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. A rambling walk down no path. Has seen no real changes since Jan-06, and none of its three (!) original editors have done anything here in the last 16 months. Spıke¬ 03:32 5-Nov-09
Delete. Am not a RHCP fan but am sure a real one would have no use for this page o' randomness. Spıke¬ 02:01 31-Oct-09
Delete. An abject example of course work submitted by fans of the Randumbo school of writing. --RomArtus*Imperator ® (Orate). 07:04, November 2, 2009 (UTC)
I like "Randumbo," and "Randumbo School of Writing" sounds like the name of an article. WHY???PuppyOnTheRadio 20:20, November 4, 2009 (UTC)
Keep Because I can. Honestly. That's my only reason. I think they all suck, but I want to vote keep just for the hell of it. MegaPleb•Dexter111344•Complain here 02:12, October 30, 2009 (UTC)
Delete Per my final solution for the Babel namespace. I figured I should nominate this article separately since it's still actively getting edits. Too bad it's all IPcruft from beginning to end. --Pleb SYNDROMECUNmedicate(butt poop!!!!) 01:29, October 30, 2009 (UTC)
Delete. Random as anything, incoherent, and pretty well pointless. Plus, nothing links to it except this page. Get rid. --UU - natter13:10, Nov 3
Delete. Seven months ago, Sycamore inserted {random}, which gently suggests that they "might want to edit it so that it's actually about something! " They didn't. Spıke¬ 14:08 3-Nov-09
Delete. After the first paragraph it's not random, it doesn't get any better but it's not random. --Count of Monkey Crisco 22:51, November 3, 2009 (UTC)
Delete. It's short, it's crap, it should have had an ICU. --UU - natter12:58, Nov 3
Delete. After submitting essays like this to the third-grade teacher, who will correct the grammar, authors really ought to delete them. Spıke¬ 13:06 3-Nov-09
Delete. Stuff like this should be written privately then burned in secret. --Count of Monkey Crisco 14:04, November 3, 2009 (UTC)
Delete. WHAT IS THIS?! --Killer_3.14 23:05, November 2, 2009 (UTC)
Weak delete to counter Hyperbole. Recently in the Forum, several editors expressed support for the unconventional; but this breaks the encyclopedia canon completely. It is slapped-together performance art. Spıke¬ 23:21 2-Nov-09
Keep Fags. IMO... if you are offended by the word "Nigger" you are part of the problem which is racism. That's what makes this article funny. It needs more pics, and more niggers. MrNFork you! 23:13, Nov 2
I've lovingly watched over Niggers for a couple months. Not the word but its senseless, hostile, unfunny overuse in the article is what offends me. Spıke¬ 23:26 2-Nov-09
Keep. Even racist jokes are allowed under Uncyclopedia's guidelines. Just consider how the articles niggers and Niggerlodeon are being kept. If we can salvage those ones; when why not this? I think gay nigger sex sounds like a good joke for a shock jock at Howard Stern grade humor. --Shock Jock 07:15, November 4, 2009 (UTC)
Theoretically, we could salvage any damn page on VFD. Theoretically, Communism works. So far the first two salvage attempts have been less than stellar. --Count of Monkey Crisco 16:36, November 4, 2009 (UTC)
I even made another explanation to keep on the (1) section of the comments since a reply on there segued into another reason to keep. --Shock Jock 22:58, November 4, 2009 (UTC)
YEAH, LETS DO THIS SHIT! I think to see an article about gay nigger sex would just be rad if it because featured on the main page! WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOT! --Shock Jock 22:58, November 4, 2009 (UTC)
Delete
Delete.Hey dude, check this out! I made the most totally offensive, in-your-face article on Uncyclopedia! What? It's also supposed to be funny and well written? Fuck that! Competent writing is for fags. --Count of Monkey Crisco 21:56, November 2, 2009 (UTC)
Delete.Dittoes. The only thing better than VFD for this would be QVFD.Spıke¬ 23:06 2-Nov-09
MrN has made the writing masterfully clever throughout; it's no longer "the most totally offensive." But with no link to reality, it is still a vehicle for gratuitous, pre-adolescent epithets. Uncyclopedia makes great sport of Jews and their stereotypical behavior. Compare that to an article on "Dirty Jew sex" that bore no relation to the stereotypes. Spıke¬ 12:32 3-Nov-09
Delete. I am not offended by the word "Nigger." I enjoy Dead nigger storage and Niggers. I sort of, kind of enjoy Nigger Dogshit Sandwiches. But this article fucking sucks and should be disposed of in a way befitting it, such as being sucked up the asshole of a gay nigger. pillow talk 23:21, November 2, 2009 (UTC)
Delete. One for KKKPedia. It is so moronically stupid it deserves removal. --RomArtus*Imperator ® (Orate). 07:27, November 4, 2009 (UTC)
Ehhh... Laughed once (in the HowTo section), but one lol doesn't redeem this IMO. •••Necropaxx(T){~}Wednesday, 21:54, Nov 4 2009
Delete OK. Sorry dude. I tried to help you I really did. I did see some humour in what you were doing to begin with, but apparently you don't understand what I was trying to do with my edits. What you added (and added back) was just more well... Shock rather than humour? It's the funny we are looking for. Maybe you are looking for a different wiki. However, I will do my best to uphold your wish of being shocking and follow your style and shockingly huff this article directly following all the carp I have spouted so far on the vote. Shocking eh? But was it funny??? MrNFork you! 03:49, Nov 5
