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.
Keep. - Not great, but amusing in parts.--Sycamore(Talk) 09:28, September 23, 2010 (UTC)
Delete (5)
Delete. Someone wanted to make a parody of Pink Floyd's The Division Bell. The strategy: lists, lots of lists and barely capable puns. The result: deletion candidacy. --Count of Monkey Crisco 03:57, September 23, 2010 (UTC)
Delete. With TheSlyFox's Comment, except that I don't even think the intro is good; it's full of nonsense numbers (including "approximately yesterday") and memes. Spıke¬ 09:25 23-Sep-10
Delete. It's just a list and that's it. --RomArtus*Imperator ® (Orate) 08:55, September 24, 2010 (UTC)
Delete. I don't get it. Is there something to get? I also don't like reading lists. Would that have helped if I had? ~*shifty eyes* (talk) (stalk) -- 20100926 - 15:44 (UTC)
Delete Sycamore. mAttlobster. (hello) 17:51, September 26, 2010 (UTC)
How pathetic--Sycamore(Talk) 18:04, September 26, 2010 (UTC)
Comments
Comment. I'm abstaining from voting on this one because I think the intro is decent. All the rest is listcruft, and a good intro isn't enough to make an article. --TheSlyFox 05:41, September 23, 2010 (UTC)
At the least, retitle it. No one looks up articles by the punch line; no one knows what pun the author was going to choose for The Division Bell. Cracking wise with article titles proves what a funny guy you are at the expense of the user's ability to navigate the site. Spıke¬ 11:13 23-Sep-10
This is a good starting point for a good contributer, all it needs is to be moved to the correct title. I've removed the lists and tided it a little.--Sycamore(Talk) 18:04, September 26, 2010 (UTC)
Keep. (Mistakenly tagged Delete originally) The title sounds trite at best (Hitler was horrible). But the concept is good--morph the "Hagar the Horrible" comic strip onto Hitler. No, Fox, "Kill the Jews" is not funny; but a funny comic strip that is blithely unfunny is funny. However, regardless of Hitler's sexual health, the gay jokes are weak, and Sections 3 and 4 are useless listcruft. Spıke¬ 13:54 22-Sep-10
Keep. I'm with Spike on this one. It does have a good concept and could be lovely if put through a rewrite. Deleting it would probably cause the idea to just get lost, unfortunately. (I'd rewrite it, but I don't have time and my writing sucks, anyway. So, er.) ~*shifty eyes* (talk) (stalk) -- 20100923 - 00:16 (UTC)
Weak keep needs an image tho. --Mn-z 00:41, September 23, 2010 (UTC)
Keep. Edited what's there, including gassing, ah, huffing, the two lists and kicking out the unfunny sexual verbage. Someone could take this and expand to a very interesting page. Aleister 00:41 23 9
European history? Romartus, I think he is paging you. Separately, good work, team! Spıke¬ 01:59 23-Sep-10
Delete. I couldn't find one genuinely funny bit in the whole article, and I don't find "Kill the Jews" funny at all. --TheSlyFox 13:39, September 22, 2010 (UTC)
Delete. I guess you could say Hitler the Horrible... is horrible. YYYEEEEEAAAAAHHHHH
But in all seriousness, this article has poor quality, and isn't that good of a concept. Try again later or something. LeutnantHerrThatdamnedfollowspot 14:09 Wednesday, September 22, 2010
Comment: I do agree with Spike in that the concept might be salvageable, but it needs a lot of work--a complete rewrite, if possible. At the very least, the gay jokes really should go. I just don't know what to put in place of them... --TheSlyFox 01:20, September 23, 2010 (UTC)
Comment. if someone would MS-Paint copy Hitler's head on to Hagar's body, this article would vastly improve. I nominate someone other than me. --Mn-z 01:26, September 23, 2010 (UTC)
Comment. I've added an image I was saving back for something like this. That's the most I can do for this article. --TheSlyFox 01:43, September 23, 2010 (UTC)
The three illustrations added most recently don't relate sufficiently to the article (I thought Eva "always" wore a gas mask); the last one doesn't relate at all but steals an unrelated joke from the original comic strip. Spıke¬ 12:14 23-Sep-10
Keep. per my putting effort into fixing it. --Mn-z 20:33, September 24, 2010 (UTC)
Keep. I love it when this happens, folks, instead of going for deleting something, fix it... ~*shifty eyes* (talk) (stalk) -- 20100925 - 03:12 (UTC)
Delete (0)
Delete. It's pretty much just an overly silly intro followed by an equally silly timeline. Hasn't really changed much since 2005, either. ~*shifty eyes* (talk) (stalk) -- 20100924 - 00:39 (UTC)
Scratch that delete, too. You guys are amazing. *beams* ~*shifty eyes* (talk) (stalk) -- 20100924 - 02:25 (UTC)
Delete. The concept is correct: Candy Land is a board game for kids, but Uncyclopedia's going to tell us what it really is. Kept my interest despite the Oscar Wildeism. But Section 1 is a bleepin' time line--and all the times are BC (how-you-say nonsense dates) with memes such as Jesus builds the first Walmart. And then--it's over! Spıke¬ 00:45 24-Sep-10
Delete. the start might be ok, the rest is utter crap. The timeline is slightly less random than some, but still awful. --Mn-z 00:58, September 24, 2010 (UTC) changed per my putting effort into it
I've goosed it, giving the intro a new beginning and deleting everything from the list that doesn't relate to candy. Romartus could go further and weave in some episodes from actual history that could be forced to relate to candy. Spıke¬ 01:17 24-Sep-10 post-edited
I changed the timeline dates so that its not as mind-numblingly randumb. --Mn-z 01:29, September 24, 2010 (UTC)
Rescinds Delete. Your post-edit solves the "nonsense date" problem and makes additional improvements--but "Babylon" no longer fits. Spıke¬ 01:29 24-Sep-10
Now we need a final section that asserts that the "Mesopotamian" Candy Land is an edible Iraq under American occupation! (Not from me, not tonight....) Spıke¬ 01:40 24-Sep-10
References to Babylon removed. --Mn-z 01:48, September 24, 2010 (UTC)
Mine. Granted, it's old and was never brilliant and got too many quotes overtime, but I still like it. ~ 20:37, September 23, 2010 (UTC)
To suck up to Mordillo as I lol. But on a more serious note, after my sucking up is completed, it's not a bad article. Nothing a good edit sweep, or a total rewrite, or a blanker turning left when he should have turned right and finding himself in Uncyclopedia instead of Wikipedia couldn't improve upon. And on a further more serious note, it actually is a good page with potential for more. Aleister 21:13 23 9
Keep. Monty Python references are better than 4chan references. Anyone who says otherwise will be turned into a newt. (Although you will probably get better.) --Mn-z 01:07, September 24, 2010 (UTC)
Conditional Keep provided that it either gets worked on some more or gets a cleanup, rewrite, or other tag.--Sirrah CatshirEChess the Striker2117 20:34, September 24, 2010 (UTC)
Delete. Hasn't got a leg to stand on. --Count of Monkey Crisco 18:56, September 23, 2010 (UTC)
Delete. It has kitten-huffing, Chuck Norris, grues, single-sentence sections, one in ALL CAPITALS, nonsense numbers, random lists with red-links, citations of gays/lesbians in lieu of making a joke about them, and takes liberties with the English language. And, although the final photo suggests it is about the Knights Who Say "Ni," it seems to be about nothing. Spıke¬ 21:08 23-Sep-10
Delete. Sir Ran of Dumbo, my liege. Junior Uncyclopedia but I can see it is yet another nostalgia keep. Time to impale this particular teddy. --RomArtus*Imperator ® (Orate) 08:49, September 24, 2010 (UTC)
Delete. It's another randumbo rambling story. Oh, what's that? Most of the randumbo words are not too subtle reference to Radiohead song titles. I see what you did there. The problem is that you can do this with ANY modern music group and it would come out just as good, by which I mean pretty bad. --Count of Monkey Crisco 03:32, September 25, 2010 (UTC)
I don't think so, Tim. This reads like one of those vocabulary activities you had to do in grade school where you wrote a sentence with a different vocabulary word in it. LeutnantHerrThatdamnedfollowspot 15:25 Saturday, September 25, 2010
Delete. So, Count, you're telling me that in Section 1 (everything else is crap), the author weaves Radiohead song titles into a narrative? That would be an impressive accomplishment, especially for a third-grader first learning to write essays. Nothing funny about it, though. Spıke¬ 00:44 26-Sep-10
