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.
Hilarious. There's something to be said about having a parody of an unrespected cookie. --Fishonfire 21:20, 6 October 2006 (UTC) 21:14, 6 October, 2006 (UTC)
Delete
Kill. Short and randumb. Can't anyone make a decent gay joke article? --Onion 12:03, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
Delete: stubbier than a midget (and way less funny too). --Sirgwax (talk) 15:32, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
Stoopid. Would of been a keep if it just had a central topic and theme, instead it just wonders around aimlessly like a baby lost in a forrest...of razor blades. --Anyone 16:33, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
This is ED quality shit. Delete it. --Hotadmin4u69[TALK] 01:28, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
It's either a racist page or a blunt satire, depending on the reader. I see it as the latter. I should also point out that I used the sand-"n"word (unbowdlerized) in the worst way in a featured article filled with bad words used in bad ways, and there was barely a peep about it...--SirModusoperandiBoinc! 18:05, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
Keep. After much deliberation (much = 2 minutes), I've realized the article's intention is just to be funny, which it sort of accomplishes. --Anyone 13:04, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
Rewrite Maybe it can be rewritten to not be racist or religion bigoted? --Off DesOrion Blastar (talk) 03:00, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
Keep - I'm one of the ones who can see the humour in this. -- Sir Mhaille (talk to me) 15:15, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
Delete
This article is very racist, and I believe that it crossed the line. It was based on a racial slur (which I WON'T repeat here) which somebody made on IRC. For a more detailed objection see it's talk page.--jsonitsactalk to mecrimes against humanity17:09, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
I am sorely tempted to just nuke it. —Major Sir Hinoa(Plead)(KUN) (20:11, 4 October 2006 (UTC))
Delete. See below. --Hhamdy283 21:49, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
*Destroy. Normally I like racist humor, but this isn't even humor. It's just racism. —Oblivion - Fire - Sex [O|F|S]MUNCMNSF@H (drivel) 02:59, 5 October 2006 (UTC) Vote withdrawn changed. See comments below.
Delete: Racist or not, it's still not funny. --Sirgwax (talk) 15:27, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
Utter Crap -If the pile of shit on the article page wasn't enough, Diz sealed its fate with his assholery on the talk page. SirFamine,Gun♣Petition»22:13, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
Comments
I dunno...it's racist for sure, but I think with a little work it could be racist AND funny, and at the end of the day, isn't that what christmas is all about? So maybe no deletion...yet. --Anyone 17:56, 4 October 2006 (UTC)|
You know, I'm just plain tired of this...Let me take the time right here to say: I'm sorry if I offended any one with this article, but frankly, you need to lighten up and learn to take a joke. I wasn't trying to be racist, just to write a funny article. If you think it sucks or could at least be funnier, by all means, go right ahead and fix it up, do whatever you want (as long as the joke still remains). And since when did Uncyclopedia get so PC? We're about the humo(u)r, not this "sensitivity" and "civility" bullshit. It's a joke, that's all--everyone knows that that stereotype doesn't represent the majority of Arabs, and if you want offensive and insulting, read some of the articles about Christianity at Uncyc. This article deserves to stay, especially considering there are waaaay more offensive and way less funnier articles out there. --SeñorDiZtheGreatCUNAOTM( Worship me!)(Praise me!)(Join me!)AMEN! 19:59, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
DiZ, it doesn't matter if you were TRYING to be racist, it is racist. Minstrel shows are also jokes about black people, but do you see any articles based on that? You're right, there are some articles which do make some racist jokes, but the fact is, you created an article based on a racial slur and used patently racist terms to describe Arabs. Don't drag out the old "PC," "sensitivity," and "civility" arguments, there's nothing there. You're right in the sense that good humor should have barbs to it, but there comes a point where you can leave good taste behind, where it turns from humor to plain old racism. To be fair, this is in the eye of the beholder, so that is why I put this on VFD, in order to see what the community thinks of it. --jsonitsactalk to mecrimes against humanity20:32, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