Comments
Comment. This article is so pathetically desperate to offend that it's rendered totally unoffensive. That only makes it funny in the sad little way that most terribly written, juvenile articles can be considered "funny". --Count of Monkey Crisco 23:23, November 2, 2009 (UTC)
No your missing my point. It's funny (to me) because some people are offended by it. Often those people are against racism. IMO that actually perpetuates racism... I find it funny that people who are trying to fight racism are actually making the problem worse. I removed some of the more retarded stuff and added a pic. MrNFork you! 00:39, Nov 3
Armpit odor is also offensive, but does that make it inherently funny. I'd love to hear your reasoning on how "some people" are making the problem worse. I suspect that would be quite comical. --Count of Monkey Crisco 11:43, November 3, 2009 (UTC)
Sure. My reasoning is mostly described here. Also... sticks and stones can break my bones but names can never hurt me? If you allow a word to hurt you that gives power to those who want to sustain racism. When no one cares about the words... Then we will not have racism. Please, vote delete if you don't think this article is funny. Please don't vote delete because you think it's racist. That's kinda all I'm saying. MrNFork you! 13:00, Nov 3
Hahaha! See what I mean, fucking hilarious. Apparently racism will go away if we ignore it. Yeah, it's not a vicious cycle of emotional and social issues, it's just the verbal equivalent of a staring contest, if you get offended and flinch you lose. The atmosphere of paranoia and distrust, the xenophobia and social stigmata, the ability to divide society that's nothing. It's just an elaborate ploy to cause mild irritation to certain people. When no one cares about words people will still be shunned for being the wrong race. They can still be denied respect, acceptance or jobs and opportunities because of race. There will still be that undertones of elitism and paranoia that infect communities with a sort of low grade insanity when there's a fracture along racial lines.
If words could never hurt you we wouldn't have laws against slander and defamation of character. Let's not forget that racism has, silently and suddenly jumped right into sticks and stones territory with blood spattered intensity. Your concept of racism, the belief that it was or is a system of racists having power simply because of their power to offend people is a foolish understatement unsupported by history or reason. Racism is often the abuse of existing power, be it financial, political or the raw and reckless power of majority opinion. You remind me of South Park believing simpletons and their 2 dimensional oversimplifications and head-up-the-ass philosophy of "apathy is bliss" and "everything is alright if you pretend it's alright." --Count of Monkey Crisco 13:48, November 3, 2009 (UTC)
Dude. My concept of racism is not "the belief that it was or is a system of racists having power simply because of their power to offend people". It's obviously a lot more complicated than that. You obviously did not read the article I linked you to and wrote. Personally I think racism is something which we are evolving away from because the reasons why it evolved are disappearing. 30 years ago it was VERY taboo to use the "N" word in a film. These days it's far less so. That's cos the world is less racist now. Jesus said... "Turn the other cheek" :P MrNFork you! 14:57, Nov 3
No, I read the article. I just forgot to pack a fucking marlin spike and sailing manual to untangle the dense Gordian knot of color related puns in order to extract the profound wisdom allegedly in the middle. 30 years ago it was very taboo to use the "N" word. Wrong! You've obviously never seen such movies as "The 6000 Dollar Nigger" (1979), "Boss Nigger" (1975) and "Legend of Nigger Charlie" (1972) or its sequel "The Soul of Nigger Charlie" (1973). These are real movies, you can look them up on IMDB. Even well know movies such as "Blazing Saddles" (1974) and "The Shining" (1980) had little problem with that word. Fluctuations in the word "nigger"'s usage or popularity are hardly indicative of and certainly not a cause of changes in overall racism in a culture.
You said "If you allow a word to hurt you that gives power to those who want to sustain racism. When no one cares about the words... Then we will not have racism." You also said "Dude. My concept of racism is not "the belief that it was or is a system of racists having power simply because of their power to offend people". It's obviously a lot more complicated than that." I think it's time to take a shit or get off the commode. For the record I voted delete on this article because it is so badly written. The point of my little parody quote was to convey that someone was trying so hard to make an offensive article that they forgot to make one that was written well. You couldn't glean that obvious theme yet you expect others to decipher the hidden moral of The Color Problem? What's wrong with you, man? --Count of Monkey Crisco 22:41, November 3, 2009 (UTC)
Am not in favor of racism or of the reverse-racism of treating groups with kid gloves. We often achieve humor by shattering these barriers. This article will neither cause blood to be spattered nor further racial equality. But it's gratuitous, pointless name-calling. Spıke¬ 14:02 3-Nov-09
