- 23:08, February 24, 2011 (UTC)
3. Keep. I will work on it. --~  12:34, February 25, 2011 (UTC)
But what you mostly do is work on photos, which aren't a big problem in this article. It needs a real-world reason why people started the abuse of monkeys that turned into the videogame.  13:30 25-Feb-11
Don't worry. I may write something too. --~  13:33, February 25, 2011 (UTC)
A real-world explanation of the monkey abuse wouldn't save this article. It's a throwaway joke at best, in an article like Hamster ball or Why?:Trap wild animals in plastic spheres? 14:27, February 25, 2011 (UTC)
Let Mimo give it a go. -- 14:03, February 26, 2011 (UTC)\
4. Keep MegaPleb Dexter111344 Complain here 08:58, February 27, 2011 (UTC)
5. Mimo gonna do it, Mimo gotta do it. -- TKFUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUCK 21:55, February 27, 2011 (UTC)
6. Keep. Mimo. Aleister 23:04 27-2-'11
Delete (6)
1. Delete. Pretty fucking horrible. 21:01, February 24, 2011 (UTC)
2. Delete. Concept perhaps doable, but the poor execution consigns this to the bin. Coronium 21:32, February 24, 2011 (UTC)
3. Nah Not doing it for me (talk) 23:17, February 24, 2011 (UTC)
4. Delete. What? -- 01:39, February 26, 2011 (UTC)
5. Delete Video game. mAttlobster. (hello) 10:35, February 26, 2011 (UTC)
6. The first sentence or two is decent, but it goes downhill from there. 01:00, 27 February 2011
• Kept. -- 05:47, March 1, 2011 (UTC)

## Churchdown

Score: 3
Keep (2)
1. Keep. It's not that bad. --~  13:31, February 27, 2011 (UTC)
2. Better to put in a few minutes working on it. Someone could dive into this one and make it right. And please Keep. the long and winding road. Aleister 14:10 27-2-'11
Delete (5)
1. Delete. More a rant than an article. Bias is not a replacement for humour. 13:25, February 27, 2011 (UTC)
2. Cum guzzling sluts. None of the cut-downs of Churchdown have anything to do with Churchdown. It could be repaired...but none of you Keep voters know anything about Churchdown either, do you?  14:38 27-Feb-11
My mudder was born in Churchdown, and my mudder's mudda before her. So don't tell me about Churchdown, me ol' mudda's gray hair be upon you. Aleister
3. Obliterate.. I REALLY don't think this article has any worth to it. I didn't laugh once. --Gamma 15:51, February 27, 2011 (UTC)
4. Blue template... 00:05, 28 February 2011
5. Smite. It's called Churchdown, but there's no mention of burning churches down. Why the hell do people name places like this? --Wilytank can be a pain in the ass. 13:51, February 28, 2011 (UTC)

## Sailor Mars

Score: 5
Keep (0)

Delete (5)
1. What -- TKFUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUCK 21:22, February 27, 2011 (UTC)
2. Delete. Having trouble reading more than a sentence of this at a time. On my first screenful, two templates and nine quotes try to manage my reaction before delivering anything of value. Intro includes nonsense numbers, needlessly long names and words, and still doesn't deliver a laugh. This anime hero evidently is changed to a "Makedonian" who from time to time "does the Greek." ? If you survive the intro, what greets you? "Not much information is given." Then more quotes. And memes. And Teletubbies.  21:53 27-Feb-11
3. What Spike said; he summed it up pretty well. 23:59, 27 February 2011
4. Delete.. I laughed, but for the wrong reasons. -- 17:03, February 28, 2011 (UTC)
5. how does something like this happen --Roman Dog Bird 19:19, February 28, 2011 (UTC)
• Perhaps it could be re-directed to Romaioktonos's page as he is an active user. --RomArtus*Imperator ® (Orate) 11:44, February 28, 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I saw him throughout the History and know that you two have talked. There could be humor in this article that he might make visible if he would pare down all the irrelevancy and verbal diarrhea.  19:23 28-Feb-11

## Reznov

Score: 6
Keep (0)

