Uncyclopedia:Votes for deletion/archive22

From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia

< Uncyclopedia:Votes for deletion
Revision as of 06:07, August 19, 2010 by MadMax (talk | contribs)

(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to: navigation, search

That one about the rabbi and the Pope playing a round of golf

  • Delete I'd even say that it should be put in QVFD, but I'm not sure...

--CX 15:51, 10 Jan 2006 (UTC)

  • QVFD--Rataube 01:06, 10 Jan 2006 (UTC)

Björk

*Delete - This page is Gibberish. And more - it blocks a rewrite of the page Bjork which could be something if someone gave it a hand - and two dots over the 'o' - letter.--Suresh 20:49, 9 Jan 2006 (UTC)

  • Issue unilaterally resolved. --Sir gwax (talk) Signuke 15:57, 10 Jan 2006 (UTC)

The other languages

Zongo

  • Delete - Found AFD template on the page. Redundant crap which makes no sense. --sColdWhat<Just|Say|It> 09:26, 9 Jan 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - too many pages like this and this one is just dumb - Keithhackworth MUN F@H 18:41, 9 Jan 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - it is no more redundant than Fanta or Woof. -ANIDN MENOSCWICZ Icons-flag-az
  • Delete - Bad pages don't justify leaving other bad pages in. ----OEJ 21:27, 9 Jan 2006 (UTC)
    • It's shorter and less funny than Fanta or Woof or any of the rest of those. Delorted! --Sir gwax (talk) Signuke 16:04, 10 Jan 2006 (UTC)

Papa Smurf

  • Merged with "The Smurfs". --Bongo 06:28, 9 Jan 2006 (UTC)
  • Against: I have undone the merge because the articles need to be reconciled, not merged. Papa Smurf is a decent article in its own right that should be kept; we just need to reconcile the overlap with The Smurfs. --Sir gwax (talk) Signuke 17:04, 9 Jan 2006 (UTC)

Pie man

Either delete or re-write, 1 sentence on a bad idea = not good.

  • QVFD-worthy. --Carlb 04:29, 9 Jan 2006 (UTC)
  • QVFD'D! --CX 04:39, 9 Jan 2006 (UTC)


Bzflag

  • Delete Lame/ This article scores zero: the "z" part is z for "zzzzz". The article thus sucks. --Arroganto! 02:56, 9 Jan 2006 (UTC)
  • QuickVFD--Rataube 03:12, 9 Jan 2006 (UTC)

Happy Masks

  • Delete: Did not warrant a laugh from me, and I failed to laugh at it. Why? Because it serves no purpose other than spam.--Verizanni 02:50, 9 Jan 2006 (UTC)
  • I sympathise with you on this, so let's "delete"! --Arroganto! 02:58, 9 Jan 2006 (UTC)
  • QVFD worthy... I think I'll post it! --King In Yellow 14:48, 9 Jan 2006 (UTC)

Sense

  • Delete: That the article on sense makes no sense just isn't funny, it's rubbish. --Sir gwax (talk) Signuke 22:42, 8 Jan 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete It leaves me utterly at a loss to defend its reason for being. Prettiestpretty 23:24, 8 Jan 2006 (UTC)
  • Smite thee! Yeh, I understand the 'irony' of the article, but it just sucks. It's random, not smart. --202.63.33.118 02:46, 9 Jan 2006 (UTC)

  • Has been rewritten; potential greater than 0now (by a little). --Sir gwax (talk) Signuke 16:09, 10 Jan 2006 (UTC)

Johnny the Homicidal Maniac

Not funny, random, and in my opinion, pathetic. At least spell 'Delilah' right! Delete. --Arroganto! 04:06, 8 Jan 2006 (UTC) Shoot it and end its suffering. Prettiestpretty 23:25, 8 Jan 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete: This topic could be done so much better. --Sir gwax (talk) Signuke 23:54, 8 Jan 2006 (UTC)
  • Dlete --Gay4Gay5S P I N N I EGay5Gay4 06:18, 9 Jan 2006 (UTC)

Muslim (food)

I don't get it. Delete. Tompkinssig Smallturtle t o m p k i n s  blah. ﺞوﻦ וףה ՃՄ ண்ஸ ފއހ วอฏม +տ trade websites 00:40, 8 Jan 2006 (UTC)

Pun on muesli / slim. Keep but it's pretty dam' weak and needs to build satiric muscle and bulk up on some high-carb chuckles. ----OEJ 03:49, 8 Jan 2006 (UTC)

Not funny. Delete --Jakemcmahon 21:17, 8 Jan 2006 (UTC)

Lame. Delete or move the pun to undictionary.--Suresh 21:44, 8 Jan 2006 (UTC)

Lame ass. Delete and to Hell with undictionary. --Sir gwax' (talk) Signuke 23:55, 8 Jan 2006 (UTC)

Is there really need to vote to delete this? --Rataube 03:17, 9 Jan 2006 (UTC)

Server here free --59.93.34.252 14:43, 9 Jan 2006 (UTC)

My Space

There is already an article at MySpace which is a lot more funnier and doesn't read as cliche as this one does. Delete -68.63.88.28 04:13, 7 Jan 2006 (UTC)

Delete - Not feeling it Jlove1982 05:45, 7 Jan 2006 (UTC)

Keep While there is already a diffrent article about my space, this onle is totaly diffrent. The style it is written in is totaly unique to its contemporary and they both offer a diffrent prespective on the subject. How many jesus pages are there? Tons, they're all about jesus, we don't go deleting them. This is no diffrent, Its My Space just a diffrent interpritation. At anyrate, I don't see why this one gets to die and the other stays. This My Space is quite well developed as well as being accurate and true to the nature of real my space pages.--Stalin 06:41, 7 Jan 2006 (UTC)

Keep - with reservations. I thought it was cute...a nice little commentary on the inanity of myspace presented more or less as a myspace entry. Could be better, could be worse. I chuckled. — — 2nd Lt. Sir David, the Weasel of Wild KUN VFH FP Icons-flag-us Fire! 14:59, 7 Jan 2006 (UTC)

Keep, but reformat. I know it's meant to be a MySpace page, but it's really irritating to read. --Trevie 15:05, 7 Jan 2006 (UTC)