I have just made some BIG IMPROVEMENTS to this article. And I don't want it deleted because I feel it was such a revolutionary endeavor for Uncyclopedia's virgin standpoints of humor. Articles pertaining to nigger culture humor me; but even racism doesn't stop me from reading Uncyclopedia. --Shock Jock 07:15, November 4, 2009 (UTC)
Virgin standpoints sounds like something that happens on the first night you have sex.--RomArtus*Imperator ® (Orate). 07:34, November 4, 2009 (UTC)
The BIG IMPROVEMENTS are to the length of the article. MrN's pass made me soften but not remove my No vote; having it in book length is no better. Spıke¬ 10:27 4-Nov-09
(1) But since my username is Shock Jock; I might as well live up to it. Uncyclopedia was made to be a parody of Wikipedia with more room for shock jockery; so I might as well live up to my name one way or another! I even have a friend on YouTube who reminisces buttfucking moments of gay nigger sex when he comments videos. http://www.youtube.com/karlslasher80 . So, at this rate, we might as well just keep this total masterpiece. --Shock Jock 22:58, November 4, 2009 (UTC)
If you really wanted to live up to your name you could fade into relative obscurity 5 years ago. Anyway you simply reinforce my point "shock" no matter how desperately sought after does not equal humor. --Count of Monkey Crisco 23:16, November 4, 2009 (UTC)
Keep. On the condition that Dex tidies it up a bit. I don't know - maybe it's because it's a friday, but it amused me somehow. Trim the stoopid, keep the "hey, cut that out" stuff, and it could be OK. --UU - natter13:27, Oct 30
Keep. If it's being tidied up. --ChiefjusticeDS 13:40, October 30, 2009 (UTC)
Keep. In fact, UU, I am happy. Spıke¬ 03:17 4-Nov-09
Keep. I wouldn't go so far as to call myself "happy," considering that I just gave blood and am a bit dizzy, but UU has improved this article. pillow talk 21:20, November 4, 2009 (UTC)
Delete. This is apparently not vanity. However, another thing that it's not, is that it's not not retarded. pillow talk 16:18, October 29, 2009 (UTC)
Delete. Intro does everything wrong; nonsense date, man né woman, unreadable last line to work in a swear. Again, watch a TV-show episode and go blab on your keyboard.Spıke¬ 17:08 29-Oct-09 rescinded 13:01 3-Nov-09
Comments
Comment Are we really casting "conditional keeps" based on work that, as far as I can see, Dexter has no intention of doing? pillow talk 23:34, November 2, 2009 (UTC)
OK, I've done it. Happy? --UU - natter12:50, Nov 3
Delete. A long winded nobody cares link and then a discography containing nothing of interest or note. I even tried to read the history section, and now I am mentally listing all the things I could have done in that minute instead. --ChiefjusticeDS 16:14, November 3, 2009 (UTC)
Delete. Even the time spent making the entirety of Sec.1 not be a giant wikilink, replacing the potty humor with real cleverness, or changing its fake citations to real footnotes, would be wasted. I don't know that the discography and videos are not plays-on-words of the works of a real band. Even if they are, this article is worthless. Spıke¬ 16:58 3-Nov-09
Delete. Why? Why would anyone make this? --Count of Monkey Crisco 22:56, November 3, 2009 (UTC)
A biography of a real guy, unfortunately using coded allegory instead of humor. Has been an edit-war battlefield for years. It ought to be done right. Spıke¬ 10:46 2-Nov-09
Rado, lisa
Keep
Delete
Delete. Not gawdawful but could be a vanity about somebody's teacher. Untouched since '06 or so. Not at all related to Lisa Rado, a minor author. --Count of Monkey Crisco 17:53, November 1, 2009 (UTC)
Delete. The author repeats Bertha so many times that it looks like a bet to me. --RomArtus*Imperator ® (Orate). 06:59, November 2, 2009 (UTC)
Gawdawful.pillow talk 22:38, November 2, 2009 (UTC)
Delete. I was going to give it a weak keep, but they HAD to squeeze in one more unfunny butt sex joke in on the last paragraph.--Count of Monkey Crisco 12:07, November 1, 2009 (UTC)
Delete. Alan Turing is a personal hero of mine, so it's a shame to see that his page is nothing but a bunch of gay jokes. We should delete this, and perhaps replace it with a redirect or something. pillow talk 23:11, November 2, 2009 (UTC)
Delete. Now this article is not that bad. However, I know Monika has a rewrite hidden in here userspace somewhere. Now if anything happened to this article on VFD then she would have to move it over... MrNFork you! 23:16, Nov 2
Delete. Before you make this redirect, could you move this to User:Why do I need to provide this?/Lincoln? It's such a classic example of randomness I'd like to preserve it for future generations to look at and see that this is an astounding example of what not to do. Seriously. Ah, I just copied it to my user space. I suppose if you can't redirect, that will work. This began in 2005; this is history, folks! WHY???PuppyOnTheRadio 03:30, November 3, 2009 (UTC)
Delete. Short, crap, somehow slipped through the net without getting the ICU it (at best) deserved. --UU - natter12:06, Oct 29
Delete. A one-paragraph review of something that isn't a product by someone who isn't a writer. Spıke¬ 12:49 29-Oct-09
Delete anything with this written in it "it will suck ur brians and eat it and force u to play its suck ass video games". --ChiefjusticeDS 14:51, October 29, 2009 (UTC)
