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.
*Keep.I say give it a week notice for improvement, it could be WAAAAY funny, but it for sure needs some improvement. Give it a strict one week notice, if it isn't improved within the week, I say kill it dead.--Kowaru 01:53, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete
delete. stubbish nonsensical awfulness. SirGerrycheeversGunTalk 18:11, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Keep Don't be silly. Uncyclopedia is not "against wikipedia" whatever against means... We are a parody of Wikipedia and those templates are an important part of that. They are useful for many reasons. MrNFork you! 01:29, Oct 11
No need for alarm We're talking this through, I think we're gonna make a slightly less drastic change. --Kowaru 01:56, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete
Delete. - Uncyclopedia is clearly against wikipedia, I don't see why we need to support them by putting links to their site on Uncyclopedia. There's no point in having them. Perhaps all of them could be edited ot be funnier then just saying " the so called experts at wikipedia." Waste of bandwith. What has Wikipeia ever done for us except delete our template on their site. Not Funny. No comedic or satirical value. --Kowaru 01:16, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Can you name a reason they're ther, or a use for them..honestly, they made me NEARLY chuckle the first time I saw them ,but now they're just old...and annoying. I can understand the paradoy value of say..the CONSERVAPEDIA verion of this, because that site is a farse of itself and its funny to make fun of. And when I say "against wikipedia" I'm not referring to a direct hatred of the site, I'm talking about the tone of Uncyclopedia, atleast in some of its articles. Many of its jokes revolve around portraying Wikipedia as an evil, nazi like, or even demonic force, and I think it sorta screws up the joke when we put links to a site we "think" is evil on Uncyclopedia. --Kowaru 01:37, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Um, to let the reader know what a parody article is really about if they did not get it before. I used that method in The Pun Invasion of Uncyclopedia and The Color Problem. It's also interesting for a reader to look at the Wikipedia page before reading it's parody. Also, some articles appear to be about made up things, and it's useful for the reader to know that it's actually a real thing. There are other reasons. Basically, we need them. MrNFork you! 01:43, Oct 11
Hmmm, ok, I see where you're going with that, but most of the articles that this wikipedia thingy is on are about things that are blatently in the public knowledge, such as Barack Obama. And in a case like that it's just annoying. Maybe we should make a policy for where oyu should put that thing, cause I've noticed a lot of articles that need it don't have it, and a lot of articles that don't need it, have an annoying bouncing puzzle globe on them. I also think it's a little messy in a tone sense. --Kowaru 01:49, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
"the great Uncyclopedia as the standard repository of all knowledge and wisdom, for though it has many omissions and contains much that is apocryphal, or at least wildly inaccurate, it scores over the older, more pedestrian work in two important respects. First, it is slightly cheaper; and secondly it has the words "Only 2 rules" inscribed on the cover". Yea, not everything here is perfect. I don't know how any sort of policy about this could be made to work. There is nothing stopping you trying, but your efforts can probably be spent better elsewhere... If an author wants one on their article they will put one, if not, not. As it's likely that this VFD nomination will fail, if you want to pursue this discussion further, you might try making a forum in the Dump... MrNFork you! 02:05, Oct 11
* Since there are SOOO many articles with this wierd template thing on them, I didn't mark any page with a vote for deletion tag, please don't delete this VFD however, because I believe this is an important matter that needs to be raised. If anyone knows a different place that this arguement/discussion should be brought, please tell me, I will take it there, otherwise REFRAIN FROM DELETING THIS VFD. --Kowaru 01:16, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Keep. There's potential here. There's some good stuff about moving boxes and her aristocratty upbringing. Plus, the stuff about her parents' deaths is somewhat related to her real backstory, at least according to Wikipedia. Give it an introduction, delistify and de-Norris and there's enough left to build upon. --15Mickey20(talk to Mickey) 19:05, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
I just want to say that I thought the version that existed on July 14 was salvageable (and better than this one), as I mentioned here. It was deleted nine days later and never saw VFD. pillow talk 22:53, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete - It's not funny, it's all been said before, this article will be completely pointless soon as Bush is going to be out of office after the election REGARDLESS of the person who is elected. It's hardly funny, and Nazi Bush jokes are played out...VERY played out. I mean honestly, They've been going on for EIGHT YEARS STRAIGHT...WE DON'T NEED ANYMORE. All of the jokes in this article exist in other article in uncyclopedia I don't care if it's a work in progress, it doesn't deserve the work put into it. --Kowaru 00:12, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete. Cliche, short, and redundant. ----OEJ 15:58, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Strong Delete Every joke is a cliche --I like cheese 16:29, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Comments
If it was up to me..most of the George Bush jokes would be deleted from Uncyclopedia, because their relevence is about to come to an end. Can we please start making John McCain/Barack Obama jokes? PLEASE!!!