  • Hehehe, I think that might be the point. That being said I would like to really improve the page, if anyone would like to put some time into it that would be great or has insiration for wha to change that would be good too, but deleting this artcle is not the solution.--Stalin 15:48, 7 Jan 2006 (UTC)

Keep -- The page is not at all the same as MySpace and is a good parody in its own right. Er, it has some good parodic material that needs to be tightened up. But. Somehow they should be merged: it makes no sense to have two articles with what is logically the same title.----OEJ 03:48, 8 Jan 2006 (UTC)

I Have An Idea' why don't we change the name of this page to somthing like AngleFariyDust666 rather than my space and just keep the two connected in some way, make them disambiguations of each other or at least make them synonymous with each other. That and a little improvement to the article for good measure, and I think we've fixed the problem.--Stalin 16:27, 8 Jan 2006 (UTC)

  • Put up for reconciliation. --Sir gwax (talk) Signuke 16:12, 10 Jan 2006 (UTC)

Golden Age Batman

Jewish Gods

Nuke. --Rataube 02:58, 6 Jan 2006 (UTC)

Expand There's definitely some potential here. --Gay4Gay5S P I N N I EGay5Gay4 15:26, 6 Jan 2006 (UTC)

Expand And don't forget the golden calf. Prettiestpretty 01:48, 7 Jan 2006 (UTC)

  • Stubified --Sir gwax (talk) Signuke 16:20, 10 Jan 2006 (UTC)

The Ring

It doesn't seem to be serving much purpose, though it may be able to be improved rather than deleted? Either way, I think it might be easier to start from scratch, so I vote delete that son of a bitch. Shame... --biggy 01:35, 6 Jan 2006 (UTC)

Weak keep the idea of there being a hundred and nintety seven different films and translations and japanese versions was kinda funny. it's alot like something I read on Wikipedia:The Cursed Videotape. --Nerd42eMailTalkUnMetaWPediah2g2 15:28, 6 Jan 2006 (UTC)

  • Stagnated so I NRVed it. --Sir gwax (talk) Signuke 16:18, 10 Jan 2006 (UTC)

Final Fantasy

Long, random gibberish, sex jokes (ha ha ha ANAL Fantasy!) and a section for each of the games which is obviously written by someone who loves Final Fantasy. Rewrite or kill rewrite action time! Harp Heaven 22:04, 5 Jan 2006 (UTC)

I vote rewrite but just the spam of Final Fantasys below the first section. Maybe cut the number of Final Fantasies down or remove the unfunny ones.

I read the article again, but there was nothing remotely funny I could salvage out of it. I just did a complete rewrite, revert if you don't like it :) Harp Heaven 05:57, 6 Jan 2006 (UTC)

Comment I've been trying to save the crappy article Square-Enix ... --Nerd42eMailTalkUnMetaWPediah2g2 15:31, 6 Jan 2006 (UTC)

System of a Down

Delete. All edits after 10:40, 4 Jan 2006 have reduced it to a block of text with an infobox. --Dr. Stupid 20:28, 4 Jan 2006 (UTC)

Metroid

Rewrite. This is terrible. I'm sure someone can do better.

Delete. "someone" don't work here. If an when a rewriter comes along they can re-create the article. It's horrid.Herostratus 18:20, 2 Jan 2006 (UTC) --Zyrac 23:56, 1 Jan 2006 (UTC)

Complete rewrite Pathetic, but still an article worth having. Don't get rid of it because it sucks for now. --Poofers 02:00, 3 Jan 2006 (UTC)

I shall re-write it, because I made it to the end of Metroid Prime and then couldn't beat the end boss. I have a bone to pick, and I think I can make one or two semi-funny jokes here. I re-wrote it, and I am confident it's slightly better than the "Halo sucks, Metroid is better" comedy of before. — — 2nd Lt. Sir David, the Weasel of Wild KUN VFH FP Icons-flag-us Fire! 14:54, 3 Jan 2006 (UTC)

Keep the rewrite: It's not the best article, but now it's got enough potential to be worth keeping. --Sir gwax (talk) Signuke 16:20, 4 Jan 2006 (UTC)

Ha ha!

As far as I can tell, a direct copy & paste of Wikipedia's article. Delete - Nonymous 17:21, 31 Dec 2005 (UTC)

huffed: I was a direct rip off of a wikipedia article, which makes it instahuffable. Next time you come across this sort of thing, report it to QVFD with a note that it's a plagarism. --Sir gwax (talk) Signuke 17:48, 31 Dec 2005 (UTC)
I do believe it was supposed to be a rip off of Wikipedia's article. It's called sporking, and as far as I know, changes were made. I think a more fair and just vote should be taken. KATIE!! 06:21, 1 Jan 2006 (UTC)
Fine, but I still think it's crap that should be huffed. --Sir gwax (talk) Signuke 18:29, 2 Jan 2006 (UTC)
  • Hurff - its crap. Wikipedia shouldn't even have an article as such. -- ANIDN MENOSCWICZ Icons-flag-az

New Trier Township High School

Kept since I read it. --Chronarion 03:24, 12 Jan 2006 (UTC)

  • KEEP This hilarious article is viewed by many to be a vanity page. It is not in fact a vanity page and pokes fun at a nationally recognized high school. The article was so well done, that a copycat article full of lies has been posted on wikipedia at: [wikipedia.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Trier_Township_High_School]--Chimp888 02:34, 12 Jan 2006 (UTC)

Mao

DELETE This page is not very funny at all and has nothing to do with Mao Zedong. Based on what we have seen at Hitler and to a certain extent Stalin, there is a lot of funny stuff that can be written about such types of people. This article, sadly is not, and should therefore be deleted so that a much better on can eventually replace it.--68.22.207.151 01:55, 12 Jan 2006 (UTC)

Just total DELETE. --Suresh 16:07, 12 Jan 2006 (UTC)

Suffocate on the basis of pointlessness. --Simulacrum Caputosis 18:27, 12 Jan 2006 (UTC)

Keepsies I love that game (and the article, too!) XD --Flourentina 18:35, 12 Jan 2006 (UTC)

Voted off the island. --Sir gwax (talk) Signuke 19:37, 12 Jan 2006 (UTC)