Dumb Shit --Wilytank 01:43, September 26, 2010 (UTC)
Delete. per above. --Mn-z 01:47, September 26, 2010 (UTC)
Comment.A pretty decent and interesting modern rock band from Britain. Sort of gloomy sounding but otherwise hard to classify. --Count of Monkey Crisco 06:12, September 26, 2010 (UTC)
Keep per last time. Also, how the fuck did you manage to mess up the nomination time stamp, RAHB? I fixed it, but still, something fucked up. MegaPleb•Dexter111344•Complain here 09:51, September 20, 2010 (UTC)
Flip-flop. Also, turn all the words into red links so someone might write an article about them. This can be the new UN:REQ. --TKFUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUCK 11:41, September 20, 2010 (UTC)
For. This article embiggens me. Aleister 20:02 20 9
Keep. It could just be put in Undictionary, but I think it's keepable.-- (CUN) 00:05, September 21, 2010 (UTC)
The page has been edited by a few users over the last couple of days. Pics have been added as well. Aleister 12:06 22 9
Weak Keep Somehow I find this stupidly random... but vaguely funny. --TheSlyFox 01:47, September 23, 2010 (UTC)
Ass jizz. Very essential. -RAHB 09:42, September 20, 2010 (UTC)
Ass jizz. An alphabetized compendium of ramble that broadcasts for more. If any individual entry is good, it can go to Undictionary. Spıke¬ 10:03 20-Sep-10
Hesitant Delete: I tagged this article with the anti-list tag because I feel that after it is deleted (which it no doubt should be) it will just be recreated again. Probably as another dumb list. The only way to prevent this is to improve the article. I do not claim to have the ability nor the inclination to improve this article. But by tagging it I hope to make this reality clear to those that would keep it. -- BrigadierGeneralSirZombiebaron 04:34, September 21, 2010 (UTC)
Delete. or move to anyone's page who wants to take this mongrel in and give it a good bath. --RomArtus*Imperator ® (Orate) 07:52, September 21, 2010 (UTC)
Delete I don't think the 'keep' voters bother to read the article. Listy crap. mAttlobster. (hello) 09:54, September 21, 2010 (UTC)
Comments
Woops, guess I left the old one in when I copied the template. -RAHB 10:24, September 20, 2010 (UTC)
Seems like overkill on a page which is essentially meant to be a list. That's a big template (haven't seen it before) and inaccurate about it being huffed, and maybe this page isn't a place for it. Aleister 00:24 21 9
Hello Aleister. Nice to meet you I'm Zombiebaron. Now, granted, a few things may have changed while I was away from the wiki. But I do believe that we still have a policy that all pages must be better than lists. Perhaps if there were some pictures on the page. Maybe the history of made up words. Maybe we move the article to UnBooks and make it a dictionary of made up words. I don't really care. Because if it doesn't get edited for a month while it has that maintenance tag on it will, I assure you, once again become a candidate for deletion. So if you care about this article I urge you to do something. Thanks. -- BrigadierGeneralSirZombiebaron 03:48, September 21, 2010 (UTC)
The "anti-list tag" is a threat that we here declare we don't intend to enforce. That the formatting violates some policy is the least of the problems. The article's current contents are dumb, and that and its title invite more dumbness. So all we've done is add a template that further calls attention to its dumbness. Spıke¬ 04:26 21-Sep-10
Who is "we". You are not me and we did not act as a team. I stand by my actions. -- BrigadierGeneralSirZombiebaron 04:34, September 21, 2010 (UTC)
"We" is the absence of consensus here to delete the article for the reason expressed in the template. Spıke¬ 04:38 21-Sep-10
I do not require a consensus to do what I feel is for the best of Uncyclopedia. When I was democratically made an administrator of this website the community entrusted itself to me. If you feel that my actions are not for the best of Uncyclopedia then just say so. But I think I'm right. -- BrigadierGeneralSirZombiebaron 04:42, September 21, 2010 (UTC)
I am a Delete voter and, if you are saying the template itself authorizes deletion after a month, that's fine with me. Before, I was just reacting to the absurdity of using a template that threatens deletion just as the article survives the vote on VFD. Spıke¬ 13:22 21-Sep-10
As a Delete voter too, I was puzzled Zombiebaron that you wanted to remind everyone that you are a democratically elected admin. I don't think anyone was questioning your decisions on that score.--RomArtus*Imperator ® (Orate) 18:54, September 21, 2010 (UTC)
Okay I'm glad that you guys agree with me. I was only restating the facts in case somebody was not aware of where I was coming from. Believe it or not there was a period of time spanning almost a year when I was the admin "in charge" of VFD. I like deleting article as much as the next guy. But sometimes it would be nice to improve a couple of them. -- BrigadierGeneralSirZombiebaron 20:33, September 21, 2010 (UTC)
Comment: I went ahead and trimmed a bunch of cruft from the page, if that helps. --TheSlyFox 13:07, September 22, 2010 (UTC)
Delete. There's no concept here. Change the band name, change the name of the article's subject and it applies to a surprising number of musicians. We just get a lot of wibble and some lists to fill up the space. --Count of Monkey Crisco 06:42, September 24, 2010 (UTC)
Delete. Template random abuse without any merit. --RomArtus*Imperator ® (Orate) 08:41, September 24, 2010 (UTC)
Delete. "PLEASE DO NOT READ: it might burn your eyes..." Unfortunately, this warning doesn't appear until Section 3. And "the only funny part of this article" is not until Section 4.2. Spıke¬ 09:19 24-Sep-10
Delete. I couldn't bear to actually read all of the thing, but it looks hideous. And what little I did read was also hideous. In fact... *rants about hideousness* ~*shifty eyes* (talk) (stalk) -- 20100924 - 15:25 (UTC)
I don't think so, Tim. Nothing but random sentences and a waste of the reader's time. LeutnantHerrThatdamnedfollowspot 21:22 Friday, September 24, 2010
Delete. If you have nothing to write about something that doesn't exist you should probably just not write anything at all. --Count of Monkey Crisco 06:31, September 24, 2010 (UTC)
Delete. Some hormonal teen wasted an evening on this bin liner. Flopdoodle. --RomArtus*Imperator ® (Orate) 08:43, September 24, 2010 (UTC)
Delete. The Wikipedia reference is to a disambiguation page with five references, all from Web and gaming; Blarg itself does not merit a page. Here either. The only serious content is a translation of Genesis into LULZ. Breathtaking. Spıke¬ 09:16 24-Sep-10
Delete. Unless you find the word "duck" hilarious this is garbage. I think ti's realted to some other duckcruft we cleared out months ago. It's just a rambling story, then some ducks, then a little wacky war, then more ducks. Displays only the most feeble attempts at humor. --Count of Monkey Crisco 11:34, September 23, 2010 (UTC)
Delete. Yes, this is from Hogie506, whose works you asked me to comment on last January. The point of the current article, which that purge missed, is to anchor the author's duck-based alternate universe, much of which has been deleted by VFD. Except for that, there's not much going for it. Spıke¬ 11:50 23-Sep-10
Delete. per above. --Mn-z 00:19, September 24, 2010 (UTC)
Delete. I know what, change everything to Church of Christ the Chicken and we'll have a feature! --RomArtus*Imperator ® (Orate) 08:54, September 24, 2010 (UTC)
Comments
Duckistan, obviously, survives. Ducksberg, supposedly its capital city, redirects to Duckburg, which is someone else's work, crappy in its own right. For duck-themed articles to be really funny, they must not simply be an alternate world where all the people are ducks, but have a humor concept of what the implications of that might be. Spıke¬ 11:55 23-Sep-10
Delete. In theory, a sectional template of TV stars would make sense. Albeit, the subject might be too broad, causing an overly large template. At any rate, this isn't how to go about creating one. --Mn-z 00:51, September 23, 2010 (UTC)
