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 short and mediocre.--Sgt. Fluffy 00:56, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Delete - Reads like Jessica Simpson wrote it. --Kip > Talk•Works•• 02:02, Jun. 12, 2008
Comments
Tell city
Keep
Delete
Delete. WP spork with no funny added. Hasn't been touched since creation in April. Get rid. Hang on, all that sounds kind of familiar... --SirU.U.Esq.VFH | GUN | Natter | Uh oh | Pee14:29, Jun 11
Delete. Not funny at all, just a bunch of made up facts. Sorry.--Faizaguo 17:44, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Delete. I'm telling you it's obviously sporked. This is not what we want. MrNFork you! 17:55, Jun 11
Delete Borders on vanity as far as I can tell (ever met anyone from there? planed a vacation there? Would you give a damn if it vanished?) and seems sporked (though why anyone would go to the trouble is beyond me).--Sgt. Fluffy 00:21, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Comments
William Tell
Keep
Delete
Delete. WP spork with no funny added. Hasn't been touched since creation in April. Get rid. --SirU.U.Esq.VFH | GUN | Natter | Uh oh | Pee14:00, Jun 11
Delete. Spork and apple of it's head. MrNFork you! 17:53, Jun 11
Delete. I completely failed to stifle two huge yawns while reading through this. Two. In an article, this length, that says it all. --SirU.U.Esq.VFH | GUN | Natter | Uh oh | Pee09:17, Jun 11
Delete You would have to be gay to find this funny. Oh, apparently you would not... MrNFork you! 10:48, Jun 11
Delete uhg what's with all the kinky articles as of late? --Sgt. Fluffy 23:14, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Comments
Yotor
Keep
Delete
Kerkill Seriously? Short crap and half the links are red. And "i <3 gilmore gurlz"? Well I don't <3 your blog! --MegaPleb•Dexter111344•Complain here 06:47, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Keep Again the nomination comment of just HTBFANJS is not helping me understand why this should be deleted. Agreed it's not awesomely funny, but it's far from pants fan cruft, and if we start deleting things like this we might be left with not a lot else. Lets get rid of the really bad stuff first. MrNFork you! 20:54, Jun 9
Delete looks like a poorly written wikipedia stub that was lightly vandalized by an IP. In short stupid, not funny.--Sgt. Fluffy 21:38, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Delete. Quite possibly the dictionary definition of a pants stub. --SirU.U.Esq.VFH | GUN | Natter | Uh oh | Pee09:12, Jun 11
Delete. Sorry but it's too short. The author should put up a construction template.--Faizaguo 17:46, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Comments
Kelloggs
Keep
Delete
Short and not funny most of the page is taken up by crap, the products section takes up most of it. Theres only about 1 full paragraph, and it sucks. LieutenantTHEDUDEMANDude...TotallyUOTMKUNGotAF@H 02:04, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Kerkill Only thing I found to be the least bit funny was the Oscar Wilde quote. And that was barely a snicker. --MegaPleb•Dexter111344•Complain here 02:28, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Made me gag and its not just the idea of sugar coated spam.--Sgt. Fluffy 02:53, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Maybe not. It's the sort of article that makes you feel not wanting to carry on because it is filled with such random and not funny made-up facts. This sounds harsh I know but this is how it was like to me.--Faizaguo 17:49, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Kerkill I read this earlier today and thought "Wow. That sucked." First impressions die hard. Just how I like to see crap die. --MegaPleb•Dexter111344•Complain here 02:08, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
When we look at the same thing when it's written by an IP and delete it in a milisecond --TKFUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUCK 02:57, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
So I suppose it's only worth keeping because of the format now? Or are you saying that the only difference between this and an equally unfunny random mess made by an IP is the... formatting? Or both? --TKFUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUCK 21:58, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Weak keep It's utterly incoherent but in a good way. --Sgt. Fluffy 04:08, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Keep I agree with Kip that it's more fit for Illogicopedia, but, y'know, I don't care. Someone can write a well-researched and thoroughly sourced article on Illogicopedia to make up for it. --Pleb SYNDROMECUNmedicate(butt poop!!!!) 13:09, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Keep - Just for the record (this has already been kept, as per the rules of VFD): I wrote this article not to "rub it" in anyone's "face". I wrote this because I wanted to write an article, and this article made me laugh. Please return to VFD when you have nothing to prove and an article that is over a week old, please. -- BrigadierGeneralSirZombiebaron 01:21, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