If the community doesn't like the article, I can't fight it. But let me just say, this is Uncyclopedia, and humor comes in many forms, including ethnic jokes. And there is a difference between minstrel shows--who deliberately made fun of blacks in a harmful and racist manner--and this article, whose purpose is not to garner laughter at Arabs' expense, but rather to poke fun at stupid people's perceptions of them through wordplay. The last line of the article proves just where the humor is directed. One more thing: a work such as this is only as racist as its writer. If I had gone to that page with the idea that all Muslims really are terrorists and what-not, I'd have written a much different and seriously insulting article worthy of a huff, but the fact is: it's not racist, however much you want it to be. If this article truly offends you, you need to take a chill pill; if you're jsut doing this because you feel you or someone else "has to", then stop, because it's seriously unnecessary. --SeñorDiZtheGreatCUNAOTM( Worship me!)(Praise me!)(Join me!)AMEN! 21:00, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
This article is racist. That's obvious. It is more than likely that this article was written by someone that does not particularly like Arabs, or someone that isn't the smartest, or someone that is both. However, there are people that enjoy this form of humo(u)r, and we have to respect that, even if we don't like it. There is a page on here called Holocaust Tycoon. It's just as offensive as this is, however, it's funny. I don't think that this article should be deleted because it is racist, but because it sucks. --Hhamdy283 21:49, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
If you think the article is not funny, that's fine, even I agree it's not one of my best works. But your observation that I'm either stupid or prejudice towards Arabs (which is stupid in itself) is based on the recurring idea that you have to be racist to write a racist article. Untrue. I know all the stereotypes, I know that lots of people think Arabs are terrorists, blacks are thugs, Asians can't drive, et cetera, et cetera. But just because I acknowledge the existence of these common stereotypes doesn't mean I give them any credit or believe them at all, because I don't; it's just a joke. That's what some people can't seem to grasp. Vote for humor content if you have to, not on the basis of racism. --SeñorDiZtheGreatCUNAOTM( Worship me!)(Praise me!)(Join me!)AMEN! 17:52, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
I don't think it should be deleted just because it's blatantly racist, I mean fuck, look at Niggers. It's racist as hell AND it's one of the best articles on the site, BUT it's brilliant, brilliant satire on the hypocrisy of using Native Americans as sports mascots but not blacks. I mean really, compare the Niggers logo to the Cleveland Indians actual logo. Is the Niggers logo any more racist? Not the slightest bit. It's just an unacceptable form of racism. That's satire. This article however doesn't seem to make an actual point about sand nippers. I wasn't actually going to vote delete at first, because honestly, it did have some cheap laughs, but as I read on, I actually felt like this was something an overt racist would write. I'm not accusing Diz of being racist, I'm just saying it doesn't rise above the level, in terms of humor, of what a blatant racist would write. I don't think Uncyc should just be a repository of obvious racist jokes that everyone has heard before. I mean honestly, Muslims kill people and drive Taxis? It's been done before. I don't think Diz is actually that bad of a writer, I just don't think he thinks his ideas through enough. Articles should be more than just a bunch of jokes pasted together, ideally. --SirENeGMA(talk)GUNWotMPLS 02:01, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
Comment: DiZ, while I don't like this article, I am not willing to vote for its deletion based solely on claims of racism. If we can feature an article on the "Birmingham Niggers" and not bat an eye at Black People or United Negro Porn Fund, then crying racism simply because anti-Arab racism is a hot issue right now is ridiculous. Sure, it's a racist article. So is the Niggers article. Even White People is racist. We have lots of offensive articles but we're not deleting them all. Fag is based on prejudice, sure, but it's funny in a stupid kinda way. I'm not saying everyone should vote to keep this article, but think about it for a minute. If you're saying the only reason it should be deleted is because it's racist, then what you're really saying is that racism is okay in some cases but not in others. —Oblivion - Fire - Sex [O|F|S]MUNCMNSF@H (drivel) 03:07, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
Addendum the Second: I am changing my vote to keep. I reread DiZ's explanation and I better appreciate the intent of this article. —Oblivion - Fire - Sex [O|F|S]MUNCMNSF@H (drivel) 03:11, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
Some further clarification. The article doesn't offend me. Nothing like this could possibly offend me. It's just not an article that I think does the idea any service. A bunch of racist jokes CAN be funny, when done properly. But an article that's basically a litany of them isn't the correct treatment. But what do I know. --SirENeGMA(talk)GUNWotMPLS 03:14, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
Admittedly Diz released it too soon, but there's the spark of something there. With more time it could be two sparks of something. Maybe three. If it's killed please put a copy under his userpage, so that he can work himself into a lather trying to coax the spark into something more.--SirModusoperandiBoinc! 03:48, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