Delete. Of the five entries in the template, of the four that actually exist, none of them use the template. Spıke¬ 01:50 23-Sep-10
Delete. Listcruft, nothing more. --Count of Monkey Crisco 13:48, September 22, 2010 (UTC)
Delete. No photo, no real-world basis, no concept, no humor. Spıke¬ 14:01 22-Sep-10
I don't think so, Tim. This has lasted almost two years and it looks like this? The concept is vague- its description even more so. LeutnantHerrThatdamnedfollowspot 14:28 Wednesday, September 22, 2010
Delete. more red links than blue and more lists than article. --Mn-z 00:54, September 23, 2010 (UTC)
Delete. I don't understand a word of it, and I speak Japanese! It's mostly fancruft nonsense; the Wikipedia article on it is actually funnier. --TheSlyFox 05:32, September 23, 2010 (UTC)
Comments
This is a real thing by the way. It just has a terrible article on it.--HM(T) 20:23, September 22, 2010 (UTC)
Delete. Found because it contains {{Awilde}}. This monster-cruft from 2005 assumes that humor requires no more than to drop the name either of Oscar Wilde or any Republican. Spıke¬ 23:39 21-Sep-10
weak delete Looking at it, it doesn't scream "Delete Me!" but I fail to see any humor, or except for the initial pic, any material worth keeping. --Mn-z 02:56, September 22, 2010 (UTC)
Close, but no cigar. Or cigarette for that matter. Could be a lot better, but the concept's gone stale, much like the loaf of bread in my kitchen. LeutnantHerrThatdamnedfollowspot 02:59 Wednesday, September 22, 2010
Delete. (consults wikipedia)...oh so that is what this is all about. --RomArtus*Imperator ® (Orate) 07:05, September 22, 2010 (UTC)
Nuke I agree, the initial pic should be moved out of the blast area first, though. --TheSlyFox 13:12, September 22, 2010 (UTC)
Barely The first image is a keeper. The article itself might possibly turn into something worth a crap with hours of work put in by the best we have to offer. I don't see that ever happening though which is why I'll vote delete. --—John Lydon 14:28, September 22, 2010 (UTC)
Smite. Blatant crap.--HM(T) 20:30, September 22, 2010 (UTC)
Delete. references a deleted subject, and is pointless ugly box. --Mn-z 22:56, September 21, 2010 (UTC)
Delete. Pointless, and ugly. But in addition to the deleted article for which this template was created, it is also used in the monster-cruft Lich. Spıke¬ 23:26 21-Sep-10
Delete. Nobody's using it, nothing really needs it. --Count of Monkey Crisco 00:53, September 22, 2010 (UTC)
Delete. Pointless. --TheSlyFox 13:15, September 22, 2010 (UTC)
Burninate! I can't picture any scenario where this template may come in handy. --—John Lydon 14:26, September 22, 2010 (UTC)
I don't think so, Tim. As per the above. I'd add something else, but it looks like what I'd say has already been said. LeutnantHerrThatdamnedfollowspot 17:01 Wednesday, September 22, 2010
Delete. as about as "good" as can be expected for a list of events involving in-jokes, random celebrities, and deleted articles that takes place 102 years in the future. --Mn-z 22:40, September 21, 2010 (UTC)
Delete. Mn-z in Comments convinces me that the fate of this piece of crap need not depend on the fate of the rest of the series. Spıke¬ 00:30 22-Sep-10
THE RED LINKS!! There are so many!! And it doesn't compliment the article at all. Exterminate at will. LeutnantHerrThatdamnedfollowspot 03:04 Wednesday, September 22, 2010
Same comment as below for 2100 AD - Before the End of Time. I agree with Mn-z's comments. Articles about future years (though this one's intro implies that it's 2112 BC) give anonymous authors utterly no constraints and invite listcruft with no humor, but it should be deleted only given a plan on what to do about the series. Spıke¬ 23:33 21-Sep-10
It looks like this page is out of the "official" timeline. It appears as though the timeline system is a complete mess, some years have their own pages outside of the timeline and some pages lack the proper navigation template. On a related note, I don't think its too bold to trim back the time line to say a decade after the present. Even if we blanked the pages (except the navigation templates and cats) and started over, we probably wouldn't miss much. --Mn-z 00:18, September 22, 2010 (UTC)
Delete. I didn't make it all the way through, but the only redeeming value I can find is it has become an IP vandals playground of sorts. Lots of listcruft and random unfunny ramblings. --—John Lydon 15:05, September 21, 2010 (UTC)
Obliterate. and 15 hits on Chuck Norris. --Wilytank 21:07, September 21, 2010 (UTC)
Delete. I thought we were supposed to be rewriting the timeline? Anyway, this is 2005cruft-style randumb date vomiting, and I can't see it turning into anything better. --Mn-z 22:32, September 21, 2010 (UTC)
Delete. Endless, redundant rambling --TheSlyFox 12:41, September 22, 2010 (UTC)
Disintegrate. What Mnbvcxz said. Fucking hate these things. Saberwolf116 20:27, September 22, 2010 (UTC)
Comments
The page is horrible, it is a past and future magnet for IPs, its topic (current events at Armageddon-minus-delta) is a case study in "nonsense year numbers," and it clearly merits the template Zombiebaron slapped on Made up Words for automatic administrative deletion. However, it is a part of a series of articles, and--like the articles on Interstate highways--should only die after a decision on what to do with the rest of the series. Spıke¬ 21:29 21-Sep-10
I agree as a general rule. However, this is about future dates. I would vote keep (with a strong suggestion of a purgication) for the parts of the timeline before the present. However, I really can't much of value of a timeline that goes into the future. We might be able to link to a few good articles about future events, but such a timeline will either be skeletal at best, and realisticly, would be laden with so much random crap that it would overshadow the references to articles that don't suck. --Mn-z 22:37, September 21, 2010 (UTC)
Hesitant keep - I think I might smile if I was looking at something like Category:Animals and I saw "Wrongly Categorized Article." It's kind of a tautology that Wrongly Categorized Article is wrongly categorized no matter what category it's in, right? Not the funniest joke ever, but not the least funny, either. pillow talk 23:58, September 20, 2010 (UTC)
Wacky... but I like it.-- (CUN) 00:02, September 21, 2010 (UTC)
Keep. It's a bit long for the joke, needs some polishing, but still worthy. --TheSlyFox 12:44, September 22, 2010 (UTC)
Weak keep. It could use some polishing, but the concept is alright. LeutnantHerrThatdamnedfollowspot 14:38 Wednesday, September 22, 2010
Keep. As per above. It's not the best execution of the idea, but the idea itself is solid.--Sirrah CatshirEChess the Striker2117 16:26, September 22, 2010 (UTC)
Delete. I felt like that article was hitting on me. Articles shouldn't hit on people. --—John Lydon 14:40, September 21, 2010 (UTC)
Delete. Not funny, and I like humor in the articles, not in the support areas. Redirecting VFD to my SSGP might make a few people smile too, that doesn't mean doing it is a good idea. --Mn-z 22:46, September 21, 2010 (UTC)
Comments
I think the article should be deleted by an admin (as per the article) and then brought back to life and expanded.--Sirrah CatshirEChess the Striker2117 14:53, September 21, 2010 (UTC)
Keep. Quality could be better, but it's about someone Wikipedia calls an "eccentric" and "cult television personality," and its satire is based on the real thing. Spıke¬ 10:42 20-Sep-10
Keep. It only looks like complete ramble because he is eccentric and not well known (at least on the Yankee side of the pond). And unlike most people who've had robot armies associated with them, he could actually make them. —Tonillero (heckle • stalk) 16:42, September 20, 2010 (UTC)
Feep This article is better than bread on bread. Aleister 20:44 20 9
Keep. Not the best quality in the world, but it's acceptably funny. --TheSlyFox 13:47, September 22, 2010 (UTC)
Delete (1)
Disintegrate. Unfunny ramble with mostly IP edits throughout its history. Saberwolf116 10:37, September 20, 2010 (UTC)
Keep. Admittedly nothing great (like mispelling the name!) but don't think it should go to the recycling plant yet. --RomArtus*Imperator ® (Orate) 22:39, September 19, 2010 (UTC)
Keep. (Formerly Delete.) Article has now encountered a recycling plant of a very different type. Spıke¬ 05:48 20-Sep-10