I am your father

Yeh, I know, a good name for an eventually good future entry. But unless anyone volunteer himself to rewrite such crapy article, for now i say huff!!!--Rataube 00:31, 12 Jan 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete--Chimp888 02:45, 12 Jan 2006 (UTC)

Kill it too few words. --Simulacrum Caputosis 18:29, 12 Jan 2006 (UTC)

Voted off the island. --Sir gwax (talk) Signuke 19:39, 12 Jan 2006 (UTC)

Jewish neo-nazi

Destroy. --Rataube 00:00, 12 Jan 2006 (UTC)

DELETE Too short and not funny at all.--68.22.207.151 01:57, 12 Jan 2006 (UTC) Slaughter it, but make it kosher.--Suresh 17:41, 12 Jan 2006 (UTC)

Phil Anselmo

Delete. Partial spork from Wikipedia, characterised by a severe absence of funny. -- Sir Codeine K·H·P·B·M·N·C·U·Bu. · (Harangue) 23:20, 11 Jan 2006 (UTC)

DELETE Not sure, but looks suspiciously like an actual wikipedia article. Not funny.--68.22.207.151 01:58, 12 Jan 2006 (UTC)

Might as well DELETE. It's a subtle parody, and thus beyond the comprehension of idiots.

O'Reilly Factor Matrix

Move to Undictionary --Keithhackworth MUN 20:39, 11 Jan 2006 (UTC)

The Galactic Jewish Empire

It currently causes acute physical pain when read. Rewrite would be nice. Complete destruction would work too. --Neko 02:24, 11 Jan 2006 (UTC)

Expunge --Simulacrum Caputosis 18:42, 11 Jan 2006 (UTC)
Delete or move to another adress. All articles with the words galactic and empire in them suck! --Suresh 18:47, 11 Jan 2006 (UTC)

Bang. It makes me want to punch the writer--Rataube 19:20, 11 Jan 2006 (UTC)

FRAG 'EM TA ZOG!!! --King In Yellow 20:30, 11 Jan 2006 (UTC)

BALEETE. I tried to bring some sense to it, or at least proper capitalization, but it is hopeless and made my brain cell spasm. ----OEJ 20:39, 11 Jan 2006 (UTC)

POW blocks

Nuke. Acid Ammo 16:32, 11 Jan 2006 (UTC)

Delete Prettiestpretty 17:16, 11 Jan 2006 (UTC)

Pillage --Simulacrum Caputosis 18:38, 11 Jan 2006 (UTC)

Delete--Rataube 19:22, 11 Jan 2006 (UTC)

This should have been Huffed on QVFD. But I'll vote here. --King In Yellow 20:31, 11 Jan 2006 (UTC) Delete--68.22.207.151 01:59, 12 Jan 2006 (UTC)

Tim Hortons

QVFD'd as per User:King in Yellow--ShroomsShroom!Gay2Sir Flammable KUN Prince%21.gif (Na Naaaaa...)Gay2Shroom!Shroomirror 14:40, 11 Jan 2006 (UTC)

I didn't put this on QVFD. But as long as we're on it, yeah Kill it. --King In Yellow 20:32, 11 Jan 2006 (UTC)

Kill it. This article is utter nonsense. --Ogopogo 23:31, 11 Jan 2006 (UTC)

DELETE The writer needs to read the beginner's guide about being funny and not just stupid.--68.22.207.151 02:00, 12 Jan 2006 (UTC)

Save the Hortons, because the article's cute. --Flourentina 18:36, 12 Jan 2006 (UTC)

Screech

Chorizos

Vanity. May campaign for community allowed status thingy. Otherwise, deletedeletedelete. --KATIE!! 14:13, 11 Jan 2006 (UTC)

  • Already on QVFD. Vanity or no, it deserves Huffing with extreme prejudice for being a miserable little wet fart of a page. --King In Yellow 14:19, 11 Jan 2006 (UTC)
    • I have a feeling that instahuff will inspire recreation, or I'd delete it on the spot. --KATIE!! 14:21, 11 Jan 2006 (UTC)

Holocaust denial

This was already passed last week. No revote this fast. --Chronarion 02:05, 12 Jan 2006 (UTC)

DELETE this page! It is not funny, and sadly most of the stuff on it is true. Because of the serious nature of the Holocaust Denial, a crappy article does more to offend than entertain. A much better, funnier, and more ridiculous page exists at Holocaust Denial.Please delete this page. If it cannot be deleted please consider a rewrite or merging some of the better material from this page with the other page titled HOLOCAUST DENIAL. --68.22.207.151 00:38, 11 Jan 2006 (UTC)

  • Speedy keep NTSA. How long has it been since the last VFD on this page failed? A week? Please just give it a rest. --EvilZak 04:01, 11 Jan 2006 (UTC)
  • This is the third time since it was nominated in no more than ten days. I was the one who nominated it the first time, couse i agree with 68.22.207.151. But voters alredy decided to keep it. Is there any template to warn no to keep sending this article to VFD? And another one to warn it contains true information?--Rataube 17:54, 11 Jan 2006 (UTC)
  • Now there is.--Suresh 18:27, 11 Jan 2006 (UTC)
  • Very nice template suresh, but where is your vote? Also, Rataube, if you previously put it up for deletion, then why now vote for keep. Consider this a recount.

Life expectancy

Almost QVFD'd but someone mustve liked it if they only stubbed it. anyway, Delete. Tompkinssig Smallturtle t o m p k i n s  blah. ﺞوﻦ וףה ՃՄ ண்ஸ ފއހ วอฏม +տ trade websites 22:57, 10 Jan 2006 (UTC)

Burn this garbage. It is QVFD worthy. --King In Yellow 13:49, 11 Jan 2006 (UTC)

To a crisp Two sentences does not a Uncyclopedia article make... Prettiestpretty 16:27, 11 Jan 2006 (UTC)

DELETE--68.22.207.151 02:03, 12 Jan 2006 (UTC)

DELETE Life expectancy needs an entry, but this one ain't up to it. Lets say bye to this page --195.92.40.49 18:12, 12 Jan 2006 (UTC)

delete Since in commenting I'n writing something longer than the whole article. --Simulacrum Caputosis 18:31, 12 Jan 2006 (UTC)