It's not awful. It kind of reminds me of way back when. Sad, yes. Crap, not so much.--SirModusoperandiBoinc! 01:26, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
It needs content, not death. --Onion 02:35, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
Keep *Summons Nyarlathotep* --SwamiA. Suresh 05:05, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
Needs more, but that penis for eyes part merits keeping imo. --Anyone 18:01, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
Not great but needs a lot more. No mention of Lovecraft, silly monster names etc? The first para joke about it being a mating call is quite good.Pewpewpew 01:27, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
Delete: As it stands, it needs more work to make it good than is likely to just randomly happen. If one of you wants to go fix it, go for it but until then I'm voting against it. --Sirgwax (talk) 15:29, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
Delete: Wow, ignorant and crappy, we've set a new high. --Sirgwax (talk) 19:44, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Explode. This is a pile of crap. --Onion 21:31, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Bah! It's tough to make a subject like this funny. This proves it. That I have redneck relatives that use this term doesn't help...--SirModusoperandiBoinc! 22:18, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Wtf? I thought I deleted this? Ohhh.. I deleted Towel head. I'll let people "vote" for another day and then make it 2 for 2. SirFamine,Gun♣Petition»23:14, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
A splode. While the "easily-husked ducks" and "coin-operated Church of Elvis" jokes are amusing, the article overall is crap. —Oblivion - Fire - Sex [O|F|S]MUNCMNSF@H (drivel) 00:31, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
Ambivalent: I would hate to see a plague of "Bizarro New York" and "Bizarro London" articles...this is not a meme that I would like to see take root. But the article per se is not a bad or evil idea, though woefully underdeveloped.----OEJ 00:58, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
Keep. Dammit, it's got grate potential. It just needs development. Hell, formatting would help a lot. With apologies to David G. I will tweak it slightly -- he can always revert.----OEJ 01:02, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
Keep. The last line alone redeems it. —Major Sir Hinoa(Plead)(KUN) (20:13, 4 October 2006 (UTC))
Delete
Slay. Found it through ACLU. Not funny. --Onion 15:55, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Meh Not funny, but it didnt have much to work with. --Anyone 18:07, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
Delete. End it. --Hhamdy283 00:11, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
Comments
Bah. It was a happy little rant and entirely true. *sob* Please userfy if dictated to suck. I'll see if anything else can be done with it - David Gerard 11:57, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
cmon. It's not like it's some random bullshit. The author had a purpose and stuck to the concept in a mildly funny manner. That deserves to stay. --Anyone 18:11, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
Keep, I think its funny. TZM 18:22, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
Keep. Mmmmm...stub....--Hhamdy283 00:08, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
Keep. Not brilliant yet, but promising. Tode 10:49, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
Delete, but first I want to learn the secrets of fish mining. --SonicChaoBabbel!Contribs 05:14, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Delete. 12:27, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Iyhh. Concept = good, writing up = bad. ~ Ghelæ talkcontribs 15:06, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Delete: The article is not well written and is not worth keeping. --Sirgwax (talk) 19:36, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Delete. I'm guessing a militant Linux user wrote this. --Onion 21:31, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Comments
To those of you claiming that the article should be saved because the image makes it worth saving, I say no. One amusing image does not a good article make; if you like the image, save the image, don't demand that we keep a crappy article around to justify one mediocre image (that's why we have VFP). --Sirgwax (talk) 19:36, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Just one thing - a {{WIP}} template has been placed in the article and it has still got like 6 days until it expires. So, why don't we just wait and see if Shadeix can fix it? -- The Colonel(talk) 10:04, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
"You know what? You suck Colonel." Reads like it was written by Racter. Alksub 07:22, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Delete. I couldn't read it all the way through. It didn't make a lick of sense. 12:34, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Delete: Strikes me as nonsensical crap that doesn't deserve to stick around. --Sirgwax (talk) 14:17, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Burninate. It reads like it was written by a retarded crackhead with only two fingers, both of which are broken. —Oblivion - Fire - Sex [O|F|S]MUNCMNSF@H (drivel) 14:38, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Delete. If that's experimental prose, the experiment has failed.----OEJ 00:49, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