Delete. I'm not saying you couldn't make an article based on the joke "Speedy Gonzalez is an illegal immigrant." but this is so woefully undeveloped and unfunny that we lose nothing by deleting it. --Count of Monkey Crisco 02:05, September 18, 2010 (UTC)
Delete. unfunny, probably won't come back any worse. (Except if its written by a furry fan, but I digress.) --Mn-z 15:11, September 18, 2010 (UTC)
Delete. Latino? Let's do a stubby article about illegals and how Mexico is a big toilet. I modestly suggest the concept has nothing to do with "Speedy." Spıke¬ 00:43 19-Sep-10
conditional keep I'm guessing this template isn't working due to the parser update. That could also be causing the other coding errors on the page. Its actually impossible to solve the duplication issue for a random generation template at the template level. {{R}} needs to be used at the point of transclusion, but I digress... As much as I hate personal templates, it seems rude to delete this since its legitimately being used and its not ugly colored box of canned "humor". I would suggest possibly userspacing this and updating the link in the user's webpage. --Mn-z 01:45, September 17, 2010 (UTC)
Keep. Let's find out what the user intends to do with it before deleting. Otherwise they'll just recreate it. --Count of Monkey Crisco 01:51, September 18, 2010 (UTC)
The user doesn't intend to do anything; he loudly announced his retirement from the site last January 3--and stuck by it. Spıke¬ 00:49 19-Sep-10
At lot of regular users have left and come back. Including myself, and I even left a dramatic leaving message. Its not really hurting anything, and isn't a spamage magnet. --Mn-z 16:14, September 19, 2010 (UTC)
It looks like the template is supposed to generate a letter from the alphabet that is between A and K. It's only used on one page, which it doesn't work on. Love,
User, in his Sandbox, is trying to deal cards for Blackjack. But the template doesn't solve the problem of duplicates. The file in question needn't and shouldn't be in the Template space. Now, can you figure out how to affix {{VFD}} without also tagging his Sandbox?! Spıke¬ 00:47 17-Sep-10
<noinclude>{{VFD}}</noinclude> prevents the VFD template from transcluding into articles. It should be used on all template vfd noms. --Mn-z 01:31, September 17, 2010 (UTC)
I did indeed tag it <noinclude>{{VFD}}</noinclude>, directly after Spike said that. Love,
Um, I see nothing that says that's true.--HM(T) 20:44, September 20, 2010 (UTC)
Other than the guy was going on a vandalising streak as he nominated this. But hey, I guess his vandalising was constructive, wasn't it? I'm gonna go post goaste on the main page because that's always hilarious. MegaPleb•Dexter111344•Complain here 21:33, September 20, 2010 (UTC)
No, I meant the thing about banned users making nominations. Also, I'm not going to respond to that second comment.--HM(T) 01:20, September 21, 2010 (UTC)
Delete (7)
Someone forgot to make it funny. Fahrvergnügen 22:52, September 17, 2010 (UTC)
Disintegrate. Nothing in the rulebook that says previously banned people can't nom stuff-nearly all of us have been banned at one point. Also, this sucks. Saberwolf116 23:39, September 20, 2010 (UTC)
Delete This is no good. mAttlobster. (hello) 09:52, September 21, 2010 (UTC)
Delete. Random is not funny. "...suddenly had the urge to drink living tomato juice at least 7 times a day"--Oh, I see. Spıke¬ 14:55 21-Sep-10
Delete. It's shit. --Wilytank 15:04, September 21, 2010 (UTC)
Comment. It appears the nominator was "only" banned for a week, so we doesn't fall into the category of "vandal": At least not yet. And since the article is primarily a 2005 ip creation, so I don't think is nomination was made to generate drama. Oh course, I'm not completely aware of the situation, and I would have no problem with an admin invalidating this nom. --Mn-z 15:00, September 18, 2010 (UTC)
Delete. The article on Mexico suffers from the claim that Mexico (1) is operated on the Nazi model and (2) is beset by a long, cryptic Aztec vocabulary; neither of which is true, limiting the humor potential. You can't ridicule Sarah Palin with an article on her peg leg. Nazi Mexico steals some graphics from Mexico and substitutes a single introductory section that relates to nothing at all: Even worse than the original, for which a parallel article was never necessary. Spıke¬ 14:45 20-Sep-10
Keep....enough there to improve this into something fairly decent... -- Sir Mhaille (talk to me)
Keep. Not nearly crap enough.--Sycamore(Talk) 11:45, September 17, 2010 (UTC)
Okay. I wasn't convinced at first, but it grew on me. Still needs a bit of work and a new intro, but there's a solid backbone here, though a pretty subtle one. --TKFUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUCK 16:13, September 17, 2010 (UTC)
Keep I like what's there, and I think it can get better if given time. And I support what Sycamore the fucking bastard said. Recently there have been far too many fairly decent articles and categories nominated for deletion. It's as though you all are scraping the barrel trying to find stuff to put on here, and lots of pretty decent/good stuff is being deleted because of it. MegaPleb•Dexter111344•Complain here 16:45, September 17, 2010 (UTC)
bandwagon keep Per Hyperbole's/MrN9000's theory that if several people like an article, it should be kept regardless of how awful it is. --Mn-z 01:08, September 18, 2010 (UTC)
Keep It's actually not too bad. mAttlobster. (hello) 21:10, September 19, 2010 (UTC)
Delete (6)
I don't think so, Tim. Either a heavy rewrite is needed, or it needs to be deleted. I favor the latter option. LeutnantHerrThatdamnedfollowspot 00:09 Friday, September 17, 2010
Delete. (I added {{VFD}} for you this time.) Young author is asked to write an essay on...let's see...the Mars Bar; only approach is to read the ingredients and pun or ramble away. Goofy pronunciations get old fast. Spıke¬ 00:21 17-Sep-10 PS--Mhaille has written a fine new lead paragraph, but hasn't picked a better approach for the rest of the article. Spıke¬ 00:47 19-Sep-10
Delete.God needed to create water. Then he had to create the sugar bird. They then mass breed the sugar bird. Then they mass murder all the sugar birds so that they can get it for the Mars Bars. Upon actually reading the article, its worse than it looks at a glance. --Mn-z 02:07, September 17, 2010 (UTC)
Delete. There a joke that got stale fast. --Count of Monkey Crisco 05:19, September 17, 2010 (UTC)
Delete. If all else fails, drop it into the deep fryer..along with the author. --RomArtus*Imperator ® (Orate) 08:25, September 17, 2010 (UTC)
Leave in the hot sun and let melt. Completely random ingredients. Exactly three non-reverted edits since the last go-around, and one of them is {{VFD}}. (A small possibility that the "Martian tavern" concept might work.) —Tonillero (heckle • stalk) 10:11, September 17, 2010 (UTC)
Comments
Sometimes I wish would say more of why when they vote on things... those that voted keep last time didn't say much, though what they did mention doesn't really help this article's case now as the thing apparently hasn't changed much since, ~*shifty eyes* (talk) (stalk) -- 20100917 - 01:48 (UTC)
It's very unfortunate that we so many "editors" on the site who are more focused on removing content than adding positively - a sign of an unimaginative and unwelcome element on the wiki.--Sycamore(Talk) 11:50, September 17, 2010 (UTC)
A fair point but what's the solution? Sickbay?? --RomArtus*Imperator ® (Orate) 18:16, September 17, 2010 (UTC)
Only the very worst of ICU survivors should even be considered after slipping through the net - other than that, maybe go re-write or write an article. Failing that - get a fucking job or something.--Sycamore(Talk) 20:38, September 17, 2010 (UTC)
For!
Sycamore - you're just plain wrong - so much utter shit gets kept. VFD is back to its pointless bandwagon trolling best. I'll leave it alone to imaginitive people like yourself. mAttlobster. (hello) 20:36, September 19, 2010 (UTC)
Keep. I may not like it, but it's not hurting anything. ~*shifty eyes* (talk) (stalk) -- 20100920 - 07:42 (UTC)
Delete (6)
After pondering this template thoroughly, and, of course, critically. I have concluded... THAT IT NEEDS TO FUCKING DIE!!
