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.
Keep Not great, but no need to delete. I would probably pee review this at about a 24 maybe? With high score to P&F and low to Humor (something like 4,7,8,0,5). If we should delete at PR24 and below, we would not have much content indeed (maybe that's not so bad?). No, no. Keep it. It's a good subject and I could improve it if we do. --TPLN 23:39, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
Delete looks like it was sporked from the website of the Unitarian Universalist church, or Conservapedia's liberal counterpart in a mirror universe. --Mnb'z 19:13, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
Deet. BZZZZBZZZZZzzzzt-- 23:29, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
Comments
My main issue is the bias. This article is basically an unfunny liberal rant. --Mnb'z 00:05, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Abstain. It is indeed an unfunny liberal rant. But then again, it might be a better starting point than a blank page. And it does have a rewrite tag on it, after all. In conclusion: I don't care. pillow talk 00:58, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
I tried a quick rewrite, making it less "liberal friendly" here: User:Mnbvcxz/Christian Left. Warning, that rewrite is NSFW, and probably stupid/perverted by some people's standards. --Mnb'z 01:29, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Absolutely stupid and perverted by my standards (I'm a walking liberal bias, see). But it is absolutely hilarious too. So I'm all filled with self-loathing. Seriously, that is as funny as can be, Manubbivicxez. Odd, unorthodox as Uncyc goes, and snarky as hell. But funny. I'd say move it to main. But then, DGNED. --TPLN 01:36, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Facepalm. I thought "Huh, mnbvcxz did a quick rewrite. I wonder if he just plastered the page with pictures of pregnant women. Ha, ha, ha." Then I saw I was right. pillow talk 18:05, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Like I didn't give you any clues. --Mnb'z 18:50, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Abstain. There is certain humour potential in the subject matter, but as it stands now, it reads like, gasp, WIKIPEDIA. --Curious Larry 01:58, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Comment - I don't think Mnbvcxz's version should be moved over, its just weird and creepy and not funny in any way.--Sycamore(Talk) 16:07, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Damn, I did it again. I laughed heartily at something that was not funny in any way. When will I stop doing that? --TPLN 17:06, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Sycamore doesn't like it, Sycamore is a liberal, therefore I have succeeded in reducing the liberal bias :) Seriously though, it probably is too creepy for mainspace. --Mnb'z 17:38, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Oh, I know that. I even said it was "unorthodox", and I would say move it. I understand its inappropriateness for this place (I'm starting to learn the culture). But it is funny. And I'm probably left of Sycamore. Except when it comes to pregnant porn. Then I'm a goddam Republican - I say bring it on! --TPLN 18:17, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Research Missile Shield to prevent the bannukes from hitting. This has some of the funniest shit I've seen in a while, and I'd hate for it to go. S-984 14:20, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
Keep I can't help but think that some people just delete articles because they think it's fun to delete the work of others. I do think it needs to go easy on the n***** comments though.--Smokin'Cheddar BBQ: The King of the Triangular Snackfoods
Strong Keep. More redneck jokes need to be on Uncyclopedia. It could also have a good share of KKK jokes. Anyway, I thought this article was a good idea like Niggerlodeon was. --Shock Jock 02:47, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Delete. At first I thought, "keep - just to balance Niggerlodeon." But then I realised it's really just a padded-out list. Rabbi TechnokvetchContribsFOXES 11:51, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
Comment. I agree that it's fairly sucky and double-O stoopid but a little voice in my head said "Oh, leave it be" so I shall retract my dew claw.-- 11:44, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
Delete. Random thing that's been here ages with little to no improvement. Not linked from anywhere and not going anywhere. Get rid. --UU - natter11:06, Mar 2
Delete. Didn't make it through paragraph one before my eyes started rolling-- 11:45, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
Delete. Stubby thing - game template used in mainspace, but with no links to it, no real humour value, and no point that I can see. Get rid. --UU - natter10:44, Mar 2
Delete. The lesson that hits home, use it or lose it.-- 11:47, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
Keep Keep it, it's really funny, some of the funniest stuff i've ever seen on this entire site, especially the trivia. User:Mowub 21:44, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
Keep per "my bad articles are better than non-existent ones for notable topics" theory. --Mnb'z 04:34, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
Keep/hard rewrite per above. Otherwise someone else will just make a version even worse than this. -- Simsilikesims(♀UN)Talk here. 05:13, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
