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 VFD.
Delete (For Now). I'm just going to hide a version in my userspace for now. I'm going to add a few images, and update it to coincide with modern events. Ironically, Boe is funding educational indie games. Weird? --Gamma287☭Tetяis? 00:56, June 4, 2011 (UTC)
Delete. per above. --Mn-z 04:08, June 4, 2011 (UTC)
Delete. Another "Frog with 7 butts" article. This one suffers from a lack of humor concept. Sure, they describe the animal but it's described in such a sundry, workmanlike fashion that it's about as funny as the average wikipedia article on zoology. --Count of Monkey Crisco 15:30, June 1, 2011 (UTC)
This not-so-good old UnNews surprised me. From the title, it that sounds like it should be making a lot of easy, unfunny jokes. However, it didn't make any jokes at all. --TKFUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUCK 16:43, June 2, 2011 (UTC)
Delete. In the spirit of the jokeless joke, this makes No Soap Radio! seem like the Guess what? Chicken butt of all time. Back to you Gene --KevillipsэвилипсMUN,CM,NS,3of7 16:47, June 2, 2011 (UTC)
Delete. A typical 'this town is crap etc and I will now shit on your time if you read further.' --RomArtus*Imperator ® (Orate) 18:38, June 2, 2011 (UTC)
Another beast I hunted. If there is something funny about repeating over and over the sentence "I want Wibbly pig on", I sure didn't know. Mattsnow 23:48, June 1, 2011 (UTC)
Been done better. In every way. (talk)00:28, 2 June 2011
Delete. Repetitive page is repetitive. --Count of Monkey Crisco 02:15, June 2, 2011 (UTC)
Delete. Somewhere somebody though lemon + antelope = comedy gold. That somewhere is planet 2006 in the Cruft-o dimension. --Count of Monkey Crisco 15:30, June 1, 2011 (UTC)
Keep. per being a user-page box. --Mn-z 01:44, June 2, 2011 (UTC)
Keep Per abovewards. mAttlobster. (hello) 17:26, June 2, 2011 (UTC)
Keep. CTF was the best game I ever played from age 8-10. I think now they call it paint ball. --KevillipsэвилипсMUN,CM,NS,3of7 17:39, June 2, 2011 (UTC)
Delete (3)
Delete. Unneeded userbox for a nonexistent game. -- 15:26, June 1, 2011 (UTC)
Keep. Spoofs a slightly overplayed horror movie plot. With some trimming it'll be okay. In other words, this article (takes off sunglasses) is salvageable. --Count of Monkey Crisco 13:49, June 1, 2011 (UTC)
Keep. it was sloppy and quickly made, but with a little TLC and formatting, I made it look better, but still needs a hot beef injection of humor--KevillipsэвилипсMUN,CM,NS,3of7 03:17, June 2, 2011 (UTC)
Froggy, you did not adjust the count with your vote, and I cannot quite tell your intent as yea or nay, section yes keep, but wording makes me wonder.--KevillipsэвилипсMUN,CM,NS,3of7 16:23, June 2, 2011 (UTC)
Keep"sneek previews of the next days rations and home videos of cooking creations sent in by Iraqi housewives.". OK concept, enough good to be worth saving, and not offensive enough to want it to die. MrNFork you! 12:14, Jun 1
Delete Every sentence has the potential to make the reader smile. Never has potential appeared so inadequate. mAttlobster. (hello) 11:51, June 1, 2011 (UTC)
Delete. Obviously written by members of their message board for members of their message board. Actually names individual members of the message board "community" making for jokes which only a few dozen people could ever get. Most of the article is borderline vanity and lists. --Count of Monkey Crisco 22:40, May 31, 2011 (UTC)
Word Of The Day: Vomit. --Gamma287☭Tetяis? 01:33, June 1, 2011 (UTC)
Delete. Started in 2006 by an IP and largely unchanged since this article suffers from a very weak theme and a lack of funny ideas. To pad out it's length it goes off on needless tangents and uses short bursts of randumbo. --Count of Monkey Crisco 12:47, May 31, 2011 (UTC)
Delete. I would call this a "Frog with 7 Butts" type-article, i.e. the author makes up a funny random creature, then produces pointless facts, listcruft, and/or randumbo about the subject, since there really isn't humor besides the title and possibly a photoshopped pic. --Mn-z 20:39, May 31, 2011 (UTC)
Radioactive! Yet again, another rare appearance of Gamma287 has come about, and this time it's to delete an article (again). This article is too bad to even have a corny joke about the title. This makes me sick... --Gamma287☭Tetяis? 01:26, June 1, 2011 (UTC)
Delete. An article that wears its stupidity with pride. Remove. --RomArtus*Imperator ® (Orate) 07:49, June 1, 2011 (UTC)
Actually IS based in reality, though reality from 2006. And also not that bad. --TKFUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUCK 22:51, May 31, 2011 (UTC)
Delete. per my new quest to clean up category:Pregnancy and its sub-cats. This is old unfunny vanity that no-one cares about anymore, and probably should have in the UnSignPost if it existed back then. --Mn-z 12:47, May 29, 2011 (UTC)
..'random chathedral'...noooooo..take the bad article away nurse! --RomArtus*Imperator ® (Orate) 10:45, May 29, 2011 (UTC)
Comments
Three Keep votes? Something is definitely wrong with you people! --Scofield & The Machine 07:06, May 29, 2011 (UTC)