Delete. pointless template with foreign-cruft. --Mn-z 23:39, September 16, 2010 (UTC)
Delete. Further proof that author has adopted Theodor Wiesengrund Adorno as a life role model and thinks we all ought to care. Half a dozen pages will have to be edited, probably in each case to the reader's benefit. Spıke¬ 23:57 16-Sep-10
Delete. Supernatural protagonist #2. Semi-famous TV actor's bio heavily padded out with randumbo. Almost zero to do with the actual person and no attempts at humor that relates to him. --Count of Monkey Crisco 07:51, September 18, 2010 (UTC)
Delete. per above. --Mn-z 16:21, September 19, 2010 (UTC)
Cockzilla --Wilytank 14:48, September 20, 2010 (UTC)
Delete. more random ramblings about dead German people no one in the Anglo-sphere has ever heard of. --Mn-z 23:35, September 16, 2010 (UTC)
Delete. I suspect Hyperbole has heard of him! But this attempt to map a last-century German Marxist philosopher into either a Leet superhero or a puppy-dog had me wondering so much about the author's sanity that I didn't stop to laugh. Wikipedia bio is turgid, unless you really like that stuff. I might flip if someone explains why this is more than "random ramblings." Spıke¬ 23:55 16-Sep-10
Delete. John O' Groats is the Northernmost village in Scotland and a minor tourist trap. This article is an unfunny ramble about an alien. They sort of tie in near the end but there's no payoff and no humor to speak of. --Count of Monkey Crisco 06:54, September 19, 2010 (UTC)
Delete. He's right; and the only tie-in is to a certain trinket shop in town; author must think it's funny, but doesn't tell us why. Spıke¬ 08:47 19-Sep-10
Delete. per the article making only a passing reference to the nominal subject of the article. --Mn-z 16:17, September 19, 2010 (UTC)
Delete. Just basically a nothing,unillustrated article not worth keeping. --RomArtus*Imperator ® (Orate) 22:27, September 19, 2010 (UTC)
Delete. The first of a trifecta of crufty articles about the male leads of the TV show Supernatural. The majority is a ramblin' wizard story, then some stuff about people he's boned. --Count of Monkey Crisco 07:53, September 18, 2010 (UTC)
Delete. per above. --Mn-z 16:23, September 19, 2010 (UTC)
Delete. Who knew Jeffrey Dean Morgan, Robert Downey Jr and Javier Bardem were triplets! Me neither but still doesn't amount to a pile of baked beans. --RomArtus*Imperator ® (Orate) 22:34, September 19, 2010 (UTC)
Delete. Actually, it amounts to a lot of beans, or at least the result of eating them. —Tonillero (heckle • stalk) 08:16, September 20, 2010 (UTC)
Delete. A random-as-hell article about a video game villain I have never heard of. --Mn-z 00:33, September 19, 2010 (UTC)
Delete. You've never played the Starfox series? Damn shame. It's like this article but completely the opposite. For example it's well made and not stupid. --Count of Monkey Crisco 01:35, September 19, 2010 (UTC)
Delete. I don't know the character this article's about, but it's okay, because at the end of the day, it really isn't about anything. Spıke¬ 01:38 19-Sep-10
Delete. Another teen bedroon epic that fails to realise that no one else knows what the hell this is all about!--RomArtus*Imperator ® (Orate) 22:30, September 19, 2010 (UTC)
Skankkeep Seems to be well written, on topic, and a lot of work was put in on it. And I had some smiles from the page. It has potential for improvement, but not quite bad enough to deskank. Aleister 18:00 17 9
Keep. A bit junky but has a reasonable idea (at least to start with) and needs a tidy up. And misses an open goal with no joke regards the 'Diary of Anne Skank'. --RomArtus*Imperator ® (Orate) 18:13, September 17, 2010 (UTC)
I'm of the opinion of the two guys above me more or less. --TKFUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUCK 20:27, September 17, 2010 (UTC)
Keep. Fuck sake.--Sycamore(Talk) 20:39, September 17, 2010 (UTC)
Ha! Boy this DOES need a lot of work, but I started it for you (I'm especially proud of: "by exposing their general pubic to the general public."). ~ Avast Matey!!! Happytimes are here!*(talk)(stalk)Π ~ ~ 18 Sep 2010 ~ 00:57 (UTC)
bandwagon keep per above or something. --Mn-z 14:46, September 18, 2010 (UTC)
Keep. Definitely could use some work (reads too much like a list in a blender), but the concept is OK. —Tonillero (heckle • stalk) 04:44, September 19, 2010 (UTC)
Delete (4)
Delete. I can't really describe how awful this is, nor can I find a quote that sums up just how greatly terrible it is. Seriously, guys, not okay. Love,
Delete. A vehicle for a hatchet job on various teenage stars. Author can't be a lover jilted by all of them; probably a teenage He-Man anxious to declare to the world that these beauties have no effect on him. Spıke¬ 09:59 17-Sep-10
Obliterate. --Wilytank 15:29, September 17, 2010 (UTC)
Delete.
Who dat? Dat HELPME? Where'd yo signature go? Y'all niggaz need ta find dat. It dun ranned awai or sum shit. MegaPleb•Dexter111344•Complain here 21:06, September 17, 2010 (UTC)
Delete. The "best" of the Supernatural cast articles, it's still kinda shabby in a general way. The fact that three paragraphs are sporked from a Wikipedia version verbatim does not increase its chances of surviving the VFD gauntlet. --Count of Monkey Crisco 07:51, September 18, 2010 (UTC)
Delete. Those three paragraphs shout, "Don't read me!" And guess what, there's nearly nothing else left to read. Spıke¬ 01:40 19-Sep-10
Delete. Contents seem to consist of boring and crap (though not actually much overlap)... thing it would benefit from most, methinks, would be a point. Someone can rewrite it when they come up with one. ~*shifty eyes* (talk) (stalk) -- 20100919 - 14:33 (UTC)
Delete. per above. --Mn-z 16:19, September 19, 2010 (UTC)
Delete. "this is my first article i've made and i have already gotten bored of writing it, i just wanted to have something on the site before it freezes please don't delete" Love,
Weak keep. Although this is bad game-cruft, it contains a gem: the notion "that people playing motion control games [might] feel slightly less embarrass[ed] with two glowing dildos in their hands." Spıke¬ 09:56 17-Sep-10
Disintegrate. Unfunny cruft. Saberwolf116 03:02, September 17, 2010 (UTC)
Delete. This is pretty bad but it'll probably not get deleted. People around here are absolutely in love with broken English. --Count of Monkey Crisco 05:14, September 17, 2010 (UTC)
Delete. I am VFD's biggest cheerleader for Pidgin English and I rarely prevail on that. Most cases, such as this, combine inability to use correct grammar with inability to provide all the details to let the reader understand what you're talking about. Also, this is essentially game-cruft. Spıke¬ 09:52 17-Sep-10
Disintegrate. "I don't like this person, so I'm going to flame them." Basically the entire article. Saberwolf116 10:39, September 16, 2010 (UTC)
Delete. A hatchet job on the spouse of the German chancellor from 1900-1909, pictured at Wikipedia:First Lady of Germany, despite the caption. The result of a multigenerational grudge? Spıke¬ 11:20 16-Sep-10
What? Basically sums up my whole opinion of this article.-- (CUN) 22:02, September 16, 2010 (UTC)
Delete. my guess is she was responsible for the author's great-great-grandfather not being appointed to a cabinet post or something. --Mn-z 23:32, September 16, 2010 (UTC)
Delete. I've heard of holding a grudge but this is bizarre! —The preceding unsigned comment was added byRomartus (talk • contribs)
This article deserves to either be kept or exterminated, its the last of my articles (2). Ye, this is Kremé, and I am throwing in the rag. I understand this is common among 13 year olds? --Karimfreek 20:08, September 15, 2010 (UTC)
If it's your own article, then just put it on QVFD. Saberwolf116 10:39, September 16, 2010 (UTC)
He can't. That would be ban evasion. Spıke¬ 11:14 16-Sep-10
So this should have gone to QVFD, as Saberwolf said, instead of sitting here for 44 hours completely unattended. What the hell is going on? --TKFUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUCK 16:18, September 17, 2010 (UTC)
Dunno. It's kinda like those 5 vandals (okay three vandals since one guy was just using socks of rappers) from last night that were just fucking shit up for over an hour and a half until Zombiebaron saw them (I don't think he caught one of the IPs, though). I mean, I did just kick back and watch them do it (F5 recent changes during a vandal spree to have a good time), but still, it's almost as though we need another admin or two because a lot of stuff is going unnoticed or something. Dunno what you think, though. MegaPleb•Dexter111344•Complain here 16:59, September 17, 2010 (UTC)
Keep. However, it is very short, and that almost made me vote Delete.-- (CUN) 05:59, September 13, 2010 (UTC) Noted.