Keep. It's a notable enough subject that we need an article, even one like this. Anything written to replace it isn't likely to be much better. Rabbi TechnokvetchContribsFOXES 11:55, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
Keep. if only for the pictures and their captions =) --Kittalk20:50 1 March
Awful. —SirSysRq (talk) 23:46, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
Just stop talking about the man already. Note: I am indifferent to the actions of Michael Jackson. Nothing said about him post-child molestation charges has ever been funny, though. My God. --Hi, hey! I'M A MOTERFUCKING NIGGER BITCH LOVER 00:23, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
DOUBLE EXTERMINATE!-- 00:32, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
DESTROY I have never felt sick after just looking at an article...but...oh god it is too horrible to discuss ~SirTagstit • VFH • NotM • PEEING • CPT • RotM • BFF 07:25, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
Comments
Trivia sections are almost always (perhaps just always?) crap. I'm sure this one is no exception (I haven't looked at the article in awhile, but it has pretty much always been awful). We usually aren't open to big lists with filled with nonsensical crap, by the way. --Hi, hey! I'M A MOTERFUCKING NIGGER BITCH LOVER 00:40, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
I think this subject is too notable to not have an article for. It might be ok with some pruning and rewriting. --Mnb'z 04:34, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
To be honest, I'd rather not have an article about him. He's not that notable. -Sockpuppet of an unregistered user 10:36, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
This seems like a job for IC. —SirSysRq (talk) 21:35, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
Keep.. Didn't strike me as racist at all - more a satire on a large, white-controlled business trying to appeal to an ethnic group and getting it all tragically wrong, rather like the BBC did here in Blighty when they first tried to make programmes for blacks and Asians. It's satire, and not bad satire either. Rabbi TechnokvetchContribsFOXES 12:34, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
Keep - Per above. Could use a bit more humor about BLUE people though. -- Simsilikesims(♀UN)Talk here. 05:18, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
Ix-nay. Terrible. —SirSysRq (talk) 00:59, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
I still can't figure out why this was kept last time. It's probably worse now though, no use reverting it. None. Too many idiots edit it. Whatever. --Hi, hey! I'M A MOTERFUCKING NIGGER BITCH LOVER 01:51, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
Keep. Soz but I don't agree on this one. Sure its no VFH material but it aint that bad at all imo opinion. From the viewpoit of a random visitor - I'd rather see that page than nothing there (guessing none of you will replace that page with anything better) Not that great but better than Nada --Kittalk14:35 27 February
token keep. another one i'd like to see kept based solely on the title, and for which i will take responsibility for. SirGerrycheeversGunTalk 15:01, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
does that mean you going to rewrite it?--Mnb'z 16:44, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
Wanna collab with me? I actually just started something in the edit box. --TKFUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUCK 02:03, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
Delete
Delete. - unfunny and random. I may be missing something, but this seems like nothuing but Randomness.--Sycamore(Talk) 13:39, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
Comment - Based on the currnet state of it, maybe you could move it into your userspace Gerry and delete this crap?:)--Sycamore(Talk) 20:38, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
sure, i only need the concept, i don't need any of this content. the milk's gone and made it all mushy. SirGerrycheeversGunTalk 20:53, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
Ehhhhhh shit. I suppose this is why I ought to read the VFD nomination box in full before I go around starting rewrites. I didn't see that you wanted it deleted and sent to your userspace... and I should have discussed it with you before starting a whole new article. There are 3 things that could happen now: I discard my current rewrite and ask you again to collab, after which we will proceed on a joint concept; you start adding to my already going rewrite, assuming you agree with the concept; or we both start two seperate rewrites that will eventually fight each other to the death. --TKFUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUCK 04:01, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
i agree wholeheartedly with your concept. if you want to run with it, be my guest, i'll stand down. if you want to collab, i will work on it also. i only wanted it deleted because it wasn't going to be a top priority for me, and i am lazy, but now that you've started...momentum is the key to writing. SirGerrycheeversGunTalk 14:46, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
Well, if you don't mind then, I'll move it into my userspace, and you're free to add whatever you want, I'd love to collab with you on it. --TKFUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUCK 20:54, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
Delete The pun on rich in nutrients is quasi-clever, but it degenerates into listcruft and randumbness. Kind of a textbook bad Uncyc article. --Pleb SYNDROMECUNmedicate(butt poop!!!!) 00:58, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