But Seriously...keep Just doesn't deserve deletion IMO (I've never used that acronym before and never plan to ever use it again). -RAHB 08:17, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Keep. Bizarre, but made me laugh, and seems in an odd way to have more structure and intent than most random articles. Plus the "keeps" clearly outnumber the "deletes" so can we please get this mammoth table off the VFD page now? --SirU.U.Esq.VFH | GUN | Natter | Uh oh | Pee08:38, Jun 11
Delete
omg so funnie & RANDOM!! XD XD All formalities aside, this is a giant random piece of shit. I don't give a flying fuck that Zombiebaron wrote it, or if he did it to "be ironic." If you're being randomly ironic, you're being random; if you're parodying a piece of shit, you're still writing a piece of shit. This is inexcusable. --TKFUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUCK 23:57, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Move to ?pedia - Insanely random articles are usually more funny to me when a noob or IP does it. (I know ZB is only doing this to show he can get away with it.) Aside from that, this still didn't hit my funny bone. It if were at Illogicopedia, I'd atleast go "heh". --Kip > Talk•Works•• 02:39, Jun. 10, 2008
Keep I just want to be able to say I voted for featuring and for deleting the same article. -RAHB 03:10, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Comments
UN:DP - "Exceptions: Articles which are less then a week old. In these cases, please consider using approprite maintenance templates such as {{ICU}}. Other exceptions include articles under construction or being peer reviewed." Um? MrNFork you! 00:10, Jun 10
I'm making an exception to the exception with this article. Kids, don't follow my example. --TKFUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUCK 00:14, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
There is something entirely different between nonsense, in-joke and random. Nonsense/novelty takes a concept and runs with it through the entire article. In-joke is self-explanatory. This is neither, it is just random, and it isn't good. It isn't even non-sequitor. It's just bad. --TKFUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUCK 02:38, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
I disagree on it being random. It's reminiscent of formal thought disorder (a mix of circumstantiality and derailment for the most part). It has meaning to the author and intent of expressing something, the reader just doesn't know what. --Sgt. Fluffy 18:48, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Your smart person words make a convincing argument. --Kip > Talk•Works•• 19:00, Jun. 10, 2008
So you're saying it isn't just a random mesh of verbs and nouns strung together into phrases and sentences, but in fact a cipher for some splendorous concept that transcends normal human thought? I'm sorry, I thought Uncyclopedia was a place for humor and satire, not the freakin' Voynich Manuscript. By your argument, this would just become another "AAAAAAAA! clone," even though it isn't nearly similar to those either. What is this? It is absolutely nothing, and has no place on this wiki. --TKFUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUCK 20:34, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
It's rather humorous if one understands what a formal thought disorder is (schizophrenia for a weak example). It's not so much a cipher as the inability to express ones self. This is closer to what should be "bat fuck insane" then our current article when taken in the context of the real world. I am willing to make concessions in that it is, perhaps, only funny if one has studied psychopathology. If someone would be so kind as to archive it under my userspace (with the picture) I would be willing to change my vote to "weak keep" --Sgt. Fluffy 21:12, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Archived under your userspace. Please consider changing your vote, if we suddenly decided to create all of our articles in a different psychopathic medium, we'd be worse than ED. We've already got more than our fair share of "bat fuck insane" (read: random) articles, we don't need another one. --TKFUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUCK 