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.
Obliterate. A stupid, unfunny, stub of an article about a made-up, stupid, unfunny word. Kill it. --SirXamRalcothe Mediocre 18:12, September 10, 2011 (UTC)
Some truly deserving articles on VFD this round. I say we drop this one into an actual killzone, with no weapons, and a neon target painted on it, and see how long it lasts. ⇒»Biz E.B. Ver (gabble) 00:46, September 12, 2011 (UTC)
Is it hot in the keep box or is it just me? Its just me... But I think this has potential, just needs fixing. Not a delete. --ThecoolxavierguyfromghIII 00:59, September 11, 2011 (UTC) 00:56, September 11, 2011 (UTC)
Delete (5)
This is like not funny or some shit. ~SirFrosty(Talk to me!) 08:53, September 9, 2011 (UTC)
Sato is funny but the rest... ugh. Seijana 09:23, September 9, 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, leave it up to the Japanese and the Germans to come up with oddly specific words for people, sensations and properties. Schadenfreude, anyone? ⇒»Biz E.B. Ver (gabble) 01:07, September 12, 2011 (UTC)
Kerkill. Let's see here: Poorly done random humor? Check. Oscar Wilde reference? Check. Misquoted Kanye West reference? Check. Silly picture with a caption about drugs? Check. Referencing the future? Check. Huge formatting issues? Check. Referencing Hitler and Thundercats in the same sentence? Check. It'sMrthejazz... a case not yet solved. 01:02, September 10, 2011 (UTC)
I dunno. It's definitely a huge mess, but I'm inclined to think that inside that mess, there are little pieces that would together form a short but keepable article given everything in between said pieces is brutally massacred. —SirSocky(talk)(stalk)GUNSotMUotMPMotMUotYPotMWotM22:52, 8 September 2011
There's never been anything good to say about this. I'd like to see someone try, though. --TKFUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUCK 14:36, September 8, 2011 (UTC)
why does it have two intros --Roman Dog Bird 18:57, September 8, 2011 (UTC)
My eyes fell out. Anyone up for watching Final Destination 5 after I get em' back in? I want to watch Olivia die after laser eye surgery (again)... --Gamma287☭Tetяis? 22:47, September 8, 2011 (UTC)
Why, it's an assortment of teenaged IPs writing about how they're so stressed out about the test they have to take! How could this not be comedy gold?? pillow talk 16:05, September 9, 2011 (UTC)
Delete. Unmitigated, incoherent shit with some retarded (prossibly fake) chat log thrown in the bottom for no intelligible reason whatsoever. -- Prof. OliproKUN(W)AnchorOpBur. (Harass) 15:26, September 8, 2011 (UTC)
Hmm. This has been gathering dust since 2010, the last time it was edited since its creation in 2007. -opens- -closes immediately afterwards- I can see why... --Gamma287☭Tetяis? 22:23, September 5, 2011 (UTC)
Delete. Who the fuck is Nathan Krueger? I'm pretty sure this falls under vanity. -- Prof. OliproKUN(W)AnchorOpBur. (Harass) 15:23, September 8, 2011 (UTC)
Delete. The only thing keepable about this article is the sexy picture, which sadly, does not have a sexy caption. The rest of it, wikipedia does a better job. -- Simsilikesims(♀UN)Talk here. 05:48, September 8, 2011 (UTC)
Well, Seems like vanity.--FcukmanLOOS3R!!! 05:53, September 8, 2011 (UTC)
Vanity? No, he's a notable person. But this article reads like a really, really, really bad version of a wikipedia page with a fangirl statement tacked on to the end of it. -- Simsilikesims(♀UN)Talk here. 05:58, September 8, 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, this is very crudely made. It's often barely readable, and the word "n00b" is used an absurd number of times. pillow talk 15:15, September 6, 2011 (UTC)
It's funny when you look at the names and the discussion. I don't care much for the red links that go with them, but they're kinda needed to get the humor. --Wilytank can be a pain in the ass. 12:34, September 6, 2011 (UTC)