Delete (6)
1. Delete.. I don't see the point of me editing it anymore. The article is worthless. --Gamma 03:19, February 27, 2011 (UTC)
2. Delete. Yeah. (talk) 05:35, February 27, 2011 (UTC)
3. Delete. No need to keep if a rewrite isn't imminent. 12:46, February 27, 2011 (UTC)
4. Delete. This is a joke, and not in a good way. --Scofield 14:05, February 27, 2011 (UTC)
5. Jupiterfox. A ramble without grammar, spelling, or photos (the Rewrite templates provide the only visual appeal), which made it hard to concentrate and search for hidden humor.  14:45 27-Feb-11
6. May as well scrap it and start over, if we want an article on this at all. 23:48, 27 February 2011

## Michael Obsessive Compulsive Disorder

Score: 5
Keep (1)
1. Keep. Amused me, can't think why though... not really that offensive is it?--(Talk 16:08, February 27, 2011 (UTC)
Delete (6)
1. I don't have a clue what this is about, but it's not funny. $\mathfrak{C}\mathfrak{o}\mathfrak{r}\mathfrak{o}\mathfrak{n}\mathfrak{i}\mathfrak{u}\mathfrak{m}$ 19:43, February 26, 2011 (UTC)
2. Delete. Between describing this as a personality disorder and some kind of addiction with a Twelve-Step Program, the article is a tour de force of author's ability to string together random thoughts. It's not about anything, it has no point, and no, it isn't funny.  23:19 26-Feb-11
3. Delete.. I don't get it; it's too random to be here. Try Encyclopedia Dramatica. --Gamma 03:33, February 27, 2011 (UTC)
4. Yeah, this is crap. --Scofield 14:07, February 27, 2011 (UTC)
5. Not really offensive, just... stupid. Not sure what the point is supposed to be, here. 23:47, 27 February 2011
6. Nah. -- TKFUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUCK 01:04, February 28, 2011 (UTC)

## Inception

Score: 3
Keep (0)

Delete (3)
1. QVFD escapee. --Scofield 13:57, February 27, 2011 (UTC)
2. Delete. You're right. --~  14:14, February 27, 2011 (UTC)
3. "I just pissed my pants again, Damn it! Get me some Tampons people!" The entire article is about the revulsion of various reviewers, while never explaining why the movie is revolting.  14:32 27-Feb-11
• Comment.C'mon man, only two days have passed sinve this was created. This can be transformed into something beautiful. Probably the writer took the ICU tag out because he didn't know what this thing was. --~  14:05, February 27, 2011 (UTC)
We already have UnReviews:Inception man. Just vote "Delete" and get this over with. --Scofield 14:11, February 27, 2011 (UTC)
• Invalid nom. Too new for VFD. Aleister and Mimo put an {{ICU}} tag on it (it had none when nominated), which will let an Admin delete it if it doesn't get better.  14:32 27-Feb-11
• What Spike said - we can always redirect/delete it when the ICU runs out. 15:00, February 27, 2011 (UTC)
• SPIKE, what the hell are you doing? First you say this nom is invalid, then you cast a deletion vote anyways. As for this whole ICU business, the very fact that this was put up on QVFD means somebody thought it to have no redeeming value. I'm just finishing the job here. --Scofield 15:22, February 27, 2011 (UTC)
Just offering my opinion on the article. It cannot be VFD'd, and should not be QVFD'd, as its problem is not that it is a stillborn article; it is a real article that just happens to have very dumb humor.  15:29 27-Feb-11
• Again. Please make sure that an article is applicable for VFD - if in doubt go to the Lounge - this VFD ignorance creates more archiving work, for zero benefit.--(Talk 16:07, February 27, 2011 (UTC)
• Jesus, GOD man!!! Cant you assholes read??? FUck!!! -- TKFUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUCK 21:53, February 27, 2011 (UTC)