DESTROY --Micoolio101 04:10, 4 October 2006 (UTC)Micoolio101
Comments
Illegally NRVed, but it looks like this should probably go anyway, unless someone gets a joke I am not seeing. ---Rev. Isra(talk) 20:31, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
VFD's for images, too? Well, hell, then, delete. --CaptainSpamMUNPUTPBAA 04:28, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
My sock puppet doesn't approve of copyright infringement, do you buttons? No! OK, then Delete. Alksub 07:18, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Delete 12:30, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Comments
Images should be deleted through Uncyclopedia:Pages for deletion/unusedimages but I've nuked this one for now anyway. This does, of course, mean that we don't delete images unless they're unused. --Sirgwax (talk) 14:26, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
The above article is little more than a vessel for racist slander. I'm surprised its author had the good sense not to call it "Niggas" or something. Not surprisingly, however, that was all the good sense to be found: according to the article, "Nigerians" are lazy, lazy and lazy people who do nothing but rob and scam. A nrv tag was placed on the page in June, but was removed by the author. Suggest speedy deletion followed by the author's execution. --Medvedev(scream) 20:48, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
Delete The article has not been written to since June 2006, a NRV tag was placed by an Admin, but removed by author. This one slipped past quality control and missed the Forrest Fire week. It is racist and offensive, with little to no redeming value. It fits the requirements for a VFD. Unless someone wants to take a shot at rewriting it into something funny, it must face natural selection. --2nd_LtOrion Blastar (talk) 21:59, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
Delete. We discussed this on Forum:Gordonk which is also being vandalized. Not only it is not funny, it is being used to harass people and is part of some Photoshop contest. --2nd_LtOrion Blastar (talk) 18:43, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
Reads like it's been written by a 12-year-old. --Onion 21:12, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
There's a vote for keep, so I'll let somebody else dispose of the thing. --Spin 22:25, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
Comments
I hate it and it disgusts me. Unfortunately the article's technically OK (headings, illustration, see-also, categorized, wikilinks). There's other articles with content I dislike. Hmmm. Guess I have to abstain, huh?----OEJ 16:36, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
It's a list -- Hindleyite 18:33, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
Comments
This thing needs a major rewrite. Bad. But I'm too lazy/busy/don't know enough about SSBB yet to write a good one. Crazyswordsman...With SAVINGS!!!! (T/C) 09:09, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
Please huff it and direct the creator to Myspace. -- Hindleyite 20:47, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
Pointless, the endless NRV tag is a good idea though. Mr. Briggs Inc. 21:35, 30 September 2006 (UTC) Eh?
Delete. The original was short and probably would not survive a VFD vote in its original form; the vandalization only made a non-notable article completely useless.----OEJ 00:14, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
Sigh, I made this to show how fucktarded the OIFY is, And It appears that has been Vandalised to hell by OIfyers. Great. --Drone Fragger 23:25, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
Are you mad??!! Keep by all means... or add more jokes. FYI I am Robert Paulsen and I just happened to ENJOY hearing my name over and over and over. Mr. Briggs Inc. 09:29, 30 September 2006 (UTC) Eh?
The world needs more references that people should get, but don't.--SirModusoperandiBoinc! 19:16, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
Delete
Slay. If this is a joke, I don't get it. Possible vanity. --Onion 03:16, 30 September 2006 (UTC) (Edit: forgot time stamp.)
Delete Obviously vanity unless this person is famous for something. --2nd_LtOrion Blastar (talk) 03:47, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
Okay, maybe not, this really is just a pointless AAAAA! clone about some stupid critic on some stupid site. Mr. Briggs Inc. 09:29, 30 September 2006 (UTC) Is not Robert Paulsen Is not Robert Paulsen Is not Robert Paulsen.
I am not saying keep the article, but seriously, has no one here seen the movie Fight Club?---Rev. Isra(talk) 18:39, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
I don't get it, but if it actually has to do with something keep.
This should have been huffed on sight -- Hindleyite 12:05, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
He will be remembered without the article. I promise. 09:08, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
Comments
The first rule of Fight Club is don't make pages that are just allusions to Fight Club.