Yes, it`s sort of funny, but we already have many parodies exactly like this one. Or that`s what I think. Don`t ask me to list them, `cus I`m too lazy to even find them. OMG!!!It`s Cat the Colourful,Jesus Christ!!! 12:51 6 September 2011
Poorly formatted, one adequately-sized image, bullcrap attempts at a plot/background story. This is enough to make me vote keep on Why?:Abortion is FUN. --Gamma287☭Tetяis? 20:33, September 4, 2011 (UTC)
Keep. Abortion is fun. Just ask my galpals, whom I force into the clinic on threats of death and stuff. Aleister 17:20 7-9-'11
Keep. Now that I get the joke. I wrote a much more obvious version and reverted myself, but one of you guys can bring it back if you want.--Talk!Contribs! 17:51, September 6, 2011 (UTC)
Keep. Not delete-worthy, really. pillow talk 17:58, September 6, 2011 (UTC)
This is not an in-joke, nor really even a joke, just a political statement by someone decidedly pro-life with a bit of a frame tacked on, which helps, but there still really isn't much to get. And it's gross. 1234~15:01, 3 September 2011
Yes, but if it's going to be gross, horrible, and appalling, it also has to be funny, and I just don't find it funny. --SirXamRalcothe Mediocre 11:33, September 4, 2011 (UTC)
It's certainly your right not to consider this type of humour funny, though a VFD vote is more about whether an article's humour fits on the wiki. If you don't consider the article's humour worthy of being called "humour", that's another matter entirely. Anyway, if you want to vote delete, by all means do so, but I just thought I'd point out that the article's humour relies on grossing people out. —SirSocky(talk)(stalk)GUNSotMUotMPMotMUotYPotMWotM12:14, 4 September 2011
As I said, "Appalling. Simply appalling." I can take gore, but I just find that a little, umm, immorally obscene. --Gamma287☭Tetяis? 20:29, September 4, 2011 (UTC)
"Immorally obscene" is almost exactly what I'm aiming for. Well, except that it's actually morally justified because it discourages people to get an abortion. —SirSocky(talk)(stalk)GUNSotMUotMPMotMUotYPotMWotM20:50, 4 September 2011
Well, you've spawned an idea involving Oh Internet and this image. Hehehehehehehehe... --Gamma287☭Tetяis? 02:27, September 5, 2011 (UTC)
I am decidedly undecided on the issue, so I don't see this as a political statement either way. Still, political statements can be hilarious in themselves (Conservapedia?). Either way, I suppose this is just one of those articles that is bound to cause controversy among both deletionists and inclusionists. Since these discussions usually end with a bunch of people yelling at each other in Klingon and Jabba-the-Hutt-ese, I bid this nomination adieu, goodbye, and POODOO!!!!*runs away* -- Sir"TheSlyPony"Invariably certifiable.Rap sheet.His greatest achievement (and bizarre obsession).15:43 September 3, 2011 (UTC)
The main "joke" of the article is that something like 90% of the people who take an abortion would become convinced pro-lifers if they knew what the doctor was actually doing in their belly. I mean, a falcon punch abortion is more humane than dilation and evacuation. If that's not funny, I don't know what is. —SirSocky(talk)(stalk)GUNSotMUotMPMotMUotYPotMWotM15:54, 3 September 2011
Oh yes killing a developing fetus is true comedy at its best! ~SirFrosty(Talk to me!) 11:36, September 4, 2011 (UTC)
Actually, the fact that this extremely pro-choice article would convince a lot of people of the merits of the pro-life stance is true comedy at its best. —SirSocky(talk)(stalk)GUNSotMUotMPMotMUotYPotMWotM12:01, 4 September 2011
This is barely even an article. There are like two sentences and then a picture that was taken from here --SirXamRalcothe Mediocre 12:10, September 4, 2011 (UTC)
We have other short pages like this one. Personally, I don't think just because an article is concise it should be deleted. —SirSocky(talk)(stalk)GUNSotMUotMPMotMUotYPotMWotM12:16, 4 September 2011