## Modest Mouse

Score: -1
Keep (4)
1. Very Keep. Remove the lists and this is fine.--(Talk 07:38, February 25, 2011 (UTC)
2. Keep. Removed lists per Sycamore, can I get you a suds and water?, and centered a bottom pic. Maybe a fan of the group can work on what's left. Aleister 11:39 25-2-'11
3. Not funny, not well written, but not horrible, either. 00:50, 27 February 2011
4. I do know modest mouse, very well, and I like it. One of the first articles I read on this site, actually. -- TKFUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUCK 03:17, February 27, 2011 (UTC)
Delete (3)
1. Delete. I like Modest Mouse. They deserve an article that isn't a steaming pile of listcruft and shit. 20:52, February 24, 2011 (UTC)
2. Delete. I don't know Modest Mouse, and this article has nothing to make me care--or laugh. No substantial development since 2006--except to the lists.  21:45 24-Feb-11
3. Delete. Doesn't tick any humour boxes for me. $\mathfrak{C}\mathfrak{o}\mathfrak{r}\mathfrak{o}\mathfrak{n}\mathfrak{i}\mathfrak{u}\mathfrak{m}$ 13:41, February 26, 2011 (UTC)

## Manatee

Score: 6
Keep (0)

Delete (6)
1. Delete. I just saw this. It's total crap. Delete. --~  16:51, February 26, 2011 (UTC)
2. Delete. Indeed, for sure it is bovine scatology. $\mathfrak{C}\mathfrak{o}\mathfrak{r}\mathfrak{o}\mathfrak{n}\mathfrak{i}\mathfrak{u}\mathfrak{m}$ 19:39, February 26, 2011 (UTC)
3. Delete. I deleted the listcruft section, but that's not enough. This article, kicking around since late 2005, has no plan except patch in anything you like (including the red-linked names of classmates) and use the word manatee in the paragraph.  23:27 26-Feb-11
4. Delete. The only funny part about the article was the Huge Manitee image. The rest was irrelevant crap. --Gamma 05:33, February 27, 2011 (UTC)
5. Delete -- 10:59, February 27, 2011 (UTC)
6. Obliterate. Completely hopeless. --Scofield 14:10, February 27, 2011 (UTC)

## Trish Stratus

Score: 3
Keep (3)
1. Fixupable... --
2. Keep.--(Talk 06:08, February 23, 2011 (UTC)
3. Has potentional, could be tagged for ICU instead, just needs help, don't delete it - The admirable Lord Frosty the Snowman 07:41, February 23, 2011 (UTC)
Delete (6)
1. Delete. The page basically says "she's a whore" a dozen times and ends without even discussing anything about who Trish Stratus really is. In the history, there actually were sections about her WWE career, but they were so shitty that they were cut. What's left is... not a useful starting point, assuming no one's going to think "Trish Stratus as a prostitute?? What a concept!!1!!1!1!!!11!!!1!!" 21:29, February 22, 2011 (UTC)
2. Delete. A cheap shot against the stage wrestler. Gets off topic in the first paragraph of the intro and fires one of its spit-wads at Canada.  22:04 22-Feb-11
3. Delete. per Hyperbole, calling a woman a whore is not a good comedy concept. Coronium 10:52, February 23, 2011 (UTC)
4. You mean a {{fix}}, Frosty? Except what's to fix? There's nothing here, really... 16:29, 24 February 2011
5. Delete No effort keyboard-tapping crap. mAttlobster. (hello) 10:38, February 26, 2011 (UTC)
6. Delete.. Not enough to build on to be fixed. I agree with Hyperbole. --Gamma 05:31, February 27, 2011 (UTC)