Kowaru, you can only vote once... ^ •••Necropaxx(T){~} 15:06, Oct 10
Wannabemo
Keep
Delete
Delete. - Stubbish oddity, little progress and a poor article to work from. — SirSycamore (talk) 16:28, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete. This article is really short and has horribly unfunny jokes. ~ NEZLR 15:36, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
D1337 I'm sorry, but I can already smell gin on my baby's breath without rubbing garlic all over the bottom of her feet. ColinALL YOUR BASEHeaney!Casa BeySuperfly Portfolio 17:40, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete. No. Random and foolish. Picless. Short. ----OEJ 01:54, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Kerkill per OEJ. Also, I thought I voted on this earlier... Guess not, though... --MegaPleb•Dexter111344•Complain here 02:31, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Kerkill Yeah. There's nothing anyone would ever use in any rewrite. No need for this to stay around. --MegaPleb•Dexter111344•Complain here 03:56, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Keep This isn't that bad. Goomba94 16:54 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete
Delete This article is way too short, no humor value, has too many scrambled images, and i've wanted to see it gone for awhile. ~ NEZLR 15:39, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
I assume that this got deleted, then GC reincarnated it as a redirect. Any other answer would make me turn big and green. Then MO smash! As such, keep'd. SirModusoperandiBoinc! 15:33, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
No One
Keep
Delete
Delete. Something stubby that's been floating about for a bit. Short on text and gags. RabbiTechno 14:41, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Meh, I've seen much worse. But then I haven't been on Uncyc for ages so I dunno what passes for good any more. In fact, that could be the reason I haven't been on Uncyc for ages... meh. -- HindleyiteConverse 13:28, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Hmmmm It's pretty harmless and in theory might one day be improved. pillow talk 05:53, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
I like it At least it has an idea, and it was the first article on VFD I actually laughed at in a while. Except Faggot. --SirDJ~Irreverent 23:10, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
There is, in fact, not a single gay joke in this article. You just have to look closely. --TKFUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUCK 21:50, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Upon closer inspection, some links imply homosexual connotations. But certainly links shouldn't be the basis for deletion. --TKFUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUCK 21:50, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Keep Better than some of the stuff on uncyclopedia Extremelyestlybored 22:15, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Keep What is is: lame. What is isn't: absolutely terrible. --Mr. MonkeyPant-hoot here. 22:29, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Not so very keep, but enough of a keep to keep Kinda. MrNFork you! 19:23, Oct 4
Keepish. Needs a bit of a fix-up. Would Syc be including this in his one-man mission to ensure all Caledonian articles don't suck? --UU - natter11:43, Oct 6
Keep. - We need an article on Firefly. Rewrite: someone out there's gotta want this. --Mr. MonkeyPant-hoot here. 21:15, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
Keep. Rewrite tag. As Mr Monkey says, there's gotta be a Browncoat out there who can do this justice. --UU - natter11:35, Oct 6
K33P Gorrammit, I love space hookers. We shall take this article, and we shall call it: this article. (sorry, huge Firefly nerd...) ColinALL YOUR BASEHeaney!Casa BeySuperfly Portfolio 03:03, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Kerkill Unfunny and will most likely never get rewritten. Don't say it just needs a rewrite tag or any of those other tags. --MegaPleb•Dexter111344•Complain here 21:59, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete or move to Goomba's userspace, since he seems to want it. --Mr. MonkeyPant-hoot here. 21:11, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete. Love the idea of an Evil Twin article. I may add it to my short list of things to write when I can be arsed. This article, however, is badly written and quite dull. --UU - natter11:04, Oct 6
Rewrite. It looks as though 2 or 3 users already want to, this can be deleted whilst they work on it in their userspaces. •••Necropaxx(T){~} 23:59, Oct 7