Comment: Except my user page, which someone was thoughtful enough to write those words into. --ChiefjusticeDS 21:19, October 29, 2009 (UTC)
Abstain (Yeah, that's right, bitches!) It made me laugh, and I like it, but if I vote keep I face ridicule from my peers. pillow talk 16:49, October 29, 2009 (UTC)
Na. The REAL pussies vote abstain. :P MrNFork you! 18:13, Nov 2
Kobe Steak House
Keep
Delete
Delete. Because it sucks. Oh, fine - it's a couple of random paragraphs interspersed with a couple of unfunny lists. And it sucks. --UU - natter14:15, Oct 30
Delete. Yeah. If you didn't like your order of cat testicles, tomorrow's Saturday, so just ring up the Restaurant Show and complain on the radio, not to us. Spıke¬ 01:26 31-Oct-09
Delete. It's okay in the middle, but if you removed all the cruft you'd be left with two sentences. --Count of Monkey Crisco 10:50, November 1, 2009 (UTC)
Delete. Nothing but random bollocks. --UU - natter14:11, Oct 30
Delete. (Formerly a comment) The first sentence's gaping lack of parallelism and use of English words to not write English, reminded me of Hajime Socialist Republic. And sure enough, HZ Corps comes into play. Instead of voting, let's dispatch assassins. Spıke¬ 15:38 30-Oct-09 post-edited
Delete. Childish...in fact I think it was written by a child who loves Malcolm in the Middle. Detention. --RomArtus*Imperator ® (Orate). 07:10, November 2, 2009 (UTC)
Comments
Leetkey
Keep
Delete
Delete. 2005cruft. Short, crap, not funny. --UU - natter14:09, Oct 30
Description by illustration is bad writing when the topic is confusion ("obfuscation") or repetition ("over and over and over and over!"). Likewise, writing articles in code is problematic, even when making fun of kids writing in code. I dislike all our Leet articles for this reason. Spıke¬ 21:56 30-Oct-09
No, it isn't. I don't know Leet. I just dislike all the Leet articles. Others will accept or reject my input and do the right thing. But Krelboyne (above) should be a "delete," as I now feel I know the author. Spıke¬ 22:44 30-Oct-09
Author shows an impressive, but unfortunately not unique, ability to learn and parrot Uncyclopedia memes in an article that shows he is Fitting In, and babbling cleverly. Apart from this, though, the article is too crappy to abstain on. Spıke¬ 17:15 29-Oct-09
Lesbian Robots
Keep
Delete
Delete. This should never have got through ICU. --UU - natter14:08, Oct 30
Delete. Agreed. --ChiefjusticeDS 14:09, October 30, 2009 (UTC)
Delete. I have no idea why I didn't ICU this on sight - maybe I was in a good mood. But now I bring it here to rectify my oversight. Get rid. --UU - natter20:50, Oct 29
Delete Do we really need to use VFD for pages so obviously lacking any sort of content or potential? --Pleb SYNDROMECUNmedicate(butt poop!!!!) 20:52, October 29, 2009 (UTC)
I'm sure someone, somewhere, would accuse me of abusing my admin powers if I just deleted it outright. And while I can live with that, I figure this way I won't have to. --UU - natter20:56, Oct 29
Yes, that would make you an authoritarian worse than Hitler. pillow talk 21:08, October 29, 2009 (UTC)
Delete. Apparently, two options kill you, and we never learn how. The third option is a cross-namespace hop to somewhere totally unrelated to the game. pillow talk 21:09, October 29, 2009 (UTC)
Delete. I'm waiting for the parachute-less jumper to land. WHY???PuppyOnTheRadio 21:15, October 29, 2009 (UTC)
Delete. Jaw-droppingly bad. We could put a rewrite tag on it, but I think a blank slate might be the better option. Even if it does create a red link in the best template ever. pillow talk 16:37, October 29, 2009 (UTC)
Delete. At some point, must we spell out for new users that an intro of a comedy article needs to draw the reader in, not to blast random crap at him? Spıke¬ 17:22 29-Oct-09
Delete. Er what?? --ChiefjusticeDS 13:47, October 30, 2009 (UTC)
It's called HTBFANJS. Also, I gave it a soft rewrite. Don't get me wrong, it still sucks, but now you can pretend it's intentional. --Pleb SYNDROMECUNmedicate(butt poop!!!!) 20:40, October 29, 2009 (UTC)
Mike Ditka
Keep
Delete
Delete. Written almost entirely by IPs, this was protected a year ago last January to prevent IPs from writing any more, because they had done a shit job. And it's been stinking up the wiki ever since. pillow talk 16:30, October 29, 2009 (UTC)
Delete. To compound all the usual problems: no intro, and Section 1, History, is an afterthought. Spıke¬ 17:19 29-Oct-09
Delete. Some small instances of good writing buried under heaps of rubbish. --ChiefjusticeDS 13:45, October 30, 2009 (UTC)
Delete. The writing's not terrible, it just has a terminal case of generic epic syndrome and dutch mink farmeritis. --Count of Monkey Crisco 15:09, October 30, 2009 (UTC)
Comments
Mike Ricci
Keep
Delete
Delete. No one who isn't Gerrycheevers should write articles about hockey. They end up being the word "gay" written exactly two hundred forty two times. pillow talk 16:27, October 29, 2009 (UTC)
Disagreeing with Hyperbole, many people might write articles about hockey. Though I won't read them. The template citing the vanity policy warns against including personal information. Is there anything here but? Spıke¬ 17:28 29-Oct-09
Delete. Hey, every time you say "gay" it gets funnier, right? If I thought there was a good article underneath, I would have voted keep. WHY???PuppyOnTheRadio 00:12, October 30, 2009 (UTC)