Best Chinese Writing

I'd say Delete, but anyone wh's seen this who ask "Delete what?" There's nothing freakin' there but the VFD tag! --Simulacrum Caputosis 18:44, 11 Jan 2006 (UTC)

Eden

  • Same thing that with Jude (see below). Huff.--Rataube 18:09, 10 Jan 2006 (UTC)
  • Burn. Twenty-some redirects and almost no text does not constitute an article. The only effort put into this garbage was linking it to countless other unrelated pages. --King In Yellow 13:54, 11 Jan 2006 (UTC)
  • Rewrite There's a lot that can be done with this article (Satire, not childish gibberish) and it could out rather funny. Prettiestpretty 16:29, 11 Jan 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep/rewite As Prettiestpretty above. With a little expansion could work well. Like the satirical links...made me smile anyway. --195.92.40.49 18:24, 12 Jan 2006 (UTC)
  • Huff --Simulacrum Caputosis 18:40, 12 Jan 2006 (UTC)

Jude

Yeh, I know, a good name for an eventually good future entry. But unless anyone volunteer himself to rewrite such HORRIBLE article, for now i say huff, kill, destroy, terminate!!!--Rataube 01:04, 10 Jan 2006 (UTC)

  • I agree, huff to make way for something better. --Sir gwax (talk) Signuke 15:49, 10 Jan 2006 (UTC)
  • Me too - delete it Prettiestpretty 16:29, 11 Jan 2006 (UTC)
  • Whack 'em Baby! Whack 'em good. --King In Yellow 20:37, 11 Jan 2006 (UTC)

Rudolph Hitler

  • Delete Silly stuff about made-up silly stuff. Dumb non-jokes about sodomy and Pokemon. ----OEJ 21:02, 9 Jan 2006 (UTC)
  • Deletezor: It's crap. --Sir gwax (talk) Signuke 15:53, 10 Jan 2006 (UTC)
  • Kill. Nothing further. --King In Yellow 13:50, 11 Jan 2006 (UTC)
  • Kill it another example of how slapping Hitler into an article doesn't make it any funnier.Prettiestpretty 16:25, 11 Jan 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete--Rataube 00:47, 12 Jan 2006 (UTC)

Uncyclopedia:Undictionary

KEEP Undictionary is hilarious, and must be kept.--68.22.207.151 02:06, 12 Jan 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete the whole thing: This is a little unorthodox but Undictionary is crap, has always been crap, was designed as a crap repository and I'm totally serious about suggesting its destruction. --Sir gwax (talk) Signuke 05:19, 9 Jan 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Delete an article or move it to undictionary -- basically the same thing, only the latter takes more work. --Sir Volte KUN Talk (+S NS CM Bur. VFP VFH) 05:34, 9 Jan 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep but prune (see previous efforts). --Splaka 05:40, 9 Jan 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. As other said, seems to be a good and useful trash. Besides, It does have a few good entries.--Rataube 05:45, 9 Jan 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Pretty bold, but there's very little usefull stuff in Undictionary --Keithhackworth MUN F@H 13:02, 9 Jan 2006 (UTC)
  • Kill it It's not funny at all and annoying to navigate through. --Harp Heaven 14:05, 9 Jan 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep it But really make it a dictionary and just not a dump for stubs. That is - entries should be short and fun redeefinitions of ordinary words. Delete all other entries --Suresh 14:25, 9 Jan 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, that is, don't just delete it like it's any old crappy stub. This has a lot of content by a lot of people, so it deserves a little discussion. Personally I would prefer to see all pages blanked (with history intact). That way we get a fresh new start (with some watchful and passionate management), but people can still fish entries that they care about out of the history. And of course the policy should be changed to just delete bad articles, instead of moving them to undictionary. Doug 14:36, 9 Jan 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep as a repository for all the one liners that are actually funny. -- Sir Mhaille Icons-flag-gb (talk to me) 14:38, 9 Jan 2006 (UTC)
  • Rewrite in the style of Ambrose Bierce's The Devil's Dictionary, complete with word classification and useage. (For those of you unfamiliar with tDD, pick up a copy -- not only is it one of the best works of satire in the English language, but you can get a copy for $5.00 or less.) --King In Yellow 14:47, 9 Jan 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep -- Its another useful Uncyclopedia tool, just like UnNews and Uncyclopedia itself. To want to delete Undictionary is to want to delete Uncyclopedia. --ANIDN MENOSCWICZ Icons-flag-az 02:59, 10 Jan 2006 (UTC)
  • Is that even allowed? Anyway... uhhh... keep it's got alot of crap, but underneath the crap lies a beautiful orchard... smeared with crap. Tompkinssig Smallturtle t o m p k i n s  blah. ﺞوﻦ וףה ՃՄ ண்ஸ ފއހ วอฏม +տ trade websites 03:08, 10 Jan 2006 (UTC)
  • Rewrite to be an actual uncyclopedic dictionary that definatively defines words in an uncyclopedic manner. --Nerd42eMailTalkUnMetaWPediah2g2 03:41, 10 Jan 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. It does us no disservice, though no great credit, either. — 2nd Lt. Sir David, the Weasel of Wild KUN VFH FP Icons-flag-us Fire! 17:52, 10 Jan 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep It has many funny sections on it and has been edited by a lot of people. It could use some re-writes and/or deletions for some of its entries, but anybody can do that on their own.--68.22.207.151 01:07, 11 Jan 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep I hate Undictionary. That's probably common knowledge. However, it has its uses. So long as it remains at 27 pages (or whatever it's at now) I can deal with it. But like Splarka said, it could certainly use some pruning. --—rc (t) 04:31, 11 Jan 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep It serves a purpose, but it needs structure and formating. Besides, does it take up that much room on the server? Prettiestpretty 16:32, 11 Jan 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep it. It is kinda rubbish, but it could be encouraged to be pruned and not just made a dump for crap :) --biggy 20:25, 11 Jan 2006 (UTC)