Delete (5)
Delete. Ants? Jackalopes? Taliban. It's mostly random ramble hat threatens to break into wacky war. --Count of Monkey Crisco 22:24, September 12, 2010 (UTC)
Delete. Another article with something meaningless about something nonexistent. How meaningless? "For ambiguity purposes they have been dubbed Ed and Ed." Spıke¬ 22:40 12-Sep-10 First paragraph remains true even after Happytimes's revert. Spıke¬ 00:34 13-Sep-10
Keep. Odd and weird but considering how real dire tripe is kept, I can't see why this should go. --RomArtus*Imperator ® (Orate) 10:37, September 12, 2010 (UTC)
Keep. Needs a bit of a rewrite but is in no way bad enough to just get deleted.-- (CUN) 06:02, September 13, 2010 (UTC)
Delete (5)
Delete.Wow, the sequel is actually a bit of an improvement and that one sucked. --Count of Monkey Crisco 06:56, September 12, 2010 (UTC)
Delete. Chronicles the arguing voices inside author's head, which involve drunkenness/hangover, suicide, homosexuality, Jesus Christ, and Kitten Huffing. Unfit even for UnScripts. Spıke¬ 10:26 12-Sep-10
Delete. Lost me with the unfunny Oscar Wilde quote, never got me back again. -OptyCSucks! CUN21:57, 12 Sep
Delete.. Just shit, really. -- |c|o|d|e|i|n|e| 12:27, September 13, 2010 (UTC)
delete I'm desperately trying to identify something this article doesn't lack. I really should spend my time more usefully. mAttlobster. (hello) 18:14, September 14, 2010 (UTC)
Keep. The concept that someone would want more fat via syringe is workable. I've de-listed and de-loused this article; much more could be done. Spıke¬ 10:43 15-Sep-10
Keep. Nice work SPIKE, he's made fat admirable. Aleister 18:29 15 9
Keep. I agree also as well. DJ Mixerr 18:05, September 16, 2010 (UTC) (talk)(contributions)
Keep. per above. --Mn-z 20:35, September 16, 2010 (UTC)
Delete. We get a concept with some novelty potential: a reverse liposuction procedure. What do we get for development? Listcruft and the weakest George Bush jokes this side of Jay Leno. To make this work this'll have to be torn down to the root concepts. --Count of Monkey Crisco 08:12, September 15, 2010 (UTC)
Comment. Count, you realize that even Jay Leno isn't still telling George Bush jokes? Spıke¬ 10:43 15-Sep-10
As a matter of fact I don't. I stopped watching after Leno made a particularly lame Bill Clinton reference in 2003. --Count of Monkey Crisco 11:04, September 15, 2010 (UTC)
Delete. Gamercruft, then listcruft. Nothing more (and somehow quite a bit less.) --Count of Monkey Crisco 10:01, September 15, 2010 (UTC)
Delete. Sad that some grade-schooler thinks this is what writing is about. The only work in the last two years is Anons tweaking the long lists. Spıke¬ 10:58 15-Sep-10
Delete.Another submission for Junior Uncyclopedia. --RomArtus*Imperator ® (Orate) 11:19, September 16, 2010 (UTC)
Delete. Unfunny listcruft.-- (CUN) 22:03, September 16, 2010 (UTC)
Delete. Looks like it's mostly wibble and ramble. Older versions were wibble, ramble and Chuck Norris. --Count of Monkey Crisco 10:53, September 15, 2010 (UTC)
Delete. Picture is cute. Story is unbegun. There is no concept. Spıke¬ 11:03 15-Sep-10
Delete. Squidiotic. This stub stands on little more than a Chuck Norris joke and a couple of lists. --Count of Monkey Crisco 07:50, September 15, 2010 (UTC)
Delete. More ramble about something nonexistent. Spıke¬ 10:33 15-Sep-10
Delete. Piece of crap page. No humor... Useless and sickening jokes... indeed the work of an insecure retarded hack. Any reason to keep this page? No. Not at all. Please eliminate this eyesore. --User:TheCharcoalInpachi 5:33, September 15, 2010 (EST)
Delete. Angry teen douchebag hates a musical group. Grumblebitching ensues, hilarity does not...Whoa... Deja vu.--Count of Monkey Crisco 10:25, September 15, 2010 (UTC)
Delete. Inept vanity about a band you will never encounter, built around the theme of homosexuality. We can be grateful that "People Who Survived Listening to Fall Out Boy Albums" is merely a useless section and not a Category, or it would have a dozen supporters. Spıke¬ 11:02 15-Sep-10
Um, actually, it's a pretty famous band, SPIKE. pillow talk 07:14, September 16, 2010 (UTC)
Was a famous band. If I recall correctly, they broke up like a year ago. Then again, I could just be pulling that out of my ass, but still. MegaPleb•Dexter111344•Complain here 07:38, September 16, 2010 (UTC)
Just part of the life cycle of a band, man. Year one: "Holy shit, we're in a band!" Year two: "Holy shit, we got signed!" Year six: "I hate you faggots and I'm going solo and I'm breaking up with you!" Year nine: "Umm... you guys want to reform the band and take a regular Wednesday night gig at Caesar's Palace so we don't lose our houses?" pillow talk 07:47, September 16, 2010 (UTC)
I stand corrected. The red-linky biography merely makes it seem as though they are an Oswego, NY summer act writing about itself. The article still seems crappy. Spıke¬ 11:13 16-Sep-10
Delete. bawwwwww Fahrvergnügen 02:19, September 16, 2010 (UTC)
Delete. I'm a n00b, and even I know this isn't funny. It reminds me of the worst YouTube Poop I have ever watched. This is basically the work of a dry-humored idiot. Rate-(0)out of 5 stars. T.C.I Sept. 15, 2010 (no timestamp)
Delete. If you hadn't read the title would you have guessed this was about a real rock star? Delete this wibble landfill. --Count of Monkey Crisco 02:12, September 15, 2010 (UTC)
Delete. "Brandon Boyd invented the penis coil, and is responsible for faggots." Indeed I would never have guessed. Spıke¬ 02:18 15-Sep-10
Delete. Template rubbish meme ticker that doesn't even bother with an intro to say who this guy is or puts in a link to explain. --RomArtus*Imperator ® (Orate) 06:25, September 15, 2010 (UTC)
Obliterate. Failure. --Wilytank 22:33, September 15, 2010 (UTC)
Delete. 100% goat's ass awful. Anyone can see it. --Count of Monkey Crisco 23:23, September 14, 2010 (UTC)
Delete. An excellent concept--force-fit My Fair Lady to something not the least bit fair. And you can tell from the first sentence of the intro that this author is going to make nothing of it. Spıke¬ 23:35 14-Sep-10
Delete. it would help if the article didn't get off subject half-way through the 1st paragraph and then ramble on about everything but the nominal subject of the article. --Mn-z 00:03, September 15, 2010 (UTC)
Delete. Shame the writer's imagination stopped with the article title. I was looking forward to some jokes about Rex Harrison adopting a zombie to pass off as a member of the English aristocracy. Not very difficult, come to think of it. --RomArtus*Imperator ® (Orate) 06:28, September 15, 2010 (UTC)
Delete. Moronic article which is largely unrelated to the title and mostly concerns a fight between Tom Kenny, The Parent's Television Council and the FOX channel. --Count of Monkey Crisco 23:11, September 14, 2010 (UTC)
Delete. Right; author's fanciful imagination about behind-the-scenes politics at Fox is not humor; nor is the listcruft of trying to cut down individual episodes of the TV show. (Thought this was about the movie?) Spıke¬ 23:37 14-Sep-10
Delete. old fashioned "Children's cartoon character is EBIL!""-cruft. And the fact that something with the wordmovie in its title is said to be a series isn't helping. --Mn-z 23:47, September 14, 2010 (UTC)
Keep It's a dancing elephant. We must keep the dancing elephent. It does deteriorate towards the end, but then so does beer. mAttlobster. (hello) 12:04, September 14, 2010 (UTC)
Keep. stupid, but cute enough to survive. --Mn-z 23:52, September 14, 2010 (UTC)
Delete (6)
Delete. It's an elephant who dances!!!!!! Isn't that the wackiest thing you ever heard. It's soooooo wacky. --Count of Monkey Crisco 05:50, September 13, 2010 (UTC)
Delete. More low-quality ramble about a nonexistent character. "No, what are you looking at this for?" Spıke¬ 10:57 13-Sep-10