Delete. Long, boring and enduringly pointless. --ChiefjusticeDS 13:43, October 30, 2009 (UTC)
Delete. So this guy's gay, then? --UU - natter13:57, Oct 30
Delete. Good for you Hype: you live in blissful ignorance of the existence of Coronation Street, and for that I envy you. This article, which is ostensibly about a character on said POS soap, utterly sucks, by the way. --UU - natter16:43, Oct 29
Delete. For being soddin' awful. --ChiefjusticeDS 13:42, October 30, 2009 (UTC)
Delete. It's worse than made up nonsense..it's real...--RomArtus*Imperator ® (Orate). 21:16, October 30, 2009 (UTC)
Delete. UU's rebuttal (below) is persuasive, despite follow-on comments that some men like soaps. Spıke¬ 22:00 30-Oct-09
Comments
This also-ignorant reviewer casts the token abstention in this round. The article has all the classic problems, but subtly rather than flagrantly, and could conceivably appeal to a fan of the soap. Spıke¬ 17:24 29-Oct-09
You lucky bastard. Also, I tested your theory by showing this to my father-in-law, who hasn't missed an installment in about 20 years. He declared it, and I quote, "soddin' awful". --UU - natter22:46, Oct 29
Why do British men watch soap operas? I've never heard of an American man doing that. Not even a gay one. It's too gay for the gays. pillow talk 23:31, October 29, 2009 (UTC)
Spend some time in an American prison and you'll likely change your perspective. There are places where, if someone tries to change the channel when certain soaps are on, it's an instant fight. WHY???PuppyOnTheRadio 00:15, October 30, 2009 (UTC)
So how'd you end up on the inside, WdIntpt? pillow talk 16:46, October 30, 2009 (UTC)
Kept Cos we forgot to add the VFD tag. Also, I don't think it totally sucks! I will see you guys back here in a few weeks if you want to re-nom this later... MrNFork you! 22:11, Oct 30
Delete. Has been around since 2006, it's short and for the most part unfunny, it has some potential, but not in this form. I went through the history and there is nothing promising in there either. --ChiefjusticeDS 14:32, October 29, 2009 (UTC)
Comments
[originally a Delete] Anyone writing about how funny getting drunk is needs to ask whether it's funny to anyone sober. I especially don't want to read any comedy article that introduces itself as a "thesis"; the author may be one of the speechifying pre-teens imagined in my recent recommendation on encyclopedia clichés.Spıke¬ 17:02 29-Oct-09 post-edited
Clean-up done (mincing words; new template; 10% new material) Spıke¬ 22:34 30-Oct-09
Delete. There are hints that this is going to be a satire of Japan, but it isn't. pillow talk 14:24, October 29, 2009 (UTC)
Delete. A missed opportunity for some actual humour. --ChiefjusticeDS 14:48, October 29, 2009 (UTC)
Delete. Despite initial amusement, I'll pile on. Bad things deserve to happen to stoned editors, and we should start to chip away at these interlocking articles on a personal alternate universe. Spıke¬ 19:27 29-Oct-09
Finally a chance to avoid voting straight-party Delete on this current batch that UU has dredged up. The article loses me with large numbers, history-of-the-future, and space villains, but I almost enjoyed bad English as written by foreigners, especially mixing the excessively formal with the colloquial. We need a parochial article on a despotic but quaint Third World hellhole. Spıke¬ 12:48 29-Oct-09 post-edited
A whole lot more and being developed as we write. His query on UU's talk page may explain it: Editing Under the Influence. Spıke¬ 16:54 29-Oct-09
Despite upgrading to Delete, this article grew on me. The copy in User:SPIKE/Hajime Socialist Republic is without the references to global Armageddon. Now more cute than awful? Spıke¬ 19:27 29-Oct-09 post-edited
Delete. One or two hours' typing by one or two anonIPs on 19-Oct; concedes early that the topic "ain't real." Author must have read Barack Obama, which uses {{C}} (censorship blocks) deliberately; this article overuses them pointlessly. Spıke¬ 12:37 29-Oct-09
Delete It's not totally irredeemable. I like the idea of an M-rated game reviewed by a 12-year old. But delete it anyway. --Pleb SYNDROMECUNmedicate(butt poop!!!!) 14:38, October 29, 2009 (UTC)
The template doesn't lie. The article is not a dry recitation of facts, but it's based on facts: The guy has a crappy phone monopoly. We all do; mine filed for bankruptcy yesterday. This article is more angry than funny, but an article on your crappy phone monopoly, acting out generic complaints (in the manner of My ex-wife) would be good. Spıke¬ 04:04 29-Oct-09
Vape this piece of crap. --AndorinKato 21:13, October 29, 2009 (UTC)
Comments
Actually, I've just noticed that it used to be a redirect... so I guess we could just revert back to that. Looks like I just wasted a VFD spot; someone please archive this. --AndorinKato 21:22, October 29, 2009 (UTC)
Reverted back to redirect and locked down. ~ 21:48, October 29, 2009 (UTC)
Hotel Vladivostok Live
Keep
Delete
Delete. 2005cruft of the usual kind - short, random, unfunny, pointless and the rest. --UU - natter12:05, Oct 29
Delete. Commits the additional youthful sin of repeatedly stating interpretations of facts it has not yet spelled out. Spıke¬ 12:54 29-Oct-09
Delete. What??? --ChiefjusticeDS 14:49, October 29, 2009 (UTC)
Delete. Good find, this really deserves deletion. --Count of Monkey Crisco 15:53, October 29, 2009 (UTC)