My point is that if the article relies only on one picture for humor, the picture should be original. --SirXamRalcothe Mediocre 12:25, September 4, 2011 (UTC)
If the picture wasn't from a scientific journal, it'd interfere with the article's humour, because people could easily, and justifiably, argue that's it's just another of those fake extremely graphic images made by pro-lifers to further their agenda. —SirSocky(talk)(stalk)GUNSotMUotMPMotMUotYPotMWotM12:58, 4 September 2011
If this does somehow get deleted, can I have it in my userspace? Thanks. -- 18:59, September 4, 2011 (UTC)
So if we cut out the rape section, it would be funny? --Wilytank can be a pain in the ass. 01:40, September 3, 2011 (UTC)
Probably the most original artical out there.The rape part is sorta off topic--UNmarine777 02:38, September 4, 2011 (UTC)
After a quick revisit, I've decided to let this mistake slide. I would like to see the crap shoveled out of it sometime or another. I'd say this is about a 4 out of 10 article. Remove perversions, poop jokes and anything out there written by super-vandal twelve-year-olds. --Gamma287☭Tetяis? 02:32, September 5, 2011 (UTC)
Delete (3)
Really, really horrible. I don't understand why someone would think that saying that a cartoon character is a rapist is funny. It's just stupid. --SirXamRalcothe Mediocre 13:02, September 2, 2011 (UTC)
Delete. there is much to the article besides random, rape, and, at best "what's the point?" type content. (I.e. stuff that isn't random, but isn't funny and doesn't move the article along.) --Mn-z 01:52, September 3, 2011 (UTC)
Watch as I magically summarize this in five characters. RAPE. Wonderful, isn't it?!? Now, for my next trick, I'm going to ma- DELETE --Gamma287☭Tetяis? 20:36, September 4, 2011 (UTC)
I won't say I don't, either, but unless this page gets suddenly cleaned up, I'd be voting "delete", if I weren't abstaining. Say, Sock: if you keep the Whorebot theme... how 'bout a picture of Maria from the movie Metropolis? (This one's my favorite. Why the writer didn't think of that, I don't know. I mean, obvious, no?) ⇒»Biz E.B. Ver (gabble) 00:53, September 4, 2011 (UTC)
Delete (6)
Delete. Okay, so maybe this article has a proper concept. It's still stupid. --Scofield & The Machine 15:11, September 3, 2011 (UTC)
Murder murder murder murder murder murder MURDER MURDER MURDER MURDER MURDER MURDER MURDER!!!! Badger. It started as Star Wars poop-on-a-stick, it shall end as just poop-on-a-stick. ⇒»Biz E.B. Ver (gabble) 12:36, September 2, 2011 (UTC)
Keep. This is only bad due to the fact this was never protected. Protect against IPs delete the list cruft and it would be quite nice. ~SirFrosty(Talk to me!) 07:30, September 1, 2011 (UTC)
I couldn't tell if most of that was vandalism or content. BURN IT. NOW. --Gamma287☭Tetяis? 22:49, August 31, 2011 (UTC)
Delete. crappy redundant article created by 100 ips over half a decade is crappy and redundant. --Mn-z 00:04, September 1, 2011 (UTC)
Comments
Suggestion: Redirect to America, the much-better-and-funnier (and featured) article. ⇒»Biz E.B. Ver (gabble) 22:17, August 31, 2011 (UTC)
Second suggestion: this nomination is bound to cause controversy. Leave it up for a week, so at least everyone who's following this page has the opportunity to vote on it. ⇒»Biz E.B. Ver (gabble) 22:34, August 31, 2011 (UTC)
If this page is huffed, it better be protected, or it WILL be recreated by bored troll IPs. -- Simsilikesims(♀UN)Talk here. 23:12, August 31, 2011 (UTC)
A protected redirect to America wouldn't be a bad idea. --Mn-z 21:13, September 1, 2011 (UTC)
For. Not Bad Enough.--FcukmanLOOS3R!!! 06:06, August 31, 2011 (UTC)
Delete (5)
Burninate! This is just random and stupid. "Ronald McDonald was a nazi, child rapist, and serial killer." How original. --SirXamRalcothe Mediocre 01:39, August 31, 2011 (UTC)