## Incomplete list

Score: 5
Keep (2)
1. Definate keep. If there was a list of actual incomplete lists in a funny way it would be funny. -- 03:29, February 26, 2011 (UTC)
if there arent any more for votes, put it on my user space, ill make out with it for a while --
14:01, February 26, 2011 (UTC)
(additional vote to delete Spikes crusty imperatives ;) -- 14:18, February 26, 2011 (UTC)
I really don't understand why AFD only lasts 24 hours. And the article just dissapears whoosh -- 03:23, February 27, 2011 (UTC)
2. Keep Has a certain lyrical charm. mAttlobster. (hello) 10:29, February 26, 2011 (UTC)
Delete (7)
1. That doesn't even make any sense. Also, it's just random. 01:37, 26 February 2011
2. Delete. Let us stipulate that author is not stupid. But the page title emphasizes awfulness and--after having a few very refined things to say about authorship--it degenerates into a list, a list of other Uncyclopedia articles he finds defective. Did I mention it's a photo-less stub?  01:46 26-Feb-11
3. Wha? Aleister 2:25 26-2-'11
4. I laughed, but not in a good way. -- 02:49, February 26, 2011 (UTC)
5. Aren't lists great? (talk) 07:25, February 26, 2011 (UTC)
6. Delete. This article's concept is so poor it hurts my head. $\mathfrak{C}\mathfrak{o}\mathfrak{r}\mathfrak{o}\mathfrak{n}\mathfrak{i}\mathfrak{u}\mathfrak{m}$ 13:42, February 26, 2011 (UTC)
7. Delete -- 02:58, February 27, 2011 (UTC)

## RSPCA

Score: -8
Keep (8)
1. Yeah, but it's kind of funny. I'm liking the new sig though Coronium. (talk) 23:09, February 25, 2011 (UTC)
Yes; now if he'd only put all that code inside a Signature file so it doesn't spill out on every page he signs.  23:22 25-Feb-11
2. Copy-edited. Criminally bad grammar, but the page is about a real and notable organization, has a comedy theme (irony), and is written cleverly (until we get to the list).  23:22 25-Feb-11
3. Keep. --~  08:44, February 26, 2011 (UTC)
4. Keep We must keep this, it tells the truth about Jesus. mAttlobster. (hello) 10:31, February 26, 2011 (UTC)
5. Keep. Good job SPIKE. --Scofield 12:36, February 26, 2011 (UTC)
6. Keep. Meh, now that I actually understand what the original author was trying to say, it's not that bad. $\mathfrak{C}\mathfrak{o}\mathfrak{r}\mathfrak{o}\mathfrak{n}\mathfrak{i}\mathfrak{u}\mathfrak{m}$ 13:38, February 26, 2011 (UTC)
7. Yes keep fo sho. Spike, nice save. If you don´t mind, Id like to add to it! -- 14:12, February 26, 2011 (UTC)
Cringes  14:20 26-Feb-11
Spike cringing cause the mofo or adding. If you dont want me to add to it say so. :) -- 19:50, February 26, 2011 (UTC)
8. Keep. per getting on the bandwagon and such. --Mn-z 00:11, February 27, 2011 (UTC)
Delete (0)
1. Delete. Rambling and poorly written. $\mathfrak{C}\mathfrak{o}\mathfrak{r}\mathfrak{o}\mathfrak{n}\mathfrak{i}\mathfrak{u}\mathfrak{m}$ 22:58, February 25, 2011 (UTC)
• Kept -- 02:54, February 27, 2011 (UTC)

Score: 6
Keep (1)
1. This stub is so bad, it made me laugh! --Scofield 14:02, February 25, 2011 (UTC)
Delete (7)
1. Delete. One of the worst articles I've ever seen survive five years. 20:58, February 24, 2011 (UTC)
2. Delete. Stubby. No photos. Intro starts by telling me what it isn't ("Not to be confused with....is still being determend [sic]"). Then on to a list of gobbledygook, Acid puke spray, city of feces, then memes. In the time it took to write this review, I could have typed a longer and better article.  21:32 24-Feb-11
3. Delete. [no comment needed] Coronium 21:33, February 24, 2011 (UTC)
4. EXTERMINATE!  (talk) 23:18, February 24, 2011 (UTC)
5. Delete. Just when you think you've deleted all Ye Olde Crappe, this smelly bundle is uncovered in a corner. --RomArtus*Imperator ® (Orate) 07:14, February 25, 2011 (UTC)
6. It's not even interesting. 17:42, 25 February 2011
7. Very poor. -- 02:58, February 26, 2011 (UTC)

You have to admit a couple things are pretty helarious, in an outrageous way. Like "you cant eat them like normal humans" ?? !! ?! ?! ?!?! ?! ¡¡¡ -- 23:10, February 24, 2011 (UTC)