Delete. It's just a list. A short, unfunny list. --UU - natter12:01, Oct 29
Delete. Watch a TV show (perhaps WWE wrestling) and write half a page about what you'd like the next episode to be. Inherently uninteresting. Spıke¬ 12:57 29-Oct-09
Hello, my name is What The Fuck and this is my article. pillow talk 16:50, October 29, 2009 (UTC)
Comments
Doug
Keep
Delete
Delete. There is a school of thought that an article about cartoons is funny if you just change the name of all the characters into something vaguely smutty, like "Smurfuckette" or "She-Tampon-Ra." This school of thought is retarded. pillow talk 16:16, October 28, 2009 (UTC)
Delete. Pretty much bog-standard cartooncruft - complete with all the juvenile sex "jokes" and random backstory that entails. Painful. --UU - natter17:00, Oct 28
It could have been good, but I think it's beyond saving with the way it's been tampered. Delete it with fire. -- Hanyouman 04:52, October 29, 2009 (UTC)
Delete for defiling a brilliant name. --ChiefjusticeDS 14:41, October 29, 2009 (UTC)
Comments
The intro says what happened in "1990-1987" and goes downhill from there. The Contents are potty humor. I won't vote because I won't read it. Spıke¬ 16:34 28-Oct-09
Sounds like you've read enough of it already... --UU - natter21:40, Oct 28
When I checked on the article many a month ago, it looked decent enough... kind of. Then I check back on it now and find it like this. Gah! -- Hanyouman 04:50, October 29, 2009 (UTC)
Keep. And hope for a rewrite. The basement-dweller exists and invites ridicule, although the current article reads as a grade-schooler's attempt to slam the kids he dislikes. Spıke¬ 16:41 28-Oct-09
It's rewritten. No listage, and I don't see any overt suckage. Spıke¬ 03:29 29-Oct-09
Keep. Reworked enough to stay. --UU - natter12:13, Oct 29
Delete. 1. A Google on this name brings back this page and little else. 2. Read it - I did, and I'll never get that time back. Seriously, what the fuck? --UU - natter14:57, Oct 28
Delete. A torrent of random. pillow talk 16:39, October 28, 2009 (UTC)
Delete. I do what I can. IronLung 00:18, October 28, 2009 (UTC)
Delete. I stand against the majority. This is just dopey. --Count of Monkey Crisco 16:39, October 29, 2009 (UTC)
Comments
The March 2007 edition survived VFD. Additions since then are mostly practice in writing complete sentences. I bet there is a CBU whose students refer to it as Cambodian Banana University and that is the only point of this article. Spıke¬ 00:29 28-Oct-09
Delete. Okay, guys, this should not have survived deletion ten months ago. When we first nominated it, it looked like this. MrN9000 reverted it to this. That was deemed unacceptable, and after a minor rewrite, it looks like this. ALL THREE OF THESE VERSIONS ARE UTTER SHIT. pillow talk 16:22, October 28, 2009 (UTC)
Delete. Remarkable. The three versions are all about something else. But indeed, they are all crap. Spıke¬ 16:32 28-Oct-09
Delete. I voted a weak keep last time, hoping it might get better after a rewrite. It got worse - time to get rid. --UU - natter17:01, Oct 28
EXTERMINATE! The fact this was kept last time clearly shows that we used to be far more lenient. I blame not-cranky-enough-ness. —SirSocky(talk)(stalk)GUNSotMUotMPMotMUotYPotMWotM17:11, 28 October 2009
Delete. Ah, good ol' 2005cruft. A particularly fine example of the breed - note the lack of length, the lack of edits in years, the lack of funny, and the lack of a point. --UU - natter15:11, Oct 28
Delete. It's not much more than one block o'text. And that block witters on about Nordic Dragon Slayers and Aryan Nations and whatnot. Get rid. --UU - natter14:49, Oct 28
Delete. BTO was not a one-hit wonder, and surely not the only one. So this piece of not humor has the double misfortune of being based on BEATING TO DEATH a not seed of truth. Spıke¬ 16:01 28-Oct-09 post-edited
Holy crap. That's obviously not worth formatting. pillow talk 16:40, October 28, 2009 (UTC)
Idea tag. This is sort of what the idea tag is for. Definitely a lot of potential here, none of which is tapped. pillow talk 16:41, October 28, 2009 (UTC)
Delete. Short, shit 'n' pointless. --UU - natter14:35, Oct 28
Comments
Citing Wikipedia (for things like an unbiased essay on "homophobia") is common, and ridiculous, and deserves open ridicule--though this article doesn't begin. Spıke¬ 16:08 28-Oct-09
Fair enough, speedily keepted, although as nothing would have happened to it without this nom, I claim full responsibility for the fact that this has now been improved from a crappy little stub. --UU - natter21:37, Oct 28
Allalallium
Keep
Delete
Delete. It's been unedited since 2007, it's not linked from anywhere, and it's random, unfunny, and pointless. --UU - natter14:33, Oct 28
Delete. Sometimes a reader is unaware of the point behind juxtaposing two seemingly random things--but I'm sure there's no point in morphing Allah into a chemical element. Spıke¬ 16:14 28-Oct-09
Delete. What I said. Which is "Delete." pillow talk 16:42, October 28, 2009 (UTC)
Comments
Da Vinci's Inquest
Keep
Delete
Delete. Because we're over 25,000, and that will never do. Also, "The pink panther and the church discovered that DA Vinci in fact was a dirty old pedophile..." IronLung 00:10, October 28, 2009 (UTC)
Delete. Oooh, talk dirty to me! especially seeing as "Jew" is his favorite swear. Yes, let's become 24,999. Spıke¬ 00:23 28-Oct-09