It's funny! And a truz story, I actually met Matthew Broderick once, and he's about the palest person I've ever met. He was white, like a sheet, well, not quite that white, but pretty white. He probably scares Sarah Jessica every morning just after she scares him. Aleister 13:10 29-5-'11
That "jornalist" should have thought of this. Bad spelling, bad grammar, and it basically reduces a famous actor's career to a single role for the sole purpose of going on and on about sex. I don't know that the article needs to be deleted, but right now there's practically nothing except hormonal "humor". --Sloublues 13:18, May 29, 2011 (UTC)
I completely fail to understand how this article has any redeeming value. If this is kept, and radical changes aren't made within the coming month, I'm definitely renominating it. --Scofield & The Machine 12:07, May 30, 2011 (UTC)#
You tell'em Scof! mAttlobster. (hello) 12:20, May 30, 2011 (UTC)
We're nominating crappy old UnNews articles for deletion? Yippy! --Scofield & The Machine 08:58, May 28, 2011 (UTC)
Delete. I've always believed UnNews articles to have greater merit than we credit them for. I think they're worthy of categorization and linkage to mainspace articles. They frequently get featured. Their only bad turn was being badly organized. Just as UnNews articles are worthy of getting the feature nod so should the worst of them qualify for VFD nomination. --Count of Monkey Crisco 10:08, May 28, 2011 (UTC)
Not nearly as bad as the UnNews I've been looking at of late, but still bad enough. 1234~22:54, 28 May 2011
Keep. Iz removed the UnNews and just mainspaced it. Bad in parts, good in parts, probably not VFD candidate material imnho. Maybe we can slow down on UnNews VFD's and let people catch up, it takes time to go thru so many articles. And maybe just nom the "for sure" delete ones for awhile, until they are used up. Aleister 3:32 28-5-'11
Keep. It's not that bad at all. Mattsnow 08:46, May 28, 2011 (UTC)
The lizard is standing on its hind legs inside a woman's womb while wielding a wizard's wand. The woman apparantly is just standing there. What's not to like? Aleister 1:26-28-5-'11
Since we're nominating old UnNews, we might as well nominate in-jokes too... except this isn't an in-joke, as it claims to be. It's a rehash of another in-joke that is, as it admits, fucking retarded. —The preceding unsigned comment was added bythekillerfroggy (talk • contribs)
Delete You know, despite my comments on the nom below I have to side with deleting this one. I did think this was funny when first created, but now I feel that its time has come. Sorry Mnbvcxz. MrNFork you! 00:29, May 28
It is what it is, and I've never been a fan of these things even in their first iterations. 1234~01:46, 28 May 2011
Delete. WE have these three lousy articles, iCarly, the sojourn to iCarly and this supporting eachother but none of them are supported by a solid foundation of good writing. I can get behind a bad article that only exists to support a decent one but this Borromean ring of bad articles has no special merit in my eyes. --Count of Monkey Crisco 07:46, May 28, 2011 (UTC)
Delete. I go along with the Count here - and also for introducing me to Borromean as a new mathematically-based criticism for an unworthy article. Who said you don't learn anything on Uncyclopedia?. --RomArtus*Imperator ® (Orate) 09:13, May 28, 2011 (UTC)
Comments
Comment. actually, the relatively good articles of Newt and Newtis Newtfield are in the newt ring. iCarly have very little to do newt gestation now. --Mn-z 11:38, May 28, 2011 (UTC)
Delete. That namespace needs a filter to auto-delete articles under a fixed number of bytes --Frosty dah snowguycontribsKUNPLEB 10:39, May 29, 2011 (UTC)
I added a pic which improves the article thousands of percent, but still not enough. Aleister 12:03 29-5-'11
Comment. Going to the page I see it links off to a huge pile of articles all with the same structure! Perhaps all should be brought here and culled. Leave just one alive, chained in the Uncyclopedia dungeon as eternal punishment. --RomArtus*Imperator ® (Orate) 10:34, May 29, 2011 (UTC)
Deleting UnNews articles seems pointless to me. No harm in it if they're crap, but still pointless. mAttlobster. (hello) 10:12, May 28, 2011 (UTC)
What Matt said. They're basically equivalent to archived Forum Talk pages. --TKFUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUCK 13:52, May 28, 2011 (UTC)
Except where they can be categorized, nominated for feature and linked to mainspace pages. --Count of Monkey Crisco 16:02, May 28, 2011 (UTC)
bandwagon keep there appears to be a strong consensus for keeping this article. --Mn-z 03:59, May 29, 2011 (UTC)
Delete (1)
#Delete. Since user:Dr. Skullthumper suggested that UnNews be subject to the same QA standards as the rest of the site, I've decided to nominate old unNews for deletion. This one is basically a rouge punchline, and the topic of animal impregnation has been done better in other articles. --Mn-z 23:47, May 27, 2011 (UTC)
Delete. When it comes to pregnancy, giving birth, or generally icky baby related issues everyone knows that they can rely on Mnbvcxz to be our yardstick for quality. MrNFork you! 23:52, May 27