I will agree with the fact that this is absolute garbabe, but can the closing admin move it to my userspace? —The preceding unsigned comment was added byEpicAwesomeness (talk • contribs)
Wait, whut? WHY? I thought you couldn't delete an entire country's article! Oh, wait, because it's a giant puddle of cruft? United States of America is worse, VFD that one first! I mean it! I've worked on it, and it still sucks ass! ⇒»Biz E.B. Ver (gabble) 23:33, August 30, 2011 (UTC)
For the record, none of what you just said is a good reason to vote keep on an article. But, feel free to vote whichever way you like, please. -- BrigadierGeneralSirZombiebaron 08:39, August 31, 2011 (UTC)
Comment. there is a similar article at Bagpuss. I am, however, too busy, unfamiliar with the subject, and lazy to be able to tell you which one is better. --Mn-z 21:00, August 29, 2011 (UTC)
Eh, abstain--Mnidtalk 20:50, August 30, 2011 (UTC)
I'm for removing the content from this, as it mainly pertains to Mnbvcxz' userspace. He could still use it as a category without having a category page, but that way it shouldn't show up, say, when using HotCat or something. Unless what Wikia did affects that too. 1234~18:44, 28 August 2011
For a single user's userspace, that's been CSD. This contains a few other pages outside of the one user's userspace, but not many. 1234~19:37, 28 August 2011
Er, speedy deletion, sorry. Criteria. Thing. 1234~19:44, 28 August 2011
Well, it's used on more than one user's userspace, a couple mainspace pages, an UnNews, and some images. And I'm sure there are much worse categories to encounter while using HotCat. —SirSocky(talk)(stalk)GUNSotMUotMPMotMUotYPotMWotM19:58, 28 August 2011
Possible Invalid nom the page itself is under 7 days old. However, this is the older category, Category:BUTT POOP (sic) under a different name, so one could argue that it is older than 7 days. On the other hand, when deleting a category, we are mainly voting to delete a category name, not so much the content of the category page, and there is an important difference between BUTT POOP (sic) and BUTT POOP!!!!. On the other hand, it does seem silly to wait 7 days for a category, since the name can't change. But, there is no exception in the rules exempting categories form the 7 day age requirement, so this could go either way. --Mn-z 12:22, August 28, 2011 (UTC)
Do you not sometimes think that all of us on here are just a little bit odd? mAttlobster. (hello) 17:29, August 28, 2011 (UTC)
It's a category; QA doesn't really apply to them. Once there's stuff in them, they apply to a whole lot of pages, and when there's no stuff, admins just delete them whenever as part of general maintenance. Although it's not like categories technically can be deleted anymore, anyway, something about Wikia... changing them. Remove the content, yes. But actually make them go away according to the software, not so much. 1234~18:44, 28 August 2011
Possible Invalid validation on nomination Lyrithya voted to delete this category, therefore, it may or may not be a conflict of interest (or something!!) for her to make a decision regarding the validity of this vfd nomination. --Mn-z 20:50, August 29, 2011 (UTC)
Possible invalid invalidation of validation on nomination - Mnbvcxz is notoriously pro-BUTT POOP and voted to keep the category, which may represent a conflict of interest for him to determine whether someone with whom he disagrees is making an invalid judgment call. --AndorinKato 01:56, August 31, 2011 (UTC)
Possible invalidation loop detected. Ulterior motives are omnipresent, thus no one is truly qualified to judge anything whatsoever. —SirSocky(talk)(stalk)GUNSotMUotMPMotMUotYPotMWotM04:31, 31 August 2011
I wonder in the history of the universe, if anyone has ever been described as "notoriously pro-BUTT POOP" before. mAttlobster. (hello) 08:33, August 31, 2011 (UTC)
Eh, another abstainMnidtalk 20:52, August 30, 2011 (UTC)