Good God you have low standards. 23:41, February 24, 2011 (UTC)
Mmm me thinks one is maybe crossing the line of subjectivisticness!?!?!? -- 15:36, February 25, 2011 (UTC)
Well, your standards are apparently quite low. 17:42, 25 February 2011
And your sig is very familiar. Have we met before? In another life, maybe? -- 02:58, February 26, 2011 (UTC)
Lolipop made my sig so if it resembles someone from the past tell me, it would make me laugh. Your antagonisms are only making me want to vote against. This article is the frickin shiz-niz. What are you all on about. Who doesn't want to be able to eat a normal human? -- 03:27, February 26, 2011 (UTC)
Think ChiefjusticeDS. Before he got a sex-change. 00:55, 27 February 2011

## Moe Spenzetti-Ricardo

Score: 7
Keep (0)

Delete (7)
1. Delete. Will we ever finish cleaning up the fucking mess 2005 made in our wiki? 20:55, February 24, 2011 (UTC)
2. Delete. Looks autobiographical (that is, vanity). Very red-linky, aimless, and unfunny.  21:41 24-Feb-11
3. Delete.. Yeah, nothing worth keeping here. Coronium 23:31, February 24, 2011 (UTC)
4. Delete.. Uncyclopedia's forensic team can confirm this is shit. --RomArtus*Imperator ® (Orate) 07:18, February 25, 2011 (UTC)
5. Obliterate. --Wilytank can be a pain in the ass. 12:46, February 25, 2011 (UTC)
6. Delete. This sucks. --Scofield 12:40, February 26, 2011 (UTC)
7. That... is so random. It's amazing, but out of spite for something I didn't do outdoing my own potential random, I have to say kill it! Kill it with a chainsaw!. 00:54, 27 February 2011

## Mockney

Score: 6
Keep (0)

Delete (6)
1. Delete. Really, really not worth keeping. 20:50, February 24, 2011 (UTC)
3. Delete It's not funny cause it's true. mAttlobster. (hello) 21:56, February 24, 2011 (UTC)
4. Delete. Stubby with little potential. Coronium 11:19, February 25, 2011 (UTC)
5. Delete. Why is this here? --Scofield 14:08, February 25, 2011 (UTC)
6. That's... nice? 04:56, 26 February 2011

## Mobuddhism

Score: 5
Keep (0)

Delete (5)
1. Delete. Does not seem to be much more than ridiculous nonsense. 20:47, February 24, 2011 (UTC)
2. Delete. Not worked on since 2006. Morphing Zairian dictator Mobutu into Buddhism is not an awful concept, except that Mobutu died fourteen years ago. The three paragraphs of substance on the religion's notoriety are forced and not clever; they relate poorly to the real world. Shooping the roundish head of Mobutu onto a brass statue of the Buddha would be a minimum for such an article.  22:00 24-Feb-11
3. Delete. If this joke was ever topical..its day has passed. --RomArtus*Imperator ® (Orate) 07:28, February 25, 2011 (UTC)
4. Delete. Combining two completely unrelated topics in an unconvincing way... Coronium 16:22, February 25, 2011 (UTC)
5. There seems to be little humour here. Or even humor. Or much of a concept, for that matter. 04:55, 26 February 2011

## MoDOT

Score: 5
Keep (0)

Delete (5)
1. Delete. The Missouri Department of Transportation as a front for shady activities by Oprah Winfrey - this is literally one of the worst article concepts I have ever seen. 20:44, February 24, 2011 (UTC)
2. Delete. Concept fails: Write random things to disparage your local Department of Transportation. Except for place names and bridge closures, the humor is completely arbitrary.  21:35 24-Feb-11
3. You need to do better than crack obvious jokes like these. --Scofield 14:11, February 25, 2011 (UTC)
4. I find it hilarious. But not in a this is good sort of way. At least it has a concept, though, right? ...right? 02:16, 26 February 2011
5. Delete. Sir Cornbread did an edit. That's one thing the page has going for it. Aleister 2:29 26-2-'11