21:58, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Abstaining It has been brought to my attention that there are perhaps better places for this article and that it may be seen as nothing short of gibberish by some readers. While I personally find it funny it is hard for me to tell if enough people will to warrant it being kept. --Sgt. Fluffy 23:53, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Go with what you want. Screw other people. And there would be enough support if you would go back to a keep. --MegaPleb•Dexter111344•Complain here 00:29, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Part of what makes a good article is it's ability to be enjoyed by the majority of people who read it. I did however only promise to change to a weak keep so I suppose I can do that in good conscience. --Sgt. Fluffy 00:56, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Let's not wikilawyer on a site that only has two rules. So it's under 7 days old. I don't think you're going to improve the article further, so a VFD now is the same as one later. This just saves time. Who knows, maybe it'll help you appreciate VFD and maintenance tagging from the other side? •Spang•☃•talk• 03:01, 11 Jun 2008
I am willing to improve the article based on whatever constructive criticisms it receives. "It is random" is neither constructive nor criticism. -- BrigadierGeneralSirZombiebaron 03:12, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Well, I think it's technically criticism... Whether or not it's constructive is definitely open to interpretation, though. - DonLeddytheCrunch (Nyah, see, nyah!) 03:20, Jun 11
Who says it's criticism? Robot Chicken depends on randomness for much of the show. I'm sure most of us(who have heard of it, at least) will agree it is a good show, but tends to be random. And if you say that's at all constructive, then, in my opinion good sir, you are wrong. --MegaPleb•Dexter111344•Complain here 03:26, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Whether it is criticism is really up to personal interpretation. Constructive criticism, however, in this case would be advice on how to make the article "better" (in the eyes of the adviser); simply saying "Make it not random" is both impractical and imprecise. -- BrigadierGeneralSirZombiebaron 03:34, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
What the hell is other?! Madness! •Spang•☃•talk• 03:42, 11 Jun 2008
AAAAAAGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!! Plus, this one vote is now half of the page... Or at least a third of the page... --MegaPleb•Dexter111344•Complain here 03:44, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Bollocks Based on previous VFD votes this now has more than enough keep votes to save it. I don't care either way about this being deleted or not, but I don't think it should be on the front page news list. MrNFork you! 10:58, Jun 11
Yep, let's end this. Kept. Voting closed. ~ 11:01, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
UnNews:EMERGENCY LIPS
Keep
Keep A) To spite Cajek (nobody fucks with my head but me!) B) Because I actually find it funny (albeit in need of modification and a namespace change to be taken seriously). -RAHB 03:38, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Ban Cajek just wrote this, and is now noming it for deletion to fuck with our heads. Don't hesitate, nail the sucker! LieutenantTHEDUDEMANDude...TotallyUOTMKUNGotAF@H 03:31, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Errr... created the same day and nominated by the creator? shouldn't this be in QVFD? --Sgt. Fluffy 03:37, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
It definitely shouldn't be an UnNews, as I see no place from which it is being reported from. Plus, it is too new to be on VFD. Not only that but the original author is nominating it therefore it should really be QVFD'd(but I like it). Plus, this is clearly meant to waste space on VFD to prove some inane point... Ban Cajek!!! --MegaPleb•Dexter111344•Complain here 03:38, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Huff. The part that's listy is listy and that part that isn't listy isn't good. Also, what is Vigilance Week? Has anyone heard of Vigilance Week? --Pleb SYNDROMECUNmedicate(butt poop!!!!) 13:29, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
As long as you did it in good-faith, it's okay. If you nominate it just because it'sshort or your trying to be funny like some people do, then it's not okay. --MegaPleb•Dexter111344•Complain here 02:26, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Kerkill Someone could do a massive clean-up or just delete and start all over. Guess which side I'm on. --MegaPleb•Dexter111344•Complain here 23:11, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Delete - I want you to get excited about your rewrite! --Kip > Talk•Works•• 08:55, Jun. 10, 2008