The second rule of Fight Club is don't make pages that are just allusions to Fight Club.---Rev. Isra(talk) 06:19, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
As it stands, the article sucks. Since it's apparently a legitimate reference, maybe someone can build it around a real article. --Onion 23:19, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
Delete: This looks like plagiarism and if it's not, then it's unacceptable content for the topic and should be nuked anyway. --Sirgwax (talk) 02:53, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
Delete I'm secretly Shiva the Destroyer, this is a copy/paste of a news article from India. --2nd_LtOrion Blastar (talk) 03:49, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
Crush it -- Hindleyite 12:03, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
Pnueke: The 'p' and all the 'e's are silent. Also, the article is pointless drivel. --Sirgwax (talk) 02:49, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
Delete Ain't funny McGee! Most articles based on emotioncons aren't funny in general anyway. AOL-Humor is an oxymoron. --2nd_LtOrion Blastar (talk) 03:46, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
It needs a rewrite if anything. But an article like this shouldn't go down the tube. Crazyswordsman...With SAVINGS!!!! (T/C) 09:08, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
Redo 09:16, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
Delete
I tried copyediting it, but there was just no hope. Please God delete this shit. --SirENeGMA(talk)GUNWotMPLS 15:48, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
Delete This article sucks more cocks than Andy Dick at the Interstate Rest Stop Men's Bathroom at 3am in the morning. It is an embarrassing attempt at humor by some liberals with an even worse sense of humor than David Letterman, Al Gore, and Colin Quinn all rolled into one! Someone go find some actual funny liberals to write a better one than this. --2nd_LtOrion Blastar (talk)
Comments
Do this: Compare the version before my edit to the last version by Chronarion. That should give you an idea of why I think this should be deleted. --SirENeGMA(talk)GUNWotMPLS 19:53, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
Deleted: I'm a Masshole, proud of it and totally shamed by how lame this article was; thus it has been done in by me. --Sirgwax (talk) 10:49, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
The combining of Sadako Sasaki and Sadako Yamamura has som potential, but it is poorly executed. Someone (by which I mean someone who has actually seen that movie) should do a rewrite, but this version is probably killable. ---Rev. Isra(talk) 20:47, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
Delete: Page after miserable, thesis paper-like page of some braindead otaku making a straightfaced, desperate plea for someone to care about his religion delusions. And it becomes a list article on the bottom. Kill it! Kill it! --CaptainSpamMUNPUTPBAA 02:25, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
Asplode. I agree with Capt. Spam on this one. It seems to be the desperate pleading of a delusional wackjob for someone to care or acknowledge his useless fanaticism as a legitimate use of one's time. —Oblivion - Fire - Sex [O|F|S]MUNCMNSF@H (drivel) 12:58, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
Comments
Comment: To be honest, I was looking for a way to rewrite this in a way that made the hurting stop. Couldn't find any; I mean, mixing otherkin with otaku fanatacism? The topic mocks itself. --CaptainSpamMUNPUTPBAA 02:25, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
I dunno, Cap S. There seems to be an attempt at satiric inversion ("Otakukin should not be confused with Otherkin, who are simply sad, deranged basement dwelling individuals...") which reverses the true situation (Otherkin consider Otakukin to be posers). I'm without inspiration for an original ardickle right now, lemme see if I can wright something funny on this one. [[Addition, later] Never mind. Too ill to write anything. Count me out after all. ----OEJ 17:55, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
It looks to me like there's a bit of humor and a bit of potential there but also a lot of crap and poor phrasing. Perhaps if the article were to be stripped of a lot of material, all the colloquial phrasings and some of the other junk, it might be more worthwhile. --Sirgwax (talk) 10:45, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
Demolish. It's basically sporked from Wikipedia with a few words and phrases changed and a retarded list added at the bottom. —Oblivion - Fire - Sex [O|F|S]MUNCMNSF@H (drivel) 22:53, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
Delete - How dare we allow this kind of shit to pass for so long?! --Hotadmin4u69[TALK] 00:27, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
Die. Stupid beyond repair. --Onion 17:40, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
Looks like vantytatytatytatytatytatytatytatytar:Isra1337/sig}} 06:05, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
Agreed. Plus there are way too many external links (I stop counting at 30. 30!). Pushing Uncyc on their blog I'm all for; the other way around, not so much.--SirModusoperandiBoinc! 06:36, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
That there are almost no proper wikilinks (internal or interwiki) angers me greatly and the topic seems to be one of a vanity sort so I'm going to have to go and vote for the nuking of this here article. --Sirgwax (talk) 10:57, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
What a brilliant article on... urrr... mmmm.... You know! -- The Colonel(talk) 11:49, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
That's a lot of url extension. Could have atleast used the <span class="plainlinks"></span> to get rid of all those little arrows. 11:53, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
This article could potentially send a lot of people away from us. In more ways than one. Silence it. -- Imrealized...hmm? 20:04, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
Monty Python's Flying Circus!Smashy.User:Hinoa4/sigVFD 03:33, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Throw the Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch at it. --Hhamdy283 03:35, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
It's going to the trash. --Sbluen 03:38, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
'ello, miss? I wish to complain about this parrot article what I purchased not 'alf an hour ago from this very boutique. —Oblivion - Fire - Sex [O|F|S]MUNCMNSF@H (drivel) 12:55, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
What is the standard procedure for highlighting school cruft vanity crap? Oh well, I'll just put it here. --BrigadierGeneralSirZombiebaron 01:16, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
Keenan Who?I doubt Codiene's mum has heard of you.--Wit (tawk) 01:18, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