Tales of Symphonia

  • Delete: Smells of fanboyism and has been editted a whole lot by a bunch of unregistered users. Oh yeah, and it's not funny. Anything I'm missing here? --Sir gwax (talk) Signuke 23:01, 8 Jan 2006 (UTC)
  • Burn: anime JRPG fanboy crap. --Harp Heaven 14:33, 9 Jan 2006 (UTC)
  • Ani H. Ilate was here. --King In Yellow 15:05, 9 Jan 2006 (UTC)
  • Burninate. Seriously, if I come across any article using "pwn" in a straight sense, I am going to totally pwn it and put it up for deletion. Then I'm going to find the guy who came up with "pwn" and make sure he substitutes "p" where "o" starts a word (especially on legals forms and job applications) until he realizes the error of his ways and commits seppuku with a wooden spoon. — — 2nd Lt. Sir David, the Weasel of Wild KUN VFH FP Icons-flag-us Fire! 18:02, 10 Jan 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Looks okay to me, and I highly doubt we're going to get anything better from this title. --Chronarion 00:34, 12 Jan 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Boring to me. Lots of work in it, but sadly none of value. --195.92.40.49 18:18, 12 Jan 2006 (UTC)

Kept: Chron's right, as much as this article does suck, there is very little chance of something better ever replacing it. --Sir gwax (talk) Signuke 19:50, 12 Jan 2006 (UTC)

England

  • huff - just came across this poorly written article and noticed it already had a vfd tag on it, so I thought I'd go ahead and list it here. --Sir gwax (talk) Signuke 03:07, 3 Jan 2006 (UTC)
  • Rewrite - The article needs help, but it doesn't deserve to be euthanatized Prettiestpretty 01:51, 4 Jan 2006 (UTC)
  • Re-write - The task of satirizing an entire country is pretty daunting, and Prettiest is right; ye olde article needs some serious help. Maybe a partial spork of the wikipedia article might be a good place to re-focus what's funny about the Sceptered Isle? — — 2nd Lt. Sir David, the Weasel of Wild KUN VFH FP Icons-flag-us Fire! 15:42, 4 Jan 2006 (UTC)
Thank you. And don't forget that the article has to have an element of SATIRE. If anything, the Brit's are still rulers of Satire. Prettiestpretty 23:23, 4 Jan 2006 (UTC)
  • Rewrite or huff -- This article is not funny. My ceiling fan has a better sense of humor. That article is surewise doubleplusungood crimethink. There is nothing Miniluv can do to make this goodthink. The author shall be doubleplusfast shot soon. --ANIDN MENOSCWICZ Icons-flag-az 03:06, 10 Jan 2006 (UTC)
  • AWFUL this deserves it

Blue Meanies

Well I vote for a rewrite. And Eshe, you lose 50 points for making non-qualified statements about the nature of humor. Shame on you. --Gay4Gay5S P I N N I EGay5Gay4 00:41, 3 Jan 2006 (UTC)

Rewrite. I have seen the Blue Meanies in action, and satirizing them a la underpants gnomes isn't going to cut it; it's about as funny as a dispute over Blue Meanies. I'm going to give Eshe five points for speaking his mind and then take them right back for being too straight-laced in a comedy setting. Spice up them Meanies, someone! — 2nd Lt. Sir David, the Weasel of Wild KUN VFH FP Icons-flag-us Fire! 16:28, 3 Jan 2006 (UTC)

Keep. It's not that funny, but much better than most other stuff. And things don't need truth in them in order to be funny. AAAAAAAAA! is funny, and there's no truth in it. Kitten Huffing. List of weapons that don't exist, but should. Etc. --72.21.41.138 01:59, 7 Jan 2006 (UTC)

Re-writing. If what I come up with sucks, then burninate it. Wish me gluck. — — 2nd Lt. Sir David, the Weasel of Wild KUN VFH FP Icons-flag-us Fire! 12:21, 12 Jan 2006 (UTC)

The Elements Song

Uh, ok. Huff. Acid Ammo 02:43, 14 Jan 2006 (UTC)

  • Rewrite: Rewrite it using the Uncyclopedia Table of Elements. That ought to make it far better. --HoCkEy_PUCK 02:47, 14 Jan 2006 (UTC)
  • Smash lots. I don't think this is redeemable. Perhaps a song containing the uncyclopedia table of the elements is in order, but allowing this article to live, even as a rewrite, is sending a bad message. -- Blay Unknown Time (UTC)
  • Deleted --Gay4Gay5S P I N N I EGay5Gay4 05:09, 14 Jan 2006 (UTC)

TARDIS

  • Delete: Am I missing the joke here? Acid Ammo 02:34, 14 Jan 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete: This page isn't funny. --HoCkEy_PUCK 02:38, 14 Jan 2006 (UTC)

Really, really, really gay

Kill. Acid Ammo 19:57, 13 Jan 2006 (UTC)

Huffed: Probably QVFD worthy. --Sir gwax (talk) Signuke 20:39, 13 Jan 2006 (UTC)

Kwabena style

  • Delete: Smells of bad inside joke to me; also not the funny. --Sir gwax (talk) Signuke 19:05, 13 Jan 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete: This page isn't funny, and that's all there is to it. --HoCkEy_PUCK 02:33, 14 Jan 2006 (UTC)

Lozenge

My opinion is to delete or to rewrite, but I'm leaning more towards the former. It's random and not funny as it is now. --Simulacrum Caputosis 18:31, 13 Jan 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete Stupid stupid stupid. -- Blay Sometime in January (UTC)

Airplane peanuts

Delete - all this just to say Airplane peanuts are harder to open than regular peanuts? It's not funny. Keithhackworth MUN 16:47, 13 Jan 2006 (UTC)

  • Weak Keep - It's well-written, though admittedly not that funny. — — 2nd Lt. Sir David, the Weasel of Wild KUN VFH FP Icons-flag-us Fire! 17:36, 13 Jan 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep It's a play on an overused standup comedy subject. It's not brilliant, but it's got potential. Doug 21:04, 13 Jan 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep I rather like it...Strong Rad 02:08, 14 Jan 2006 (UTC)

Kept. --KATIE!! 02:15, 14 Jan 2006 (UTC)

Earth

DELETE this now. It is short enough to be an undictionary entry, but not funny enough to remain.--Chimp888 01:03, 13 Jan 2006 (UTC)

  • Reverted and Kept: Check the history before nominating things like that. In this case it had been vandalized. --Splaka 01:08, 13 Jan 2006 (UTC)

