This page is an archive. The contents have been moved from another page for reference purposes only, and should be preserved in their current form. Discussion or voting on this page is not current. Any additions you make will probably not be read. The current version of this page can be found at Uncyclopedia:VFD.
I put this up for VFD a while back, and Famine nuked it. It's also been recreated earlier today. It's long, which is why I hesitate just to delort without democracy. You know... for a change. —HinoaKUN(talk) 22:35, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
I've asked this question before, but, '...are there any good vanity pages?' Their creater (the vaniter) must not care too much, because a vanity page always reads poorly and looks like crap, and us (as vanitees) have no reason to read them at all. Modusoperandi 22:58, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Comments
I have no qualms about insta-huffing such a page, and banning the user for recreating it. I also have a lump of burned kitten for a heart. SirFamine,Gun♣Petition» 01:10, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
I support the merging, as long as it's with Google_(company) --L 16:27, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
Kept, with a merge tag. Also, Zombie, be glad Gwax is on vacation, as he would have given you a 12-year ban for listing this here without putting a VFD tag on it.--<<>> 23:04, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
Yet another article I don't think meets the criteria for deletion. SOME people would find this funny, though I don't myself.--<<>> 14:38, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
Just needs {{expansion}} ~ T. (talk) 14:42, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
Good as is. I'll vote for deletion in another month or two after people ruin it. SirFamine,Gun♣Petition» 13:35, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
I already removed the massive quote-spamming the author did, adding "Robert Johnson Quotes" on a dozen or so pages. With those crappy quotes gone, I see little reason to keep this page around. SirFamine,Gun♣Petition» 13:34, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Quote: "Hence, this must be all a pile of shit." Agreed. --Hindleyite | PL | CUN | Converse 17:43, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Comments
Removed VFD. Listen folks, don't try to get rid of stuff quickly just by voting on it here. If it's got an NRV, when I go to the page, I'm taking it off VFD. Getting rid of stuff quickly is not what VFD is for, it's for deciding on stuff that's hard to decide on.--<<>> 18:33, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
While this is INDEED ugly, several of the pictures are funny, and I really have trouble deleting an article whose first quote at the top of the page makes me laugh. It needs a good editor, not a deletion.--<<>> 15:00, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
Ok. I, too, hate this article, HOWEVER, I think with an {{offensive}} template, this article could make SOME people laugh.--<<>> 13:27, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
Delete
Why does this shit never go away? ~ŞÇ 12:59, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
I think some other punishment like Damnation or Famine would be more appropriate... DESTROY! ~ Ghelæ talkcontribs 15:09, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
Jesus may be all-forgiving, but I think he'll have trouble forgiving this article. —HinoaKUN(talk) is so going to hell for this. 17:17, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
Comments
My beef with it isn't the Jesus-fucking part. It is the fact that so many articles like this one rely on the same lude premises as the hundreds that proceeded them. Things like this make Uncyclopedia appear to be run and edited only by juveniles. ~ŞÇ14:24, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
Well, I'm not saying feature it, I'm just not sure it fits the criteria for deletion (that NO ONE could find this funny, or, at the very least, very few people). The fact is, we do get a lot of juveniles here, and they might find this funny. I'll respect the vote in this matter, though.--<<>> 14:36, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
This article is dead, long live this article.--<<>> 17:49, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
Oh, comon... this made me giggle... find ONE MORE PERSON that says delete, and I'll kill it.--<<>> 13:22, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
It's got a lot of potential as a re-write. If it's kept for 7 days, I'll do it. Then you can delete it. --Sir Hardwick Fundlebuggy(Bleat) 14:17, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
Delete
Seriously, this sucks something horrible. I'd delete it without a trial, but I want at least the illusion of democracy. —HinoaKUN(talk) 03:49, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
Delete this crap and don't look back. --KATIE!! 03:54, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
Back! You huffed just as I puffed. So I've thrown up the rewrite as a sub. Feel free to huff once more --Sir Hardwick Fundlebuggy(Bleat) 15:24, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, you'll have to put it back on VFD to get it huffed this time. ;)--<<>> 15:36, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
It's not that bad. Not great, but someone cared enough to make an OK picture. There are a million more articles that are far worse than this. FreeMorpheme 21:28, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
I can see how someone might find this funny, though I don't claim to, myself.--<<>> 15:39, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
It needs a lot of expansion and development but it's not exactly terrible. - jack mort |cunt| talk - - 18:14, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