## Subascensionism

Score: 5
Keep (0)

Delete (5)
1. Delete. Crufty vanity about a religion made up by four computer science students. Coronium 20:25, February 24, 2011 (UTC)
2. Delete. Intro, while concealing surnames, identifies itself as a parody religion invented by four CompSci students with "overactive minds" (in other words, vanity, unless it were amusing, but it's not). Think about this when the bill arrives for \$15,000 for the next semester.  21:38 24-Feb-11
3. Delete. Disappears up its own fundament so quickly that I really have no clue where this is supposed to be funny. --RomArtus*Imperator ® (Orate) 07:24, February 25, 2011 (UTC)
4. Vanity? If it appeared to be satirising something, it'd fit, but it's not even... 02:14, 26 February 2011
5. Delete -- 03:03, February 27, 2011 (UTC)

## Trig Palin

Score: -2
Keep (5)
2. Keep An absurdly funny article written by people possessing a true grasp of satire. RDB seems to have semi-protected the page a few months ago because it was perfect. I don't know why he didn't just feature the thing. MegaPleb Dexter111344 Complain here 21:37, February 22, 2011 (UTC)
3. Keep If Trig Palin could vote he'd vote to save the page. I stand in his place. Aleister 22:26 22-2-'11
4. weak keep per it being linked to from UnNews:Trig mourns grandmommy's loss, and I feel like deleting this means the terrorists win. --Mn-z 23:02, February 22, 2011 (UTC)
5. Keep. It's not great, but there are some funny moments. Coronium 10:54, February 23, 2011 (UTC)
Delete (3)
1. Delete. An absurdly juvenile article written almost exclusively by IPs. RDB seems to have popped in to semi-protect the page a few months ago so we could fix it. I don't know why he didn't just delete the thing. 21:26, February 22, 2011 (UTC)
2. Delete. The trigonometry joke is clever and based on reality. The entire remainder of the article is third-grade and based on the urogenital system.  21:54 22-Feb-11
3. Sure, it has a few moments, but a few moments do not make up for a whole of crude and unfunny. 16:26, 24 February 2011

Mn-z: Wait, did someone threaten us with legal action or something? Maybe I don't have the full history here. 23:04, February 22, 2011 (UTC)

• See Forum:Another day, another call from the White House. --Mn-z 23:20, February 22, 2011 (UTC)
I remember that forum. It's the one where Clemens had claimed he fucked a low-level White House employee and the White House called and told us that that was libelous and Sannse removed the woman's name. I don't have any idea what it has to do with Trig Palin, though. 23:41, February 22, 2011 (UTC)
Awe man, that was just before I got an account here. Man, the biggest scandal Ive witnessed for far is about whether to delete categories or not  :( --Shabidoo 00:41, February 23, 2011 (UTC)
• Clemens was satirizing the fact that the President's receptionist is not a public figure, while a baby with Down's Syndrome baby is. --Mn-z 01:53, February 23, 2011 (UTC)
Don't worry Shabidoo there is bound to be a big drama here in 2011. We have at least one every year. The history of the previous ones are preserved somewhere on this wiki. --RomArtus*Imperator ® (Orate) 08:56, February 23, 2011 (UTC)ç
Well, alright, but lets make this year's drama, in our lovely 2011, a cataclysmic explosion where nothing will ever be the same again, okay? --Shabidoo 21:06, February 23, 2011 (UTC)
• Kept. -- 03:12, February 27, 2011 (UTC)

Score: 1
Keep (2)
1. Stubby but its not worth deleting, it made me laugh. The preceding unsigned comment was added by Shabidoo (talk • contribs)
2. Keep.--(Talk 06:06, February 23, 2011 (UTC)
Delete (3)
1. Delete. Not a useful start for a real article on tradition. 21:16, February 22, 2011 (UTC)
2. Delete. I think a blank page would really be much more appropriate than this. Coronium 10:58, February 23, 2011 (UTC)
3. Unless someone actually wants to put one of these 'useful' starts to use... what is there as a whole is just disappointing. 16:19, 24 February 2011
• It is a useful start. Several useful starts, in fact.  22:04 22-Feb-11
• Kept. -- 03:09, February 27, 2011 (UTC)