First line, Kanye West...and it, surprisingly, only goes downhill from there.--SirModusoperandiBoinc! 12:52, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
We shall fight them in the hills! We shall fight them on the beaches! We shall destroy their vanity! --SirENeGMA(talk)GUNWotMPLS 13:00, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
Delete. This is almost as bad as the paper I am currently writing on De Studiis et Literis --Hhamdy283 03:33, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
Comments
While we're all here, isn't the new policy no 'acceptable' vanity at all, period, per Codeine's Mom? ZB just tagged it {{vanity}} in case it gets voted keep, but I thought no vanity was allowed to stay, period, according to UN:VAIN? I've just been using the {{vanity2}} for vanity, to NRV it. Is that correct? --SirENeGMA(talk)GUNWotMPLS 14:59, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
Have we adopted that policy? I thought it was just up for voting and someone had rewritten the vanity pages information page. Nobody told me, so I guess I'll just keep doing things the way I do until I come into contention with someone on the matter. --Sirgwax (talk) 16:07, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
Keep. Many, many people have worked on this article and its history goes back to 20:43, 6 January 2005 Chronarion. It is a substantive article on a notable person. Anyone can sneak an NRV tag onto almost any article; often an NRV is appropriate and sometimes it is merely the expression of a cranky uber-conservative nitwit who worships Ann Coulter's legs and wants to see the article huffed. Evaluate the article and its history. Don't just rely on someone else's tags.----OEJ 01:39, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
This is not me putting my name behind a deletion, just merely me correcting a mistake by a noob. I however didn't want to forge the noob's (forget his username) signature though, so I used my own. --BrigadierGeneralSirZombiebaron 01:43, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
I also just now put my comment in the comment box, since that apparantly where it goes :D. --BrigadierGeneralSirZombiebaron 01:44, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
You all who accused me of being a conservative are just so darned intelligent for being able to figure that out by the act of me making a mistake on the Ann Coulter article. Your own conservatism shows in your narrow-mindedness; your belief that if someone marks such an article in a negative manner, he must be a conservative. Zombibaron corrected my error, reminding me to read the rules, and I did not dispute nor revert the change to the VFD tag. When I mark articles, I expect and hope that there will be follow-up, as in a Democratic process. I personally don't care if it get's removed or stays, as long as it's what the majority desires. For my "conservative" views, you can check two of the four UnNews articles I submitted regarding UnNews:President Bush Outraged at E. Coli, Promises Revenge and UnNews:NSA may be wagging the dog with new spying policies. By checking the Sources and history, you'll see I submitted those articles from Mental Dimensions, a site on which there is a recent post I wrote, titled, "Commentary: Proof of President George Bush's Deceit." So... sorry I didn't read the rules thoroughly before putting the NRV tag on that Coulter article. I'll probably go to conserative Hell for my sins. GravityIsForSuckers 02:36, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
DIS-QUA-LI-FY. This article in no way qualifies for an NRV tag anyway, due to its lengthy history, substantive content, and age. The plaecment of the template is therefore invalid, and like OEJ said, most likely the lashing out of some partisan fuckwit. The ignorance of said party (who, BTW, will most likely never weigh in here) is not cause enough to post this article on VFD, especially if the poster does not agree that it is delete worthy. I move to strike this nomination post-haste, unless someone lobbies for its deletion. --The King In Yellow (Talk to the Dalek.) 12:33, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
It's confusing, random, poorly written and many other things too, but without this page many lefty wackos would have nothing to kvetch about (because, if there's one thing right wing nutbars do, it's bring out the other crazies).--SirModusoperandiBoinc! 12:50, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
"confusing?" "random?" "poorly written?" lol. We're trying focusing on the article here, not Ann's shitty books. Lighten up. Ann represents the Jeffrey Dahmer of politics. She in no way is is the voice of a real conservative point of view. That's just crap. --Lamrock 02:28, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
Can you feel that? It feels like I'm pulling your leg. Odd, that.--SirModusoperandiBoinc! 05:04, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
KEEP. If this article is deleted, the terrists win. --Curious Larry 12:32, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
Keep. It needs work, but it's still a great article. The pics associated with it are also great. Crazyswordsman...With SAVINGS!!!! (T/C) 21:02, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
Keep - this article is funny and quite well put together. Lets concentrate on deleting the crap. -- Sir Mhaille (talk to me) 21:42, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
Delete
Comments
I found it whith an NRV a couple of minutes ago, so I changed it to a VFD, and then put this here. --BrigadierGeneralSirZombiebaron 00:52, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
I are confused, ZB. I thoughted you voted BALEETE, and then I fell off my chair and spilled my drink and got all......confused. Sorry.----OEJ 01:47, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
I didn't, I merely helped out a confused noob, who didn't know how to use NRV. *sigh* --BrigadierGeneralSirZombiebaron 02:05, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
Based on votes, this article should be kept. I can't find a vfd tag so it's either been removed already or I'm blind; if the latter someone else should remove it and it anyone gives you guff for removing a vfd tag, tell them I said you could. --Sirgwax (talk) 15:57, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
Now, see, if that person had NRV'd Ann Coulter herself, I'd nominate him/her for admin. ^_^ —CorrespondentHin Arash, PRAA[TALK][KUN](20:50, 26 September 2006 (UTC))
I agree with Hinoa. -- Sir CHolla | CUN 05:06, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
I wrote the article, so this will be biased. It was a work of satire, and I was quite proud of how I managed to fit in Noel Gallagher and a few other articles. And I managed to keep pretty good grammar standards through the article. Petie 02:03, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
Keep It needs work and probably a better illustration, but is there a vendetta against comic pages this month?