Don't know why exactly it's useless, it can be used very well in conjunction with religious related articles. Also, I find it quite funny. I think this can actually be extended for a full article. ~ 12:09, October 27, 2009 (UTC)
Keep. Plenty funny, but shouldn't be a template, taking up space in articles on each Founder. Make it an article and have them just link to it. Spıke¬ 12:38 27-Oct-09
Keep only if moved out of template space. That's way, way too big for a template. pillow talk 13:28, October 27, 2009 (UTC)
Keep. I agree that it's a little bulky for a template, I could try to reduce it in size so that it fits better and looks like other templates, has a navigation bar and so on. But keep it by all means. I never heard before that a template needs to have a practical use here, Chief. NaturalBornKieler (talk) 13:49, October 27, 2009 (UTC)
I reworked the design of the template now so that it is way smaller and more compatible with other templates. Hope you like it that way, it was quite an effort. NaturalBornKieler (talk) 20:29, October 27, 2009 (UTC)
Delete
Delete. Useless and unfunny. --Docile hippopotamus 09:07, October 27, 2009 (UTC)
Delete. Has absolutely no practical use. --ChiefjusticeDS 11:44, October 27, 2009 (UTC)
Comments
Remember to add the VFD template to pages you put on here. --ChiefjusticeDS 11:44, October 27, 2009 (UTC)
The rapper and the video game might have something in common that makes a future edition of this article cute. Dunno--but I doubt it. Spıke¬ 12:41 27-Oct-09
Keep The weasels bit was great. A good parody of all those things that try to demonstrate orders of magnitude with things like stacks of money or zooming in and out of things and stuff. --monika 23:08, October 22, 2009 (UTC)
Keep. Nothing wrong with the concept, and unnecessary insults to the reader are the only thing wrong with the execution. Spıke¬ 05:28 26-Oct-09
Keep. It's short, expansion would be better than deletion. --ChiefjusticeDS 11:40, October 27, 2009 (UTC)
Comment. I suggest we put it in a laced up jacket and post it to ?pedia where it will able to roam where the penguins live...--RomArtus*Imperator ® (Orate). 23:14, October 25, 2009 (UTC)
You mean y'all take your worst stuff and turn it into Wikipedia articles? Don't they complain that it's "original research"? Spıke¬ 12:44 27-Oct-09
Keep I happen to somewhat like this. That's why I "improperly" used a rewrite tag, hoping that someone could make it better because I know I can't. MegaPleb•Dexter111344•Complain here 22:20, October 22, 2009 (UTC)
Delete
Delete. Improper use of rewrite tag; made-up subject. Bad article. pillow talk 21:07, October 22, 2009 (UTC)
Delete. It links to HTBFANJS but has no connection to it. --Count of Monkey Crisco 06:58, October 23, 2009 (UTC)
Delete. No one weep when this has gone the way of all crap...--RomArtus*Imperator ® (Orate). 22:59, October 25, 2009 (UTC)
Delete. At its core it's a big inside joke. Spıke¬ 05:45 26-Oct-09
What the Yeah, this is the kind of thing that this wiki can survive just perfectly without. --SirDJ~Irreverent 04:02, October 27, 2009 (UTC)
I believe we're supposed to use {{fix}} or {{idea}} for made-up subjects; "rewrite" is supposed to be a tag for pages whose absence would be noticed. At least, that's my understanding. pillow talk 22:29, October 22, 2009 (UTC)
Really, those two templates have no use. They're just another way of saying, "Hey, rewrite/expand this!" MegaPleb•Dexter111344•Complain here 22:35, October 22, 2009 (UTC)
Well, differentiating between them is useful to me. If I'm ever thinking "What shitty article can I rewrite," I'm looking for Dynamite, not How to be danceable and not just murderous. You know how you said you know you can't make this better? Well, neither can I. pillow talk 22:39, October 22, 2009 (UTC)
I can fix this. I don't have time to work on it now, though. If it gets deleted, move it to my userspace, please. --Pleb SYNDROMECUNmedicate(butt poop!!!!) 23:02, October 22, 2009 (UTC)
Delete. A 2006 leftover that did not make me laugh. pillow talk 20:47, October 22, 2009 (UTC)
Kerkill Gonna point something out: This is originally a short joke on Futurama extended to a boring piece of shit Uncyclopedia article. MegaPleb•Dexter111344•Complain here 22:30, October 22, 2009 (UTC)
Delete. UnNews is not a dumping ground. This article is just not that good. --Count of Monkey Crisco 06:24, October 23, 2009 (UTC)
Updated to remove old George Bush references. Agree with the suggestion to move to UnNews. -- Simsilikesims(♀UN)Talk here. 21:13, October 22, 2009 (UTC)
Brute (Original Version)
Keep
Delete
Delete. A really lame, tired page and guess what: It has a link to Shoop da Whoop. Nothing good is based on Shoop da Whoop. --Count of Monkey Crisco 22:36, October 20, 2009 (UTC)
Delete. Brutish indeed...where are the laughs hidden on this one ?--RomArtus*Imperator ® (Orate). 23:10, October 25, 2009 (UTC)
Delete. At first I thought it could be saved, then I read a bit more and decided deleting and letting someone start from scratch is probably better. --ChiefjusticeDS 11:32, October 27, 2009 (UTC)
The Governor's foreign birth, and use of stock partisan ideas to make Michigan the epicenter of the economic mess, ache for clever treatment (like Pollyanna irony)--not just alternating randomness and libel. Spıke¬ 12:36 26-Oct-09 PS--Mitt Romney has the same problem (but he's a "rising star.")