Delete - at most, there should be only y pages on Uncyclopedia that claim that x = y for all values of x and y. Why are there x such pages? pillow talk 05:54, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete as nominator. This is a poorly written piece of 2005cruft that was plagiarized from Wikipedia (until stubbed in this edit). An important topic like this needs a much better article, but I don't see anything here worth saving. --Pentium5dot1|t~^_^~c 04:13, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Yes that is awful. pillow talk 05:48, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete. Can't see anything worth saving. --UU - natter11:18, Oct 7
Delete I got to the fourth word in the first sentence before making my decision. •••Necropaxx(T){~} 16:32, Oct 7
The mpreg thing did last 57 days in the article before it was totally removed. Plus I think its funny for a nonsense/self-parodying article. As I disclaimer, I am the "author" of the article.--Mnbvcxz 20:44, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
*Mjhsdafjhsdf has been working on this for a few days and I assume is going to keep working on it (right?). Therefore, I'm kind of seeing it as a rewrite based on an old concept. I say slap a work in progress tag on it or move it to Mpoiupoiu's user space and give it some time to go somewhere before deciding if it's gone anywhere. --monika 20:59, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
(By the way, if you don't live up to my expectations, I'm going to be pissed and will never defend you on VFD again. If you don't plan to fix this, tell me now so I can change my vote appropriately. --monika 21:02, 6 October 2008 (UTC))
Delete
Baleet before I barf. This is the crap version of Sonic The Hedgehog that got gutted and replaced with something not so tasteless.The-Real-Syko 20:06, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Word of advice: LOSE THE MULTIPLE STUPID TEMPLATES. Or, to put it more gently, remove the fucking templates because they are not funny. Just a bit of advice. ----OEJ 01:01, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
I copied to my user page, just to be safe. It might take me a a while to trim the nonsense out of it.--Mnbvcxz 01:29, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Best of luck to you. --monika 01:35, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
John hardwick
Keep
Delete
Delete. If it ain't vanity, it's shite. --UU - natter14:39, Oct 6
Delete. OK, so it starts out random, then there's a massive amount of listishness, before it finishes up with pointless quotes. There's a faint smell of vanity wafting about as well. Basically, I completely fail to see the point and suggest we get rid. --UU - natter14:35, Oct 6
Kerkill I don't care if it's a "good idea". It currently sucks. We aren't voting on what it could be. We are voting on what it is currently. --MegaPleb•Dexter111344•Complain here 23:49, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete. Not even sure it's that good an idea. --UU - natter12:10, Oct 6
Delete and consider redirect to Da Vinci code (or would that be Konami Code)? Okay, so admittedly neither of those articles is about exactly the same subject. BTW, somebody forgot {{vfd}} again, so I added it... --Pentium5dot1|t~^_^~c 17:52, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Kerkill “A Notebook that can turn people deaf? Wow, you better look out Lord Byron!” ~ Oscar Wilde on Deaf Note. --MegaPleb•Dexter111344•Complain here 20:13, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Keep. Red links, you say? I see no such things (god, getting rid of them was dull). OK as a subpage. --UU - natter11:02, Oct 6
Delete
Delete. - Pointless listy subpage. — SirSycamore (talk) 20:28, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
Comments
Hmm, unlike the famous people list, I can kinda see the point of this. It's good that this list is not in the main Norway article, and as it's a subpage I almost think it's listness is OK... Need to think about this one... MrNFork you! 16:46, Oct 3
Kerkill Unfunny. I can barely understand it which, while it may be part of the joke, it should be better done. At least spell the goddamn title correctly. --MegaPleb•Dexter111344•Complain here 14:52, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete. What's it even on about? nothing funny from what I see. --SirDJ~Irreverent 07:21, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete. Not funny. I'm not sure why people think it's the height of humor to post hate-cruft about celebrities or minor celebrities. It's not. It's tired and boring. (Personally, I had to look Jones up on Wickedpedia.) ----OEJ 14:40, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Keep. 
Delete. — 
All " Wikipedia has an Article on this subject" format boxes 