Delete
Delete: In taking a quick survey of a few webcomics I came across this poor excuse for a proper article and thought that I'd put it up here for validation/refutation of my article judging skills. --Sirgwax (talk) 14:48, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
Delete. It is almost the exact same thing as Template:Bomb except for one word and not used on any articles. --Kzrgyzstan 02:28, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
Comments
As Kzrgystan notes, this is near identical to Template:Bomb, which in combination with the fact that nothing uses it, justifies immediate deletion. --Sirgwax (talk) 14:21, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
Keep -- but I would be expected to say this. I now see I wouldn't be the first author to vote to keep his or her own article. --Strangelv 18:23, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
Delete
Kill. Stupid, possibly vanity. -- Sir CHolla | CUN 23:58, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
Could I possibly get better feedback than 'sucks' or 'stupid'? 'Incoherent' (a standard that would eliminate almost all of Uncyclopedia) is arguably not accurate, but if it seems that way it at least gives me something to think of when I try to work out how to possibly restructure the article and definitely rework or replace the summary I'm not happy with. Actually, that IS useful feedback. It's precisely what this article isn't supposed to be.
My main concern has been that while other fans of the comic find the article to be hilarious (and no, I am not the author of AWFW, although I did turn a rather lame and mindless plug for Chiropractic Medicine into a real article), I've been having trouble figuring out how to make it funnier for people not familiar with the series, which has run for over five years, even if it doesn't have the reader base of say, Sluggy Freelance. In the early marketing for the series, the tagline was along the lines of 'Is she really an angel'? I've taken the editorial viewpoint for this article of 'Hell No!', one strongly at odds with the viewpoint of the source material.
One thing I have NOT done is throw into this article a lot of overused stock gags that dominate most of this place (especially bad fake quotes -- most of the quotes in the series quote section are word-for word or very close, heightening the humor, at least for people who have read the series -- Oscar Wilde is nowhere to be seen as he is not a character and I'm sick of fake Oscar Wilde quotes).
I have tried to make this article a properly encyclopedic humor article and one of the better examples in Uncyclopedia. I have also hoped that enough people can get the Dysfunctional Family Circus reference (even if its heyday was in earlier decades).