## Tracy Partridge

Score: 0
Keep (2)
1. Keep. She was the least known of the Partridges, lots of potential on this page. I did some lopping edits, a fouple of days ago. Alesiter, maybe the inventor of the word "fouple" 23:46 24-2-'11
p.s. I was wrong. It means fucking ugly couple. Just never heard the expression before, unless that's what they always yell at me and my mom as we walk the streets.
2. Keep.. I agree that this has potential. Coronium 17:32, February 25, 2011 (UTC)
Delete (2)
1. Delete. 2005-era shitty randomness about the Partridge Family, I think. 21:11, February 22, 2011 (UTC)
2. Per Spike... just nothing there to make it an article. Although I didn't even find that amusing. 16:14, 24 February 2011
• The false German, the band names, and the allusion to Fiddler on the Roof were amusing, but the article has no theme.  21:59 22-Feb-11

Score: 0
Keep (4)
1. Keep MegaPleb Dexter111344 Complain here 12:32, February 21, 2011 (UTC)
2. Keep. I will put an image! Yay! --~  16:19, February 21, 2011 (UTC)
3. What? -- TKFUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUCK 03:48, February 22, 2011 (UTC)
4. Keep. It's terrible, but we don't usually delete old UnNews. Because that's like Ministry of Truth shit, you know? What's done is done. 05:55, February 22, 2011 (UTC)
Delete (4)
2. Delete. Anon's unconnected UnNews from 2006, if submitted today, would not have made the cut; I would have taken it to QVFD, and I think Lyrithya might have beaten me to it. If Dexter voted Keep so we don't waste time on five-year-old UnNewses, that's fine; if he thinks there's anything good about it, it's still not worth debating. Mimo, please don't waste time illustrating this, but go to work on Graviton.  16:31 21-Feb-11
3. I clicked randomly and wound up here. On one hand, it sucks. On the other, I cannot be bothered to care... yay... I wonder if I upped the right number? 05:37, 22 February 2011
4. Delete. If somebody stumbles upon an UnNews this crappy, let him kill it. --Scofield 16:24, February 22, 2011 (UTC)
• Kept. -- 03:01, February 27, 2011 (UTC)

## List of Monarchs of the Filipino Empire

Score: 3
Keep (0)

Delete (3)
1. Delete. List of made up, future monarchs of the Philippines, which doesn't have a monarchy to satirize. Coronium 11:07, February 23, 2011 (UTC)
2. Delete. Imelda Marcos, Cory Aquino and then it's away with the fairies after that. --RomArtus*Imperator ® (Orate) 14:04, February 24, 2011 (UTC)
3. What a lovely... pile of nonsense. o__o 16:34, 24 February 2011
• "List of" in the title is as unnecessary as "Table of" in a Table of Contents. Article lacks a real intro, explaining why the Phillipines became a monarchy in the first place. A list like this could be fun, like Mustaches of Legend, but author can't avoid telling a history-of-the-future that seems to have plenty of inside jokes funny only to him.  11:17 24-Feb-11

## Template:Game Start

Score: 6
Keep (0)

Delete (6)
1. Ugh. Just... what? what is the point of this template? no article uses it, what is the point....  ? - LOL vandalz 21:00, February 24, 2011 (UTC)
somebody else actually used my template? --Wilytank can be a pain in the ass. 15:44, February 25, 2011 (UTC)
2. Left over from Game:Suicide Bomber, which Zombiebaron got rid of last week. Probably QVFD material, here. 21:03, February 24, 2011 (UTC)
3. Delete. I would never play another Uncyc game if the start templates were all like these. -- 21:12, February 24, 2011 (UTC)
4. In case qvfd doesn't kill it. 05:33, 25 February 2011
5. Same as above (talk) 05:37, February 25, 2011 (UTC)
6. Groan... --Coronium 16:34, February 25, 2011 (UTC)
7. Delete. The QVFD gods are slow to huff it, so here's my vote.  23:18 25-Feb-11