Delete. It doesn't relate to Blue Man Group, it doesn't relate to anything, the only bright spot is the use of Template:Random at the end to say so; but it's trite when an article confesses that it sucks. Spıke¬ 05:42 26-Oct-09
Delete. A textbook terrible Uncyclopedia article. --Count of Monkey Crisco 08:22, October 26, 2009 (UTC)
Delete. NRV. pillow talk 20:03, October 26, 2009 (UTC)
Delete. Merge it with Food Man Group, then destroy them both as one. --Count of Monkey Crisco 08:22, October 26, 2009 (UTC)
Delete. Unredeemable. pillow talk 20:03, October 26, 2009 (UTC)
Delete. If you agree with me and delete the original, there is no reason for this "sequel" to live on; but perhaps my explicit vote will induce you to push it over the cliff faster. Spıke¬ 22:36 26-Oct-09
Delete. I think there's a concept here, but I'm having trouble teasing it out. pillow talk 20:01, October 26, 2009 (UTC)
Delete. If someone, someday wants to try to merge the world of video games with the world of unsolicited commercial spam, and if they, unlike this author, has something real to say about it, it will be easy to start over--easier than adapting this article to make it say something. Spıke¬ 22:40 26-Oct-09
Comments
Tree Lee IV: A Fistful of Treefucker
Keep
Delete
What the fuck was that? HOW comes??? 19:28, October 23, 2009 (UTC)
This counts as author request. This article qualifies for QVFD. Any passing admin could just delete this article and it would be totally fair. Any second now... --Pleb SYNDROMECUNmedicate(butt poop!!!!) 02:52, October 24, 2009 (UTC)
That's what I'd call utter shitHOW comes??? 03:04, October 24, 2009 (UTC)
Comment. If you go to the writer's page Sniperbunnystreetsk8 , you'll see there is a lot more where these have come from. I would move this to his user's page and just leave them there to rust away in peace. --RomArtus*Imperator ® (Orate). 22:39, October 25, 2009 (UTC)
Delete. But I'd like to point out that it did get better on February 15, 2009, when Mnbvcxz added it to Category:Rodents. pillow talk 22:37, October 22, 2009 (UTC)
Delete. Another biography of someone nonexistent (which the photo indicates is not even a hamster), and the first sentence says "little is known"--Why would anyone read further, even to discover his arch-nemesis? And nothing links to it except Hampster [sic]. Spıke¬ 05:35 26-Oct-09
Delete. I'm pretty sure this is forum drama vanity. --Count of Monkey Crisco 07:52, October 26, 2009 (UTC)
Delete. I've always preferred Lopez Lake to Topaz Lake. pillow talk 22:33, October 22, 2009 (UTC)
Delete. It's like somebody started a Topaz article and drew a total blank when it was time to write it. --Count of Monkey Crisco 08:56, October 24, 2009 (UTC)
Kerkill I liked two things about this, "Michael Jackson is quoted to say he has met and befriended a smacker, but refuses to show the smacker to anybody, fearing for the smackers safety." and the bit parodying Akon's "Smack That" song. I make turn that bit into an UnTune. Not record it, though, as I don't have a mic... MegaPleb•Dexter111344•Complain here 23:28, October 22, 2009 (UTC)
Delete A bunch of 2005 articles run through a translator to become unreadable. Why was this a good idea? --Pleb SYNDROMECUNmedicate(butt poop!!!!) 04:51, October 23, 2009 (UTC)
Genocidal Delete Not funny the first time, less funny every time after. --Count of Monkey Crisco 07:02, October 23, 2009 (UTC)
Comments
Withholding vote until I learn whether nominating fourteen pages at once makes Mordillo homicidally Jew-angry. pillow talk 15:57, October 23, 2009 (UTC)
Kept So after what you said about me in your forum you now do this Syndrome??? Um. No. Try and get some kind of consensus in your forum if you can, but we are not using VFD like this now. MrNFork you! 20:26, Oct 23
I was just kidding in the forum (the template obviously deserved deletion), and since the consensus there seemed to be UN:N I decided to be UN:I and do something. What's the problem? --Pleb SYNDROMECUNmedicate(butt poop!!!!) 20:31, October 23, 2009 (UTC)
Hea. Tis no problem. Here's what we do. Bump that forum a few more times, and make some more of an effort to find out about these parts of bable is if anyone cares about em. Basically I don't think we have consensus to start mass deleting them just yet. I'm all in-favour of loosing it btw, but I just think we need to hold off a bit longer. MrNFork you! 20:36, Oct 23
Delete. A rambling walk down no path. Has seen no real changes since Jan-06, and none of its three (!) original editors have done anything here in the last 16 months. 
EXTERMINATE!
What was that? 
Keep. Due to my eyeball fetish. --
Comment. This article is so pathetically desperate to offend that it's rendered totally unoffensive. That only makes it funny in the sad little way that most terribly written, juvenile articles can be considered "funny". --
Smite. No, wrong! --