Come on, people. I have seen FAR FAR FAR WORSE. This needs {{expansion}}, at worst a {{rewrite}}. It's not about whether it is funny, but whether it could be funny. --KATIE!! 17:17, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Keitei. It needs to grow, but it's not "kill" bad. Keeper. ~Cap'nSimzorzAr, Matey! 19:20, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
I'd delete that on sight. Too bad y'all got this page mixed up with this voting crap...guess I'll let you have your fun "voting" for a little while longer. SirFamine,Gun♣Petition» 20:30, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
Comments
My vote: Meh. I plead no contest. What do you think? Alksub 16:36, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
I'm stuck in the middle; I don't care about Smashmouth enough to care about whether a page about them stays or goes. I'm actually surprised that someone cared enough about them to both make a page and retouch a photo. I'm even more surprised that someone cared enough about Smashmouth to gather them together and take a picture of them, and I'm stupidly surpised that Smashmouth cared enough about Smashmouth to gather themselves together for a photo. But I digress, my vote MehModusoperandi 17:01, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
Worse stuff has popped up here. As Linus would put it, "it's not that bad. All it needs is a little love." ~Cap'nSimzorzAr, Matey! 19:20, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
Kept. 8 votes, +2. It'll take five more straight votes to delete. Besides, Famine's just going to kill it as soon as I take the VFD off, anyway.--<<>> 22:24, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, but I'm gonna say kill. It's all formula, nothing really original or brilliant. ~Cap'nSimzorzAr, Matey! 19:08, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
A careful application of Oscar is always funny. This is not such a thing. FreeMorpheme 21:35, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
Comments
If ever there were an article that needs a helping hand and a complete rewrite, its this one. Dame GUNPotYWotM2xPotM17xVFHVFPPooPMS•YAP• 12:29, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
As a board game it really needs a picture/diagram of some sort. Modusoperandi 17:26, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
*If no one rewrites this, I may delete after two delete votes.--<<>> 15:32, 10 May 2006 (UTC)Eh, I'll just wait for the next, inevitable Delete vote...--<<>> 15:54, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
Hehe...unless the next delete vote is an uncast one by another admin who just deletes the article in question. He who hesitates does not delete. SirFamine,Gun♣Petition» 21:46, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
Damn you Famine! Now I'll have to find another destructive outlet...--<<>> 22:20, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
Make it not be there :| - jack mort |cunt| talk - - 18:16, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
O....M......G. I didn't think that it was possible to fit that many homosexual and penis jokes in that short of space. That is just a horrid article. ~Cap'nSimzorzAr, Matey! 19:14, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
It is a shit article. FreeMorpheme 21:30, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
Keep - not a bad article, considering its the authors first, it looks encyclopedic, and even if its not your cup of tea its a lot better than some of the garbage we get posted here. -- Sir Mhaille (talk to me) 08:06, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
While this is not great, it's not horrible either, and being horrible is a prerequisite for deletion.--<<>> 09:45, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
Agree with all above. Pies are good. --HindleyiteTalk 11:51, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
As soon as i saw the title and opened the article i wanted to kill-vote. The topic is retarded but it's saved because of passable writing. Not all that terrible; keep. - jack mort |cunt| talk - - 17:13, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
I say delete all vanity, although the bottom pic with the caption is good. ~ Ghelæ talkcontribs 15:13, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
Comments
This needs to be brought into compliance with Uncyclopedia:Vanity Policies. Even then, I feel it's a low quality page that needs a lot of help from someone other than the two "authors".--Sir Flammable KUN (Na Naaaaa...) 20:50, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
Dear God, I've been linking to the Vanity policies so much lately that it's practically preprogrammed into my brain now. —HinoaKUN(talk) 04:00, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
Huffed by Flammable for being a non-compliant vanity page.--<<>> 18:11, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
Smells like vanity, reads like vanity, some notable people with that name, but I doubt the subject of this article is. But, I could be wrong, so VFDing. --Splaka 07:19, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
Smells like vanity to me, as well.--<<>> 09:44, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
Vanity. Reference to Chuck Norris. Huff. --HindleyiteTalk 11:53, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
"Noble" peace prize, chuck norris, urine, cloning and nazis all in the same paragraph? Madness! Modusoperandi 12:13, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
Utter swedish random bullshit vanity group shite. One submitter during one day. No links to it, extensive red links from it, anachronic war history context , bragging about his unknown friends, and no Userpage. Basically it is just an advertisment for this roleplay/wargame groups homepage. Just Exterminate. Or vanity tag it before we put it in deep quarentine.--{{User:Suresh/sig}} 19:57, 9 May
2006 (UTC)
Meh. I really don't care, but I'm a deletionist so I say DEMOLISH!~ Ghelæ talkcontribs 15:03, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
Made my Firefox crash by following the external link. I HATE THAT!--<<>> 16:33, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