Delete.. What Count said. Wacky. Horribly, lamely, pointlessly wacky. Ugh. -- |c|o|d|e|i|n|e| 12:33, September 13, 2010 (UTC)
Delete. Needs a complete rewrite. --TheSlyFox 08:06, September 14, 2010 (UTC)
Delete. Tries to stand on its cuteness and not much else. No play on the dancing or elephantine traits of the title character. This could just as well be an article on hula-hooping giraffes or pole-vaulting cheetahs. —Tonillero (heckle • stalk) 08:44, September 14, 2010 (UTC)
Comments
Comment. For those who want to keep this dropping, can they at least work on a rewrite? --RomArtus*Imperator ® (Orate) 09:30, September 14, 2010 (UTC)
Lyrithia's Keep vote is phrased closest to an offer to edit. But c'mon, people! the site is about funny, not cute! Spıke¬ 23:58 14-Sep-10
Keep. Lots of users put it on their userpage, and many other pages are included in the category. So many users liked it. Aleister 18:51 11 9
Keep. Classic phrase, tenable category. The actual contents need some purging to see if they really fit. In a perfect world, this category would only contain You.KUNVFHPOTMVFP(IMAGES⇔TALK) 20:15, September 11, 2010 (UTC)
Keep. If it goes along with that template, it should stay. --Wilytank 20:54, September 11, 2010 (UTC)
Keep.I like stupid pointless categories that are good stupid pointless categories. ~*shifty eyes* (talk) (stalk) -- 20100911 - 22:31 (UTC)
Delete. tired meme combined not categorizing anything meaningfully: i.e. there is no reason why any given article should (or should not, for that matter) be in this category. We already have a better and more briefly named Category:Grues for the subject. --Mn-z 04:30, September 11, 2010 (UTC)
Delete. As always for categories that don't categorize. Spıke¬ 12:41 11-Sep-10
Delete. I have no problem with categories that don't categorize, as long as they're funny. The "grue" inside joke is very, very unfunny, and should be confined to one or two articles at most. pillow talk 19:15, September 11, 2010 (UTC)
Delete. Against nostalgia circa 2006-2007. --RomArtus*Imperator ® (Orate) 10:44, September 12, 2010 (UTC)
Delete Grues seem to be hilarious to people who spend a lot of time alone in their bedrooms. I love the kitchen baby. mAttlobster. (hello) 12:06, September 14, 2010 (UTC)
Comments
Comment. I find this category and formation of the page hilarious (the self-referential sub-category is quite clever), but defer to Mnbvcxz's assessment of not categorizing anything meaningfully to be at least 85% true. I would vote keep if this category were used "correctly." ~ Avast Matey!!! Happytimes are here!*(talk)(stalk)Π ~ ~ 11 Sep 2010 ~ 04:47 (UTC)
I would say "funny" categories are like "funny" templates: they get real old and cliche real quick, and they tend be what people add to pages when they want to edit an article, but don't have the time to put any effort whatsoever into said edits. --Mn-z 12:29, September 11, 2010 (UTC)
That is the problem exactly; they are canned humor, a birthday card to avoid writing a personal note. Spıke¬ 12:41 11-Sep-10
But in all fairness, most people rarely receive 50 exact copies of the same birthday card. --Mn-z 12:46, September 11, 2010 (UTC)
Delete. There is a clever way to expound on the benefits of inhaling poison, but this childish article doesn't begin. See also humps an external web site. Spıke¬ 00:06 14-Sep-10
keep Funny! Don't give into the hive mind which has voted delete below. (Plus I cleaned & copy-edited & added content a bit.) ~ Avast Matey!!! Happytimes are here!*(talk)(stalk)Π ~ ~ 14 Sep 2010 ~ 01:43 (UTC)
Weak Keep. As I like the idea (an operating system reliant on insects), I think this may have legs..six legs actually. --RomArtus*Imperator ® (Orate) 09:24, September 14, 2010 (UTC)
Don't you think such an OS would be (fnarr) buggy??? Spıke¬ 10:02 14-Sep-10
Keep There's been a buzz around this article. It's a reasonable start. Just needs some...you...know....something. mAttlobster. (hello) 18:11, September 14, 2010 (UTC)
Keep. (Formerly Delete.) Happytimes gets the save on what is now a happy pun-fest. Spıke¬ 20:02 14-Sep-10
Keep. per above. --Wilytank 21:08, September 14, 2010 (UTC)
What? Saberwolf116 21:07, September 13, 2010 (UTC)
Delete. First paragraph is promising: Present a beehive as though it were an operating system. And not too much technobabble. And fourth and final paragraph is a nice final paragraph. In between, there is ramble; beyond, there is nothing. Creator was here only on 1-Nov-05, and four edits to this is all he ever did, so there is no asking him to develop the concept. Spıke¬ 00:00 14-Sep-10
Disintegrate. We get it, you don't like your university. But we also don't care. Saberwolf116 19:50, September 13, 2010 (UTC)
Delete. The article's paper thin and riddled with well used schoolcruft. To thicken it up random characters from history and popular culture are added in carelessly. Wrong, wrong, wrong. --Count of Monkey Crisco 20:01, September 13, 2010 (UTC)
Delete. Memes and lists; virtually nothing specific to CSU. Spıke¬ 00:03 14-Sep-10
Obliterate. All of the above. —Tonillero (heckle • stalk) 08:08, September 14, 2010 (UTC)
Delete. Thankfully, the opening paragraph is such a pile of randumbo that you know it can't get any better. And it doesn't. --RomArtus*Imperator ® (Orate) 09:26, September 14, 2010 (UTC)
Delete. --Wilytank 18:55, September 14, 2010 (UTC)
Rock bands may be notorious, but they are not infamous. Spıke¬ 23:05 12-Sep-10
Keep. Not that bad. Why nom every mid-level page, let's go for the drek of the drek. At least someone put in some time and energy on this one. Aleister 16:30 13 9 For. ~ Avast Matey!!! Happytimes are here!*(talk)(stalk)Π ~ ~ 14 Sep 2010 ~ 01:48 (UTC)
Delete (6)
Delete. Angry teen douchebag hates a musical group. Grumblebitching ensues, hilarity does not--Count of Monkey Crisco 22:41, September 12, 2010 (UTC)
Delete. Anon is a douchebag; the answer to the How To is essentially "become a faggot," the article careens between rant and ramble, and he uses "infamous" for "notorious." Spıke¬ 22:50 12-Sep-10
Delete. Rubbish. Put out to collect by Thursday. --RomArtus*Imperator ® (Orate) 14:09, September 13, 2010 (UTC)
Delete. Yeah, we get it. No one likes a -core loving hipster. --Wilytank can be a pain in the ass. 10:55 AM 9/13/10
Delete. Jokes about Gays, gheys, fags and stoners are all pretty much used up as far as funniness goes. They weren't really all that funny to begin with. --TheSlyFox 07:52, September 14, 2010 (UTC)
Obliterate. Chuck to the horizon. —Tonillero (heckle • stalk) 09:08, September 14, 2010 (UTC)
Comments
Comment. I consider this pretty far down the drek scale. The "How To" format makes it look a little different but make no mistake, it's drek. If it were in standard format it would read like this: "Bring me The Horizon is a band of gay homos. Their music is super gay. You have to be a bisexual, stoner, queer butt pirate to even listen to it or your head will explode. Everything is gay about it. Bring me the Horizon is the worst." It's an unoriginal, hackneyed setup found on teenage Myspace pages everywhere. This joke only applies to Mr. Winkler. Improvement would start with a teardown and overhaul of concept.--Count of Monkey Crisco 19:52, September 13, 2010 (UTC)
Delete. Vanity with a possible personal attack in the second section. The oldest versions lack the personal attack but but they're still about some guy named Tim in Oswego NY who cheats on schoolwork. We have, at best, a page that is relevant to one classroom in west New York. --Count of Monkey Crisco 04:52, September 13, 2010 (UTC)
weak keep I really don't hate it enough. It does however need some rewriting (and pictures, AND to be a bit longer). But I really don't think it's bad enough to be deleted.