Whoa whoa WHOA fellas! I'm rewriting this as we speak. Wait until I've submitted my first revision, THEN vote. ⇒»Biz E.B. Ver (gabble) 00:45, August 29, 2011 (UTC)
Actually, you know what...I rewrote this, but it still sucks. Do what you will with it. I'm too tired to finish it tonight. ⇒»Biz E.B. Ver (gabble) 08:39, August 29, 2011 (UTC)
I think this has improved, I love the image! ~SirFrosty(Talk to me!) 10:29, August 29, 2011 (UTC)
It's... it's... beautiful. *Starts to tear up* -- 15:24, August 27, 2011 (UTC)
So no one looks like a major tard when using the phrase. *celebratory bygawd* --Gamma287☭Tetяis? 16:41, August 27, 2011 (UTC)
Quite frankly, this joke is only made funny by the crusade against it. Therefore, allow me to phrase my keep vote as FU SPANG. Inebriated 16:51, August 27, 2011 (UTC)
According to Mnbvcxz, this version of the page is sufficiently different from the successfully VFD'd version that it can exist. I say that this in-joke is stupid, without being funny, and that it should be killed off for good. --AndorinKato 08:21, August 27, 2011 (UTC)
I 3rd Frosty's 2nd. Unfortunately, though, I feel that Kato's (and any other sensible user's) battle on this front is an uphill one, much like that of the British at Breed's Hill. It is Spocky and Mr. Mxyzptlk's baby, and they will never let it die—they will fight until the DEATH!!!! ⇒»Biz E.B. Ver (gabble) 09:18, August 27, 2011 (UTC)
Yeah I'm with them ^. --BlackFlamingo 13:26, August 27, 2011 (UTC)
Never mind all the silly crusading, it's just not funny. 1234~17:56, 27 August 2011
I can make a funnier title. Watch: WIENER PISS!!!! --Wilytank can be a pain in the ass. 18:50, August 27, 2011 (UTC)
Here is the original VFD for the template. Could the keep voters explain why this vote doesn't also apply to this version of the page? --AndorinKato 23:33, August 27, 2011 (UTC)
Although they are both on the subject of BUTT POOP!!!!, this is an article in mainspace, that was a template in templatespace. They also have different content, VFD does prevent re-creation of deleted content, it does not prevent a new article on the same subject from being created. Also, it is commonly believed that the VFD vote was unfair. </ironic understatement> According to our best estimations, an honest VFD vote on template:BUTT POOP would have yielded something like this. --Mn-z 00:26, August 28, 2011 (UTC)
After 75 hours, the deletion crusaders have failed to amass enough delete votes, which is a good thing, because it means they've moved on and discovered more purposeful things to do in life. Kept.—SirSocky(talk)(stalk)GUNSotMUotMPMotMUotYPotMWotM11:22, 30 August 2011
Keep. I still stand by the statement that it is worse than Category:BUTT POOP!!!!, but I after some reflection, I think its status as an established in-joke now outweighs the fact that it is a pointless category created solely for the purpose of annoying SPIKE and myself. --Mn-z 21:06, August 29, 2011 (UTC)
Keep for no fucking reason Mnidtalk 12:31, August 30, 2011 (UTC)
Excellent. I'll be the lone voice of sense, crying out here in the wilderness. That's the way I like it. I'm a Lone Wolf, bitch. ⇒»Biz E.B. Ver (gabble) 21:33, August 29, 2011 (UTC)
Comments
Comment. I noticed it has been over a month since I last nominated this for deletion. --Mn-z 01:38, August 29, 2011 (UTC)
I noticed that you are still trying your hardest to get rid of it and other things you don't like. But, being the kind person I am, I still want to see BUTT POOP!!!! return. Aleister 4:27 29-8-'11
weak delete Interesting concept, pretty crappy execution. And this is coming from an actual Taylor Swift fan. --Scofield & The Machine 12:06, August 29, 2011 (UTC)
This is just so... stupid. It's not funny, it's not original, and it's too short. Am I missing anything? --SirXamRalcothe Mediocre 18:54, August 27, 2011 (UTC)
There aren't even any sexy pictures to help us guys out! What a gyp! -- 18:58, August 27, 2011 (UTC)