Delete...delete.--Romartus 17:25, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
Comments
AWRG I agree with both Sofia and Mnbvcxz so I can't decide. Blah =P --kit 14:57, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
Keep Don't really see the point in deleting it, as anyone skilled enough to stumble across it would also probably be competent enough to read the {{archive}} message. --Pleb SYNDROMECUNmedicate(butt poop!!!!) 01:32, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
Ehhhh. To me, this one feels more like an executive decision by an admin than something that should be put to VFD. pillow talk 21:16, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
Delete. Someone popped a merge template on this for a merge to Laughter. However, Laughter is a decent article, while this is basically crap. I would therefore like to delete this and just redirect to Laughter. To avoid accusations of unacceptable power abuse, and becasue the queue is still low, I bring it here for you to decide. --UU - natter10:01, Feb 27
Delete. Looks well-justified to me. Down the drain it goes! --Kittalk14:32 27 February
delete. it's funny because UU is still at the point in the adminship where he is afraid to do stuff. i'll give it two months before he gets a taste for power and we all have manhole-cover marks on our wrists. SirGerrycheeversGunTalk 14:50, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
keep. this is the rare 'keep based on the title alone' for me. i'll put it in my backlog and turn it into a respectable stub sometime in the immediate / relatively near future. SirGerrycheeversGunTalk 14:59, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
keep being rewritten. --Mnb'z 16:44, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
Delete
Delete. - Poor January article - not much to work from, random and unfunny.--Sycamore(Talk) 13:26, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
This one is mainly userspace, I think substing it would be OK. ~ 08:36, 23 February 2009 (UTC
Abstain This template has a bit of historical value (Hurricane Katrina used to be a big deal) but it was created a couple of months after the fact, so I dunno. --Pleb SYNDROMECUNmedicate(butt poop!!!!) 01:08, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
Keep i lurve ephelantz (Roachclipjonny! 21:54, 24 February 2009 (UTC))
Keep. For sure. Hearty guffaws for me. It's the good kind of random. I'm using this template somewhere, someday. UPDATE: I just looked at it again and laughed out loud again. I'm coming back in twodays too see if I still laugh, and you know what? I bet you I will. --TPLN 19:05, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Agreed. I have no idea why this made me laugh. It shouldn't. But it did. pillow talk 18:35, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
Delete
delete extra retarded. --Mnb'z 02:42, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
Keep unless Sycamore turns out to be lying to us and doesn't actually do anything, in which case delete Sycamore's userpage. pillow talk 18:30, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
Delete
Delete. Sockpuppet added a merge warning on this one more than a month ago. Nothing has happened, its short and not that funny. Might as well remove it imo. --Kittalk17:07 25 February
EXTERMINATE! When I look at this, I think like "WHAT THE FUCK!?" Seriously, get rid of this! -Sockpuppet of an unregistered user 08:26, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
Delete. It's all part of the "what the fuck" series of templates. The eyeball would have been pretty far down on my list of image choices for this one as well.-- 08:37, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
Delete Kind of too mean and unnecessary. Isn't VFD the proper place for boring articles? Makes this superfluous. Can't see a context where this has any merit. --TPLN 21:00, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
EXTERMINATE! Now this is a good example of templates that have the risk of being spammed around by n00bs. -Sockpuppet of an unregistered user 21:58, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
Comments
I think I'll steal this template and put its contents on my userpage with a few modifications. -- Simsilikesims(♀UN)Talk here. 07:10, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
Template:Kittenolivian provinces and territories
Keep
Delete
delete link rotted and random sectional template. --Mnb'z 05:53, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
Keep Looks like it's liked by a few editors who edit the pages it's on. It's not being spammed. We can have this and {{Malaysia}}. MrNFork you! 19:00, Feb 23
Delete "this is X template." Pointless and colony-cruft, and there is already a sectional template {{Malaysia}} for Malaysian articles. --Mnb'z 18:26, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Keep I think this works well on a number of pages. Maybe needs removing from a few, but it's got a good theme going. MrNFork you! 18:46, Feb 23