Delete. I couldn't see much worth salvaging in there. I'm prepared to take the risk that I missed a nugget of comedy gold. Detonate it, please. --SirU.U.Esq.VFH | GUN | Natter | Uh oh | Pee09:16, Jun 10
Keep For heaven's sake give it a chance! We need a Harry Hill page; why not a rewrite template instead? --Zarbag 18:59, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Keep Yea, I'm with Zarbag on this. There is some stuff in there which is worth saving, and just stating HTBFANJS does not really explain the reasons Sabrown100 wants this deleted. Can we have more than just HTBFANJS as a deletion reason Sabrown100? If everyone just said that, it would not really help much. Cheers. MrNFork you! 20:47, Jun 9
Keep Since he is apparently a well-known British thing-a-ma-bobber, and plus the bit of workable material, I say medium rewrite. --MegaPleb•Dexter111344•Complain here 23:34, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Keep OK so I'm the author, so I'm gonna say that, but let me explain a little first. Since I last edited this page (a few months ago), it has seemingly been MULLERED by various people (I assume because some of the subject matter was, shall we say, incredibly politically incorrect), and now parts of it are dangerously close to being completely unfunny. Not my fault, honest :S Cp833 13:33, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Delete Juvenile --Sgt. Fluffy 05:05, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Comments
Why?:Not
Keep
Delete
Kill Toilet Humour --sabrown100 18:59, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Blow it into a million pieces and eat half those pieces and use the remaining half as a biological weapon. Not funny, in the slightest. -Sir Hat-a-lot the great, who is feeling: In need of a piss # My contributions|My talkpage|My templates 20:26, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Delete Wow! Someone has actually given a useful reason for deletion. My reason would be that it's... Um... Rubbish toilet humour. Some toilet humour is good you know! MrNFork you! 21:12, Jun 9
I can't think of another way to say delete, so I'm just going to type in a very long comment here, most of which has nothing to do with anything relevant to this page, our deletion policy, or even uncyclopedia in general. Like my bed. Its big and blue and comfey. Crap, comfey doesn't start with a b like all the other words. Nor can I spell comfey. I'm hungry. Someone bring me some food.LieutenantTHEDUDEMANDude...TotallyUOTMKUNGotAF@H 04:34, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Delete. I was going to try tidying this up and removing the rubbish. But for me, that would leave little to nothing there. So here it is instead. If you think you can whip it into shape, be my guest. --SirU.U.Esq.VFH | GUN | Natter | Uh oh | Pee10:08, Jun 9
Delete. I'm not going to try and fix it. MrNFork you! 11:50, Jun 9
Delete. ICU'd shortly after creation. Tag removed with no notable improvement. Unfunny Aussie towncruft. (Bogancruft?) --SirU.U.Esq.VFH | GUN | Natter | Uh oh | Pee09:58, Jun 9
Delete. Was given the wrong ICU in my view, otherwise I would have QVFDd this now. MrNFork you! 11:49, Jun 9
Kerkill Towncruft with a dash of vanity. And let me be clear, one or two sentences a section does not make. --MegaPleb•Dexter111344•Complain here 14:36, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Delete. At a glance, you wonder if it's so bad. Then you read it. I couldn't see a single workable idea in here. --SirU.U.Esq.VFH | GUN | Natter | Uh oh | Pee08:29, Jun 9
Delete. Yea, I thought about noming this myself a while back. MrNFork you! 11:40, Jun 9
Yea, mine also. It's better, but I would still have probably nominated it. If the IP gets an accounts and wants to work on this in userspace, good on him/her/it. MrNFork you! 15:44, Jun 9
10000
Keep
Delete
Delete Hmm, a bad stub about a number/date... now there is a surprise. MrNFork you! 21:55, Jun 8
Keep to save from QVFDHas Potential Fou-Lu 02:14, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Delete
Comments
It is a stub that was blanked by original author. It's too new for VFD. According to UN:DEL, it is eligible for QVFD. And don't remove things from QVFD, Fou-Lu. --MegaPleb•Dexter111344•Complain here 02:40, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Trondheim East side
Keep
Delete
Delete Just another bad something stub. MrNFork you! 21:55, Jun 8
Delete. Short bandcruft stub --
Amy Acker
Pizza. Also, sounds like TKF needs a wikibreak. Trust me dude, they're mad helpful... 
For Huffing Random and short --