I already know how. Mattsnow 19:57, August 27, 2011 (UTC)
Please keep the NSFW off the official pages. 1234~19:29, 27 August 2011
Okay, sorry. -- 22:10, August 27, 2011 (UTC)
But...but...it has Template:NSFW, doesn't it?!?? It's OK, then, right??? I mean, anyone who clicks on "HowTo:Wank" is sorta askin' for it, anyway, and if they don't find it there, it's a disappointment, right? Boo, Lyrithyriara. Boo, Lady-Who-Does-Not-Understand-Fun. ⇒»Biz E.B. Ver (gabble) 23:30, August 27, 2011 (UTC)
I was referring to the picture he posted. I changed it into a link, so you can still easily go look at it if you want, but that way it's at least off the page. 1234~01:32, 28 August 2011
Edlete. You know, the idjit who wrote this had a spark of a good idea, somewhere at the back of his tiny brain...and then proceeded to drown it with LSD and beer. ⇒»Biz E.B. Ver (gabble) 23:25, August 27, 2011 (UTC)
Keep. Way to start drama with a VFD nom, Lyrithya. Also, as a regular consumer of ketchup, I regularly struggle with the substance left at the bottom of a squeezy bottle, so bleh. —SirSocky(talk)(stalk)GUNSotMUotMPMotMUotYPotMWotM02:05, 27 August 2011
Abstain. The beginning and very end are really stupid, but the middle made me laugh quite a bit, so I can't decide. But as it looks like this'll be kept, I'd like it to be cleaned up a bit. -- 15:40, August 27, 2011 (UTC)
Keep. It's literate; it's silly; it doesn't rely on a bunch of in-jokes, randomness, or offensiveness . . . it could use work, but it's not bad. --Sloublues 20:25, August 26, 2011 (UTC)
I don't feel strongly enough about this page to vote on it, but whilst it's short, it's an article full of puns. Meringue in Scotland: See, the joke is..."is it a cake or a meringue" would sound like "is it a cake, or am I wrong?" if said with a Scots brogue. (Maybe.) ⇒»Biz E.B. Ver (gabble) 05:45, August 25, 2011 (UTC)
Some of it is rather amusing. 1234~01:12, 27 August 2011
Per Lyrithya. Time to swoop in, save it, and et cetera... --Gamma287☭Tetяis? 16:35, August 27, 2011 (UTC)
Delete (5)
If not delete, then a lot of fucking cleanup. Yes, I get the joke, but in the end it just makes Uncyclopedia look like a wholly offensive pile of shit. --Talk!Contribs! 06:13, August 24, 2011 (UTC)
It's like Encyclopedia Dramatica jacked off in the general direction of Uncyclopedia, and missed — but li'l spatters of splooge still managed to land here, and created this page. ⇒»Biz E.B. Ver (gabble) 05:56, August 25, 2011 (UTC)
Hey, I lost my virginity whilst watching this TV show. How dare you people. Yes this article is a giant steaming turd made from a pile of smaller turds, but...tell you what: gimme three months, and I'll rewrite the shit out of it. ⇒»Biz E.B. Ver (gabble) 19:42, August 23, 2011 (UTC)
What you did whilst you watched this show, doesn't count as losing your virginity. mAttlobster. (hello) 21:53, August 23, 2011 (UTC)
But...but...she put down the eggbeaters, wiped off the daffodil purée, and said with a wink, "You're not a virgin anymore, sweetie!" ⇒»Biz E.B. Ver (gabble) 05:48, August 25, 2011 (UTC)
Okay, I'm really starting to get pissed here. Not only is this article a pile of shit, but it had an ICU added to it twice, only to have it removed almost immediately by the writer. Now it's to old for an ICU. So if you ask me, this article needs to be deleted, and the writer needs a good spanking. -- 18:18, August 26, 2011 (UTC)
Changed one or two things, but I think it was keepable even before that. --Talk!Contribs! 06:35, August 25, 2011 (UTC)
NO! We shall keep this one. I look into its eyes, its twin pools of limpid blue, and see my future and my past, and all things in-between; I see all my hopes and dreams and desires; I see myself; I see it, and I see its desire for me. I press my sex into it, hard, quickly, thrusting, groaning, yearning, searching. It arches its body against me, cold drops of sweat glistening on its throat, its pale white shoulders, its...