Keep Yeah, I like its message and I think it has useful application. The whole anti-condom is pro-STD thing is not necessarily novel, but this is subtle enough to be funny I think. --TPLN 18:56, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Delete. a big, flashy, "this is X" template, and really doesn't make sense. (How in the hell would std's fight condom use anyway, but I digress...) --Mnb'z 17:09, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Weak Keep Yeah, it's not a maintenance template, and it doesn't work well except in an article or two (if it even works there), but I don't see how deleting this and substing it into the relevant pages is going to make any difference. Whether to have this in the template namespace or just in the articles seems like more of a question of personal style than anything else. Some programmers would prefer to hammer their program out in one file, and some would prefer to break it down into a bunch of subroutines, even if it's unlikely if that subroutine ever gets called to do anything else. --Pleb SYNDROMECUNmedicate(butt poop!!!!) 00:53, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
Delete
delete Its one of those wanna be "fix this" templates that you can't really tell what its trying to say. --Mnb'z 20:10, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
Delete. First I was like hmmm but then I was more duh? --Kittalk07:47 23 February
Weak delete. Regurgitation of a tired old meme; hard to understand how it could improve an article. But if we do keep it - can we remove the "maintenance templates" category? It really isn't a maintenance template. pillow talk 08:49, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Delete. - Where does the moratorium on All Your Base not apply? I would rather err on the side of foolhardiness regarding this. Get it out. --TPLN 19:07, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Comments
"theme" templates aren't good either. (Sectional ones are good, but not "this is X" templates.) --Mnb'z 00:58, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
If they take up an enormous amount of space they mainly make the article uglier, but this little one doesn't have that problem. It even serves as a 'nice' introduction to the article -Sockpuppet of an unregistered user 13:07, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
If you have a few small templates on top, it still takes up a lot of space. Plus, "comment" templates are always cliche, and are often spammed by noobs, who think every article in a given subject should have a comment template. --Mnb'z 16:46, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Delete. Strangely random thing that I can't see the point of. It was created in October and hasn't been touched since, there are no links to it except this one, the author seems to have wandered off, and I don't see anyone else making anything of it, so shall we get rid? --UU - natter13:31, Feb 20
I made this article all by myself. It was all my idea and I deserve all the credit!
Keep
Delete
Delete. This is not only factual but it actually seems to be an authentic wikipedia article. OMG OMG OMG AAAH was my early reaction. --Kittalk07:45 23 February
Delete. - per SOAUU --TPLN 19:02, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Comments
Abstain for now. Obviously the joke here is that this is indeed an authentic Wikipedia article, and the author plagiarised the article on plagiarism and then claimed authorship. I don't know if that's funny enough to merit an Unyclopedia page. Then again, electrons are cheap and obviously the title of this article isn't exactly valuable real estate. I don't know. Maybe I'll get off the fence tomorrow. pillow talk 08:47, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
{{cleanup}} it might be funny-ish if cleaned up. However, if noone wants to bother cleaning it up, it probably should be deleted. --Mnb'z 16:48, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
The Matrix III Revolutions
Keep
Delete
Delete. - lousy film article. All the other Matrix franchise articles have been deleted. Garbage/Rubbish.--Sycamore(Talk) 13:58, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Delete. - Listy/messy film junk. Its a poor topic to base an article on - and I don't see this going anywhere.--Sycamore(Talk) 13:13, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Delete.per above. As a side note, it looks like its related to some of crablogger's articles. --Mnb'z 16:58, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
delete. that's the biggest list i've ever seen. SirGerrycheeversGunTalk 17:29, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Delete. Ugh. OK, OK. You guys win. Lists, even if they might be funny, just aren't funny. Is there a possibility though that this is ironic? Meaning, the article is almost as unfunny as the movie? No? Delete, then. --TPLN 19:11, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Delete. It just doesn't work without 500+ on the list, like International Baccalaureate.-- 19:37, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Comments
Alliance Of The Fallen Turkey
Keep
Delete
Delete. - 2007 stub, little progress since then. I think its probably too random to be going anywhere.--Sycamore(Talk) 13:00, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
delete confusing wannabe maintenance tag. Puts articles in the ugly category, but you wouldn't know that from looking at it. --Mnb'z 05:43, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
What the hell does "ballin'" mean? Note: I am certainly one of the whitest people in existance, and I go everyday hardly understanding what my peers are saying. --Hi, hey! I'M A MOTERFUCKING NIGGER BITCH LOVER 06:30, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
delete. random, incoherent, no improvement since a pee from UU several months ago, not linked...and i am now terrified of santa claus. SirGerrycheeversGunTalk 17:40, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
Christian_Left
very keep - WTF?--
Hickelodeon
Delete.--
Abstain. I am completely clueless as far as this article is concerned. -