Grantoc

Another pile of crap. Either Huff or Professionally Rewrite.   IAN WELLER-- TALK -- F@H -- VFH -- VFD -- RAND    23:11, 12 Jan 2006 (UTC)

Godot

What the hell's this? Delete. --  IAN WELLER-- TALK -- F@H -- VFH -- VFD -- RAND    22:01, 12 Jan 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely Keep!, but someone should expand it. But who? I don't know. I have other things... But meanwhile, why don't you read Waiting for Godot by Samuel Beckett.--Suresh 22:06, 12 Jan 2006 (UTC)

DELETE--Chimp888 01:00, 13 Jan 2006 (UTC)

Keep -- It's funny, trust me. --Doug 03:23, 13 Jan 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep: You philistines should go read a book, Waiting for Godot perhaps. --Sir gwax (talk) Signuke 06:19, 13 Jan 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Gah! Waiting for Godot! That's 2 hours of my life that I want back! And 8 hours from The Stand. --Cap'n Sir Ben GUN WotM VFH VFP 07:16, 13 Jan 2006 (UTC)
  • F!n KEEP! This is literacy at its best! --King In Yellow 14:51, 13 Jan 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep it. It's funni. Acid Ammo 16:03, 13 Jan 2006 (UTC)

Kept by popular demand. --Sir gwax (talk) Signuke 17:22, 13 Jan 2006 (UTC)

Height

Maybe it should be QFVD'd, I dunno. But as it stands right now it is worthless and I feel it should not have the chance to become more so. --Simulacrum Caputosis 21:30, 12 Jan 2006 (UTC)

  • Never mind. It has already been squashed. Thanks to whichever admin did that. --Simulacrum Caputosis 21:33, 12 Jan 2006 (UTC)

Too late. :-) --Suresh 21:33, 12 Jan 2006 (UTC)

Chuck Norris

Mostly plagurized and generally cluttered and unfunny. Paulgb 20:07, 12 Jan 2006 (UTC)

Rewrite Some of it is funny. Just rewrite the plaqurized parts. Chuck Norris is one tough dude, I wouldn't want to mess with him. --Lt. Sir Orion Blastar (talk) 23:07, 12 Jan 2006 (UTC)

I think this article is beyond need of a rewrite. I definitely think we need an article for Chuck Norris, but the disorganized and mostly plagiarized status of the page is discouraging for people trying to read or write it. I think we would be better off starting off with a clean slate. Possibly copying over the music career stuff because it doesn't look plagiarized. --Paulgb 01:41, 13 Jan 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete: I like good ol' Chuck as much as the next guy, but this article is a rip-off and a disservice to the man; he deserves something on par with Mr. T, at least. --Sir gwax (talk) Signuke 06:13, 13 Jan 2006 (UTC)
  • Kill it if only to spite the spasmodiques above. --King In Yellow 14:54, 13 Jan 2006 (UTC)
  • Guillotine - I think the lusty whining about what makes the article "good" is much funnier than the article itself. Burn Chuck to the ground and build him up anew, as per Paulgb's suggestion. — — 2nd Lt. Sir David, the Weasel of Wild KUN VFH FP Icons-flag-us Fire! 15:46, 13 Jan 2006 (UTC)
  • KEEP IT It's ridiculous, it's non-sensical and it's funny. Plagiarism my arse, there were hundreds of entries, some good, some bad, but for the most part totally unique! Take a chill pill and get it back on! Whatever happened to freedom of speech, this is the god damned internet for fucks sake, not friggin pravda!
  • RELAX: I think all that was need was a little tidy up - because soon goon or goons were cutting and pasting shit.. Chuck Norris is without doubt a legend, the fact that SOOO many people are input 'facts' about speaks volumes about how important that part of the sight was...CLEARLY people are not discouraged from reading or writing about Chuck or Vin Diesel or anyone else like Paulgb says. Chuck was being updated daily, and all this talk about plagurising is aload of old pony and trap, copied or not, the article is funny as hell!!!..which is the whole purpose of this site..people like paulgb need to CHILL OUT and whats Sir gwax (talk) Signuke on about - the sites a rip off - in real terms the whole uncyclopedia is a rip off it thats your way of thinking, pick ur dummy up honestly..none of these pages are a dis-service to anyone..WAKE UP!- dont be so serious..and how can most of it be plagurised? the link Paulgb gives has 30 facts - chuck had 300!! am all for tidyness but dont delete a whole section of an article just becuase its popular..I VOTE TO KEEP IT - CHUCK NEEDS US JUST AS MUCH AS WE NEED HIM!! --Dash of Haberdashery Friday 13 January 2006 - UK.
    • The plagarism is only a portion of why it should be deleted; it also sucks as an article. Remember, this is supposed to be an encyclopedia, we have encyclopedic information, not trite lists. Also, as to the freedom of speech issue, you're an idiot; the difference between censoring speech and culling crap is sharper than 5 year old cheddar; oh and there isn't any protection of speech on Uncyclopedia, it's not a public entity (in a legal sense). --Sir gwax (talk) Signuke 17:17, 13 Jan 2006 (UTC)
I mean, come on; is that what we are to you people? A repository for other people's one liners? --Sir gwax (talk) Signuke 17:21, 13 Jan 2006 (UTC)
Gwax has cut it to the quick - it's not an issue of plagary so much as it is an issue that the article isn't very good. Chuck Norris reminds me of the South Park song "What Would Brian Boitono Do?" - it's, um, hyperbolic semi-irony(?), and it's laid on thick and sloppy here, and there's no catchy song to back it up. The joke, beaten insensate - Chuck Norris is a tough guy, but you have no idea how tough, doesn't need 50 or even 25 reasons why this is so. The following quote: "DONT FUCK WITH CHUCK .... unless you're Bruce Lee looking to work out your morning wood." sums up the article for me as being loud, crass, and not having much to say. Chuck deserves better. — — 2nd Lt. Sir David, the Weasel of Wild KUN VFH FP Icons-flag-us Fire! 17:59, 13 Jan 2006 (UTC)