Comments
After stopping the hyperventilation I realized I might have overreacted. It's not so much the vanity that disturbs me as the random (lack of) humor pompous history. I'd like a guidance about the borderline between vanity and VFD here.--{{User:Suresh/sig}} 20:26, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
After reading vanity-policy thoroughly I find this vanity page guilty of spilling over through external linking.--{{User:Suresh/sig}} 08:21, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
Prol'ly vanity, but I can't be sure. Sucks something awful, though. —HinoaKUN(talk) 23:16, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
Comments
Voting ended early...vanity, links to external sites, broken page-width due to assinine wiki formatting...and it wasn't funny. SirFamine,Gun♣Petition» 23:49, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
I didn't realize accuracy was a requirement. Usually I endeavour to start from the truth and work backwards, but the premise here was to start with the celebrity quirkishness—the sense that you can act with impunity—and then try to describe it like a pseudo-legitimate medical problem. If you don't like it, fix it, but I think the core idea has value. ~ T. (talk) 03:16, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps I am ignorant, but what celebrities are you citing? I thought the celebrities speculated to have Asperger's syndrome are Newton, Einstein, Bill Gates, Ludwig Wittgenstein etc. (intellectuals, not actors). Wikipedia article--Sir Xiao Li CUNVFHNS (Talk)[citation needed] 05:24, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
Alec Baldwin? He went from rising star to dog food due to his reputation for being a megalomaniacal arse. And Russell Crowe, well... ~ T. (talk) 10:09, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
Keep it, but FIX IT. I'll help. -Weyoun 47 03:18, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
Keep. Out-of-proportion emotional tantrums and overfunctional intellectual activities are well part of Aspberger's syndrome. As is a severe lack of spotlights. --{{User:Suresh/sig}} 04:55, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
I have not the time to look at it, but knowing Todd, it's either good, or he'll very shortly become obsessive about fixing it. Plus he can undelete. EITHER WAY YOU GUYS LOSE. --KATIE!! 10:18, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps it needs improving but it doesn't deserve deletion. Bloopy 10:33, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
I like this article. •Spang•☃•talk• 12:11, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
Some of it's bad, but most of it can be kept. ~ Ghelæ talkcontribs 16:04, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
Weak keep. Remove the blatantly offensive bits (e.g. "strategically directed flatulence") and perhaps the picture and I'm on board. —The preceding unsigned comment was added byAlksub (talk • contribs)
Keep, but rewrite. This has the elements of funny, but needs a catlyst to cause the humor reaction to occur. As it is right now, it's not nearly as funny as it is offensive.--<<>> 15:25, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
Delete
I realize that this is intentionally offensive, but the problem is that it is offensive and not funny at all. Most of the content do not really even make fun of Asperger's sydrome, but instead are descriptions of behaviors that have nothing to do at all with Asperger's syndrome. --Sir Xiao Li CUNVFHNS (Talk)[citation needed]
Agree. Definitely offensive. Smells like vanity though or maybe not.--Jtaylor1 03:31, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
As someone who has Asperger's, I believe it deserve a much better article than this. ~Cap'nSimzorzAr, Matey! 06:00, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
furthermore, there's intentially offensive and then there's just abusive, ignorant prejudice. This is the later. ~ Simulacrum Caputosis 06:03, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
As an organised anarchist for many years I learned to cherise the principle for anyone making suggestions of improvement: - Do it yourself , Dammit! BTW people who has adopted a diagnosis of any kind should automatically be challanged as biased on that subject. BTW2 Aspberger's on Uncyclopedia - Who hasn't? --{{User:Suresh/sig}} 08:12, 8 May 2006 (UTC) .
It would be better as "Spazmosis" or some such nonsense. Although I don't have Asperger's I still think that it's in poor taste to make fun of a disease. While jokes that are in poor taste can be funny, most of the time they are just, well, not (see Scary Movie 2 for a good example of bad taste/not funny. Or better yet, don't. Half of the "jokes" are about a paraplegic or a guy with a deformed hand.) My 2 cents...Modusoperandi 17:48, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
The fact that so many users get soft on this spot strenghtens my theory: Aspberger´s is a special Uncyclopedia trait in a similar way to Monte Carlos ability to attract hazard game addicts. --{{User:Suresh/sig}} 18:41, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
OK, but let's be equal across the field then and delete AIDS, Herpes, and every other article and subcategory of Category:Diseases. ~ T. (talk) 18:46, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
AIDS isn't funny and herpes is only funny until you get it; then the only job you can get is in a dipshit commercial with your embarassed g/f where you walk through a field and talk about how a pill controls your outbreaks. Or so I've heard. Modusoperandi 19:01, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
We're joking, right? Uncyclopedia is about humour but sometimes its hard enough to find something that makes you laugh out loud, like the Spielberg/Baldwin section in this article does. There are hundreds of articles that do not get anywhere near as funny as this. As it looks like we've voted to keep it can we just go and target the rubbish instead? -- Sir Mhaille (talk to me)