Delete (8)
Delete. Randumbo the elephant. Pretty standard cruft from 2006. --Count of Monkey Crisco 05:57, September 13, 2010 (UTC)
Kill and harvest its tusks for money. –Tonillero (heckle • stalk) 09:23, September 13, 2010 (UTC)
Delete. Exactly as for Dancing Elephant. At the start of Section 2, author lets us in on how he wrote the article, charming. Spıke¬ 10:59 13-Sep-10
Delete.. You could make a nice piano with that ivory, and it wouldn't be a huge pile of crap. Unlike this article. -- |c|o|d|e|i|n|e| 12:30, September 13, 2010 (UTC)
Delete. That's peanuts, man. --Wilytank 14:48, September 13, 2010 (UTC)
Delete. It's... too random for uncyclopedia. It... damn, did I really just say that? ~*shifty eyes* (talk) (stalk) -- 20100913 - 16:35 (UTC)
Delete. Too short and random.-- (CUN) 06:04, September 14, 2010 (UTC)
Comments
Comment. Don't be foolish. The ivory would also be invisible. Then your piano would only have black keys and exposed mechanisms. Forget sculpture. Who'd want to decorate their home with invisible ivory sculpture. More importantly, how do you know your home isn't full of invisible ivory sculpture right now!?!?!--Count of Monkey Crisco 19:40, September 13, 2010 (UTC)
Nonsense! There's no such thing! *Ouch!* What was that sharp stabby feeling on my ass? –Tonillero (heckle • stalk) 01:23, September 14, 2010 (UTC)
Delete. I guess this might work as abstract theater, but Uncyclopdia is not meant for that. It just seems like strained absurdity. --Count of Monkey Crisco 06:51, September 12, 2010 (UTC)
Delete. This one (evidently Episode 1; there are to be ten) scripts not only the vapid characters but the camera angles. Minicams make it so cheap to make this operetta a reality. It's still not funny, except in the sense that one's drunkenness is always so hilarious it must be shared with everyone. Spıke¬ 10:29 12-Sep-10
Delete. I would only keep the first one. This isn't an advance so I can agree to remove it. --RomArtus*Imperator ® (Orate) 10:39, September 12, 2010 (UTC)
Keep Nomination was ineligible. You all do know VFD is one of the serious pages we have on Uncyc? You can't just bend the rules of it... MegaPleb•Dexter111344•Complain here 19:13, September 11, 2010 (UTC)
Well... Folks can, but it doesn't mean we can't vote against killing it for now. If it comes back I may reconsider this vote, of course. ~*shifty eyes* (talk) (stalk) -- 20100911 - 22:30 (UTC)
Keep. What Dex said. We have rules and processes. If this is bad enough for a QVFD/admin QA, delete it that way. Or put an ICU template on it. In all cases of an article being discovered to be too young for VFD, its been kept. --Mn-z 23:07, September 11, 2010 (UTC)
Keep. Huffing someone's article is unfriendly, and should only be done legally, and not just by letting the nomination dally until it becomes legal. Renominate it when legal, at which point I'll abstain, 'cause I don't care about Game:. Spıke¬ 10:34 12-Sep-10
Keep. Because of everyone above.-- (CUN) 06:08, September 13, 2010 (UTC)
Looks like Dex is right, unfortunately. --Mn-z 00:18, September 9, 2010 (UTC)
Bandwagon comment. mAttlobster. (hello) 20:10, September 9, 2010 (UTC)
I'm sensing admin abuse of the rules here. "Let it stay on till it reaches the minimum week of existence so it's a valid nom." That is just irresponsible. What should be done is to give the guy advice on making games. Don't abuse VFD... MegaPleb•Dexter111344•Complain here 19:13, September 11, 2010 (UTC)
Do something you disagree with isn't necessarily abuse, as I've said before. However, I kind of agree with you about how new it is, but I still think it sucks, so I'm not gonna vote on this one.--HM(T) 21:43, September 11, 2010 (UTC)
True. But "Do something the rules disagree with," is. Spıke¬ 10:34 12-Sep-10
Delete. Thing reads more like a vandalism than a well-implemented spork. Doesn't help that the author seems to want it gone as well, bringing it here instead of pee review where it could find means to perhaps make it a well-implemented whatever. Although prostrating oneself before one's unhinged peers is rarely a good idea, anyhow. ~*shifty eyes* (talk) (stalk) -- 20100912 - 18:20 (UTC)
I'm high right now. And this still isn't funny. -OptyCSucks! CUN21:56, 12 Sep
Comments
This is a spork of the wikipedian article. What do you think about it? --Deliciously Whipped~(Kremé) 23:47, September 11, 2010 (UTC)
Yes it is a spork. You are virtually the only editor. What I think is that you are using VFD not for its designated purpose but to advertise your work. The last time I did this, it was worth a ban. Spıke¬ 00:18 12-Sep-10
PS--Author replied to this, then blanked VFD and its talk page, then was banned for 2 weeks. Spıke¬ 22:51 12-Sep-10
Delete. Junior High. "In case you just didn't assume that from the name, dumbass." Spıke¬ 21:10 11-Sep-10
Delete. Dumb, stupid, and... rather bad, at that. I mean, it seems to have an excerpt from an IM conversation? (I stopped reading before I got there because the power went out, but still.) ~*shifty eyes* (talk) (stalk) -- 20100911 - 22:21 (UTC)
Delete. per above. --Mn-z 23:20, September 11, 2010 (UTC)
Delete. Godawful. Craptacular opening paragraph was enough to kill interest stone dead.--RomArtus*Imperator ® (Orate) 10:43, September 12, 2010 (UTC)
Weak delete. Per Lyrithya. The article has a good concept, it's just poorly executed. The second half of the article makes up for it a bit though. LeutnantHerrThatdamnedfollowspot 17:14 Sunday, September 12, 2010
Keep voting like the last time. It's a damn good article. Fans of Scrubs should fucking love it. The "lists" that you refer to are some of Janitor's most memorable lines. MegaPleb•Dexter111344•Complain here 23:41, September 9, 2010 (UTC)
Keep. I actually chuckled once or twice.-- (CUN) 10:25, September 10, 2010 (UTC)
Keep. Why don't we delete articles that actually have no redeeming value. If they have some value that is easily seen, why use up time in putting them up here just so others have to use up time to shoot the nom down? Aleister 18"54 11 9
Again and again. Plus, I wouldn't exactly say that standards have risen much from 2007. At all. --TKFUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUCK 20:22, September 11, 2010 (UTC)
Keep. It's a little on the short side, but it's not kill-worthy. It'sMrthejazz... a case not yet solved. 21:51, September 11, 2010 (UTC)
Keep. Bit crude of implementation, but not that bad. ~*shifty eyes* (talk) (stalk) -- 20100911 - 22:26 (UTC)
Keep. The grouchiness of janitor man could be expanded to make this funnier. Loopygrumpkins 17:38, September 12, 2010 (UTC)
Delete (4)
Delete. An absolute minimum effort joke supported by useless lists. --Count of Monkey Crisco 23:03, September 9, 2010 (UTC)
Delete. Someone wanted to make a parody of Pink Floyd's The Division Bell. The strategy: lists, lots of lists and barely capable puns. The result: deletion candidacy. --
Comment. I'm abstaining from voting on this one because I think the intro is decent. All the rest is listcruft, and a good intro isn't enough to make an article. --
Hitler the Horrible
Keep. (Mistakenly tagged Delete originally) The title sounds trite at best (Hitler was horrible). But the concept is good--morph the "Hagar the Horrible" comic strip onto Hitler. No, Fox, "Kill the Jews" is not funny; but a funny comic strip that is blithely unfunny is funny. However, regardless of Hitler's sexual health, the gay jokes are weak, and Sections 3 and 4 are useless listcruft. 
Keep Needs a comic reformatted to flush it out. ~ 
Smite. Blatant crap.
EXTERMINATE!
Obliterate. and 15 hits on Chuck Norris. --
Meh. I see it's merit, but not it's usefulness. ~ 
This math also doesn't lie. --