I vote for the death penalty. It's unoriginal, not funny, and has little content besides lists. --Simulacrum Caputosis 18:20, 13 Jan 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep. Funny. Besies, most of the controversial pages should be kept, the controversy itself shows they actually have some value, plus it makes them even more interesting. Add all this to the Norris's discussion page too. --Rataube 18:35, 13 Jan 2006 (UTC)

Deleted for lack of quality. --Sir gwax (talk) Signuke 05:48, 14 Jan 2006 (UTC)

Reasons to become an atheist

  • huff: This article/list sucks and is just a list. --Sir gwax (talk) Signuke 19:22, 12 Jan 2006 (UTC)
  • keep: or rewrite as an anti-christian_science article so the pics can be kept.--Suresh 19:32, 12 Jan 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and rw--Rataube 19:57, 12 Jan 2006 (UTC)
  • delete or anybody but Nerd42 rewrite it.
  • delete This article is a list, and I think we all agree that lists don't belong in an encyclopedia, even a satirical one.--Bradaphraser 20:33, 12 Jan 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and Add Text. As far as lists go, it's one of the more intelligent on the site (and there are TOO MANY.) It has plenty of current-issue jabs, philosophical and moral mock-conundrums, and playful pokes at the "Faith vs. Knowledge" schism (how's that for pedantic?) The pictures blow, but I like the campy "sales-pitch" form of it, and several lines made me chuckle despite being obvious. I think it would be a shame to nuke so many sharp tongue-in-cheek statements when merely adding some background text would solve the problem. (Wow, this is my first Keep vote! I can do it!) --King In Yellow 20:44, 12 Jan 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment In case any of you didn't know, there are two other "versions" of this article, Reasons to become an atheist/The Dead Serious Scrolls Version and Reasons to become an atheist/the funny version, that can replace/spork/add to the current version. I don't care what happens to this article, as long as the talk page is kept. --EvilZak 20:47, 12 Jan 2006 (UTC)
    • I agree that the talk page is kind of amusing but the article itself (all three versions) are unfunny, mostly list, pieces of huffworthy trash. --Sir gwax (talk) Signuke 21:42, 12 Jan 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and add text It can be made funny, right now it is more of an advertisement and list. With more words and other things it can be made funny. Maybe Atheists object to it and find it not funny, but if Christians cannot get the article on Christians deleted, then why play favoritism? Uncyclopedia makes fun of everyone equally, or at least that was what I was led to believe. If you do not like it, rewrite it. Some things in this are funny, others are not funny but annoying and bigoted. It can be made funny by adding more words and rewriting the bigoted ones. --Lt. Sir Orion Blastar (talk) 23:19, 12 Jan 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep It *can* be improved and deleting it will NOT help that. --Chronarion 00:26, 13 Jan 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - I like "the funny version" best, but I am voting keep because it is better than a lot of other articles on uncyclopedia, and it has the bonus of offending people. -- Paulgb 01:52, 13 Jan 2006 (UTC)
  • Rewrite or delete I'm all for deleting lists - in fact, I plan on whacking a bunch this weekend or early next week. This has a ton of potential as an actual article. If someone doesn't rewrite it, I may have to, which would completely ruin it and make it really VFD worthy. Bone_F_clear.png Sir Famine, Gun Petition » 02:30, 13 Jan 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep This has funny bits and it's overall funnier than the average uncyc article. It would be ridiculous to delete this. --Doug 03:28, 13 Jan 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Realistically it's not a good article, nor is it close to being a good article, but it's nowhere near huffworthy. In fact, of all of Nerd42's articles, this is probably the furthest from the bottom of the barrel, for whatever that's worth. --Cap'n Sir Ben GUN WotM VFH VFP 07:02, 13 Jan 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep -- That's some funny shit. One myustread the entire list, not just decide to huff it as it is a list. --ANIDN MENOSCWICZ Icons-flag-az 14:05, 13 Jan 2006 (UTC)
  • I hate to go against the popular tide, but Keep. — — 2nd Lt. Sir David, the Weasel of Wild KUN VFH FP Icons-flag-us Fire! 18:07, 13 Jan 2006 (UTC)

Kept: Fine, you win (damned democracy). --Sir gwax (talk) Signuke 20:48, 13 Jan 2006 (UTC)

Rewrite templates

All of them (also {{stupid}}, not listed) are now merged into {{random-rewrite}}. Therefore, I suggest substing and deleting at least some of them. I don't think we need that many. - Guest 17:31, 12 Jan 2006 (UTC)

  • Get rid of 'em As per above reasoning --195.92.40.49 18:10, 12 Jan 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep some. Alternate universe (Keep)is fun. Boring is boring(NUKE). QVFDLimerick is lame and vegetative is in coma (Huff). Rewrite is classic and rwertie is lcssaic(Keep, kind'of). --Suresh 19:16, 12 Jan 2006 (UTC)
  • The standard {{rewrite}} should be kept, but the rest can probably be turned into redirects to {{random-rewrite}}. --Sir gwax (talk) Signuke 19:32, 12 Jan 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and change Template:Random-rewrite: These pages are completely different. Why would you group them together into one template? If you run across a page that needs to be rewritten, it doesn't necessarily mean it's crap or that it's unfunny. Only group templates that are very closely related together. --HoCkEy_PUCK 03:09, 14 Jan 2006 (UTC)

They are being kept without redirection. There is enough difference between some of them to make it significant; if you want to nominate individual ones that are particularly bad/useless, do so. --Sir gwax (talk) Signuke 05:46, 14 Jan 2006 (UTC)

Shark

  • This kinda not very funny. I reckon it should be vastly improved, bulked up, or DELTED!! --biggy 20:27, 11 Jan 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete --Rataube 00:43, 12 Jan 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep for now, but needs work I found parts of it funny. But some not. Humour is subjective. I suggest a stay of execution. --195.92.40.49 18:15, 12 Jan 2006 (UTC)
  • Save it just needs a little love <3 --Flourentina 18:39, 12 Jan 2006 (UTC)
  • NRV and expand. Let it metastasize and see what we get. Then we can club it. --King In Yellow 20:50, 12 Jan 2006 (UTC)
  • Do not NRV, keep. It's a stub article. --Chronarion 00:28, 13 Jan 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep: Not the best, but I like it as a seed of something decent. --Sir gwax (talk) Signuke 06:16, 13 Jan 2006 (UTC)
  • Rewrite Yeah, something could be made of this. --Cap'n Sir Ben GUN WotM VFH VFP 06:49, 13 Jan 2006 (UTC)
  • Live and Let Live This article is fine. There are far worse and/or shorter articles out there that aren't stubbed or marked for deletion. At least this one is approximately standard length. Anonymous