See, now there I went and forgot to take my medication again. What I meant to say is, we're going to keep this article, because (1) it doesn't suck hard enough, and (b) we desire to continue to embarrass you with it, for all eternity. (Also, I lolled uproariously when I read the pink ping-pong ball bit.) ⇒»Biz E.B. Ver (gabble) 06:49, August 25, 2011 (UTC)
Huff. I wrote this around the time I first joined. I'm ashamed of it. Furthermore, I'm surprised that it wasn't a victim of FFW. It's just not funny. Huff it. I don't even want a userspace copy. --AndorinKato 05:45, August 25, 2011 (UTC)
I thought some IP had vandalised this, but it turns out it'd made it better. Um. 1234~21:49, 24 August 2011
I can't believe you want to delete this! mAttlobster. (hello) 21:51, August 24, 2011 (UTC)
This is making my eyes bleed more than watching Jersey Shore... --Gamma287☭Tetяis? 21:58, August 24, 2011 (UTC)
Uncyclopedia needs an article that parodies the UFC and MMA in general. Unfortunately, an article that is "flypaper for IPs"...is not it.⇒»Biz E.B. Ver (gabble) 06:31, August 25, 2011 (UTC)
Erm... Bushcruft? --Talk!Contribs! 06:19, August 24, 2011 (UTC)
Delete. Passed sell-by date some years ago. --RomArtus*Imperator ® (Orate) 17:55, August 24, 2011 (UTC)
Anything Dubya-related should be deleted (except for the actual Dubya article). --Gamma287☭Tetяis? 22:34, August 24, 2011 (UTC)
I vote delete, but of course when it comes time to count the votes, someone will challenge the count, and then we'll have a recount, and then someone will challenge the recount. Then we'll start arguing over whether Chad is pregnant or not (who ever heard of a chick named Chad?), or whether Chad has dimples (hey, I'm not saying that a dimply chick named Chad wouldn't be sorta cute, but, seriously, I've never met one). And then...Mhaille will chime in, claiming that the votes were rigged, as it's obvious that all the elderlyJewishvoters meant to vote for Meringue, not this article. ⇒»Biz E.B. Ver (gabble) 06:23, August 25, 2011 (UTC)
Ah, I mist that old ad campaign. I didn't think that was all that satirical of the Hamburglar, though. It's about as funny as that show Children's Hospital (not really at all). --Gamma287☭Tetяis? 02:01, August 24, 2011 (UTC)
Delete. God! What is it with people not knowing how to add an image correctly? All you have to do is copy and past the code, if you don't feel like typing it! Oh, and this article is really bad. -- 18:08, August 26, 2011 (UTC)
You know the part in the beginning that says "They are all gay."? That automatically disqualifies it from being a keepable article. --Wilytank can be a pain in the ass. 22:31, August 26, 2011 (UTC)
Once again, my sock puppet wants to vote Delete. as well. Can he? Actually, we both want to delete The AAAA-Team and The AAA-Team as well. ARGH! IT'S A MATRYOSHKA DOLL OF INSIDE JOKES! ⇒»Biz E.B. Ver (gabble) 22:45, August 21, 2011 (UTC)
The dog picture was funny, the title was, err, humorous, but the rest sucked. --Gamma287☭Tetяis? 00:24, August 22, 2011 (UTC)
Delete. inside joke + internet meme + randumbo. --Mn-z 02:17, August 22, 2011 (UTC)
Delete. Is it vanity? Is it plain old band cruft? We may never be sure, but we can be sure that its shit pure and simple. -OptyCSucks! CUN20:55, 22 Aug
According to the QVFD entry, this has now Wikipedia entry and is most likely vanity about a local band. I've never heard of 'em... --Gamma287☭Tetяis? 22:14, August 22, 2011 (UTC)
Comments
I've taken the liberty of deleting this as part of the new pages QA or whatnot. In the future, please use QVFD or ICU for new pages, not VFD. 1234~