Kept: It's a good seed for an article. --Sir gwax (talk) Signuke 05:43, 14 Jan 2006 (UTC)

Panty Shot

Someone posted it to QVFD, but it's a little too solid for me to inst-huff it. --Sir gwax (talk) Signuke 00:00, 16 Jan 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep: No reason to delete. Its just fine. --SwordKirby537 00:15, 16 Jan 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep: It doesn't need to be deleted but it DOES need to be expanded abit. --Toloran 04:30, 16 Jan 2006 (UTC)

Kept by popular demand. --Sir gwax (talk) Signuke 04:58, 16 Jan 2006 (UTC)

Your Mother

Google

Nominated per rule 3.2.1.2. - Steve Ballmer 15:25, 15 Jan 2006 (UTC)

  • Hey - That rule didn't give you a cause to nominate - just to be rude if you did - which you weren't - so I vote for mistrial and a hasty release of the suspect.--Suresh 15:38, 15 Jan 2006 (UTC)
  • Fucking Suresh is a fucking sissy. I know he wants to fucking kill Google as much as I do, but he's afraid to fucking nominate it. - Steve Ballmer 15:41, 15 Jan 2006 (UTC)
  • Windows! Or alternatively, keep. --officer designate Club symbol Lugiatm Club symbol MUN NS CM ZM WH 19:42, 15 Jan 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - Google helps me find things. Jlove1982 22:39, 15 Jan 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep That message brought to you me, my brain controlled by Google via a wireless network. Prettiestpretty 23:37, 15 Jan 2006 (UTC)

Kept: because it's a quality article

Caleb

  • Unfunny one-liner. Acid bitch at me 01:57, 15 Jan 2006 (UTC)
    • Deleted the slandanity. --Sir gwax (talk) Signuke 06:16, 15 Jan 2006 (UTC)

Sammich

Leave It Be

Muse

  • Keep. It's funny and serves its purpose. --Aisling 04:01, 16 Jan 2006 (UTC)
  • Not Funny. Too many inside jokes. BALEET. --KATIE!! 12:03, 14 Jan 2006 (UTC)
  • You Main Musers sicken me!!!! (that means remove off the face of the Earth, please) --⇔ Sir Mon€¥$ignSTFU F@H|VFP|+S 12:07, 14 Jan 2006 (UTC)
  • Delort. Self-indulgent. Not funny. And, I suspect, the music fucking sucks as well (if they are actually a real band). In the brain cell I wasted skimming the article, they will live on as a Christian Emo-Core band, and that's funny enough for me. — — 2nd Lt. Sir David, the Weasel of Wild KUN VFH FP Icons-flag-us Fire! 12:27, 14 Jan 2006 (UTC)
  • I think it's a vanity page, probably funny fot he people it talks about. They'll be so saddened to see it gone. eteleD. Acid Ammo 18:37, 14 Jan 2006 (UTC)
    • It's not a vanity page because it's about an English Alternative Rock Band. --Sir gwax (talk) Signuke 19:44, 14 Jan 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete: Couldn't we have an article about Muses in the greek inpirational women context. How about an ultra-(faux)-emo article about how someone's muse has left them for another artist or some crap like that. Most things short of "muse r teh fag" would be better than this. --Sir gwax (talk) Signuke 19:44, 14 Jan 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: It's definitely not a vanity page, they are a real, reasonably well known band in the UK. Course the article is basically an extensive way of saying "I don't like Muse, or their music," so it's not in the least funny. Smowton 09:36, 15 Jan 2006 (UTC)
Not wanting to start a discussion here, but I can assure you, it's pretty much a vanity page based on the Muse message board. And for crying out loud, Musers, IT'S NOT FUNNY! --⇔ Sir Mon€¥$ignSTFU F@H|VFP|+S 16:15, 15 Jan 2006 (UTC)

Keep: Hi there moneysign. Uhhh, I wouldn't delete it just yet. It can be salvaged. I might have a go tomorrow. TomF006 21:02, 15 Jan 2006 (UTC)

Adobe

  • Delete: I'd rather someone rewrote it so I'll try this as incentive. --Sir gwax (talk) Signuke 06:22, 14 Jan 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete: I'd love to re-write it, but frankly I don't know how. — — 2nd Lt. Sir David, the Weasel of Wild KUN VFH FP Icons-flag-us Fire! 12:31, 14 Jan 2006 (UTC)
    • Voted off the island. --Sir gwax (talk) Signuke 04:25, 16 Jan 2006 (UTC)

My Pants

  • My Pants appears to have no redeeming value? Delete?--195.92.40.49 18:05, 12 Jan 2006 (UTC)
  • Smite for idiocy --Simulacrum Caputosis 18:14, 12 Jan 2006 (UTC)
  • Keepsies I think its cute, and just needs more explanation. --Flourentina 18:16, 12 Jan 2006 (UTC)
  • Rewrite or delete. --Sir gwax (talk) Signuke 19:30, 12 Jan 2006 (UTC)
  • Rewrite. It is cute, but far too insufficient as is. --King In Yellow 20:46, 12 Jan 2006 (UTC)
    • Cracking down on unclear votes. --Sir gwax (talk) Signuke 04:22, 16 Jan 2006 (UTC)
  • Expand or delete. There's a few chuckles, there should be more. --Cap'n Sir Ben GUN WotM VFH VFP 06:52, 13 Jan 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, It works for me. — — 2nd Lt. Sir David, the Weasel of Wild KUN VFH FP Icons-flag-us Fire! 18:02, 13 Jan 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete it. Unless anybody is genuinely willing to bother spending time improving it, in which case I move that it should be deleted and then re-requested in requested pages... --biggy 20:25, 14 Jan 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and expand. --Rataube 23:00, 14 Jan 2006 (UTC)
  • Burn to keep up the heat--Suresh 10:25, 15 Jan 2006 (UTC)
Personal tools
projects