-- Strangelv 13:06, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
I read your article and then read wikipedia's article in the hopes of getting enough information to help me have a sufficient background. Having done that, let me put forth the some suggestions and consolations. Firstly, without impling that it's the case, consider the possibility that the topic just isn't a good basis for an article. As more evidence, and to contest the matter of your particular comic taste mattering at all, there currently does not exist an article for Sluggy Freelance, Penny-Arcade and many other major comics do not have articles. Beyond that, in reading the wikipedia article on the topic, I found it to be a dry, uninteresting article that read like a webcomic cast page; in reading your uncyclopedia article, I found it to be a dry, uninteresting article that read like a webcomic cast page with the injection of hallucinatory references and totally random statements (ie. libel suit for taking the time away from disassembling a food processor and a Cisco server). I'm sorry if I'm being a little bit blunt here but that's my modus operandi. As a further thought on the matter, consider Calvin and Hobbes; the article creates comedy on multiple levels by juxtaposing elements of the comic with historical theology and philosophy; one need not understand both sides to get the joke and the article as a whole stays primarily on a narrow set of topics with fairly narrow deviation and nearly no seemingly random insertions. --Sirgwax (talk) 14:44, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
Sir Major Gwax, you should be promoted to Major-General for that response. I think it is spot on the mark. ----OEJ 01:28, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for your feedback. This is far more useful than what I've gotten so far. I actually have a better idea now for reworking the article, but it's not going to be something I can get have ready in the next few hours or even, probably, days. --Strangelv 18:23, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
If it's deleted before you get a chance to rewrite it, just create a new article; make sure, however, that you don't repost what gets deleted or someone may respond negatively. If it isn't deleted before you rewrite it then more power to you. --Sirgwax (talk) 18:36, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
Emo Crap. Yes, I did make an image for this as an Image request. And today as I was watching recent changes, I noticed an edit to it. So, I looked at what had become of this article. It was crap! And my image was gone! so I added my image, and am now seeing if y'all agree or not. --BrigadierGeneralSirZombiebaron 22:59, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
QVFD Why are we even discussing this? I thought self-removal of NRV without change in content is an immediate clause for QVFD? --Quira 18:00, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
Votes above this line unfounded (see comments)
If it's slandanity, delete, if not....probably still delete. I've never heard of the guy. --SirENeGMA(talk)GUNWotMPLS 18:04, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
EX-TER-MI-NATE. I'll start taking Bollywood seriously when it finally loses the penchant for inserting pop music videos into epic movies. --The King In Yellow (Talk to the Dalek.) 12:42, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
Comments
Well, I think it sucks but we at least need to hear from someone who's actually heard of this guy. Seems to be a reputable Bollywood actor. Failing that, delete it. -- Hindleyite 18:03, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
I address all issues here by matters of ethics, precedent and fact:
This is not vanity/slandanity/non-noteworthy, this individual can be found on wikipedia under the article Himesh Reshammiya; one should generally use as a quick check, whether the individual can be easily found on wikipedia.
Self-removal of a NRV isn't (or at least shouldn't be) automatic QVFD, however it certainly does/should warrant a short term ban of the perpetrator.
Beyond this, the claim that the article is lame is a perfectly valid delete justification.
Thus gwax spake and interpretted the law of the land. --Sirgwax (talk) 14:14, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
Deleted: good, I didn't think it deserved to be here and now I've had the proper justification, in the form of your votes, to act on my beliefs. --Sirgwax (talk) 15:50, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
Keep -- This article was submitted to VFD a while ago, and the vote was to keep; besides, this article is excellent. --Hotadmin4u69[TALK] 22:14, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
I don't get what's so funny about it. Here's a sample form it: "Pie Trees: Grows various types of pies. Most of them are fine to eat, but the blueberry kind transforms people into muppets."--Mister Nosey 23:21, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
Keep. I found the picture funny too.--Wit (tawk) 03:08, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
Keep. This article is hilarious, but it is WAY too long. The camper part onwards needs shortening. If not, the article needs deadening. --Hhamdy283 04:15, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
Delete
Delete - It's just a big list of a bunch of random crap that isn't funny. I'm surprized it's survived this long.--Mister Nosey 21:53, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
Delete - I was banned for making VFD going just half as long as this page. ~ Ghelæ talkcontribs 06:32, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
Delete. It really needs to go, it belongs on ED. I wish I'd never made that picture for it. 13:54, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
Every other time this has appeared on VFD (and it's been up more than a couple of times,) I've voted to EX-TER-MI-NATE this... "article." This time's no different. --The King In Yellow (Talk to the Dalek.) 18:25, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
Delete- Article speaks for itself. --Lamrock 02:32, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
Comments
I do plan on trying to rewrite this, see talk page of this article.--Wit (tawk) 03:08, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
As a general rule of thumb, intentions to rewrite in the future are not worth the paper they are printed on. It should further be noted that web pages tend not to printed on paper. --Sirgwax (talk) 15:55, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
You've done a swell job in confusing me. But not a complete rewrite Gwax, I do plan on taking the humorous bit out. But alas, some just like Camp Fuck You Die the way it is.--Wit (tawk) 01:17, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
My point was that just because you say you're going to rewrite it in the future doesn't mean that it's worth saving now. --Sirgwax (talk) 15:47, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
But I want to use some content from this article, I'm afraid that if it's deleted, I can't get that content.--Wit (tawk) 21:36, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
Delete: The badly-spelled, desperate FYI section just makes this list article come alive. In a Night of the Living Dead sort of way, but not as fun. --CaptainSpamMUNPUTPBAA 02:30, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
It has redeeming quality...like words...and pictures...more then some. Its been around forever...thats good. --BrigadierGeneralSirZombiebaron 16:25, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
Delete
Delete. An obvious cut and paste from Wikipedia. It's also got some copied and pasted stuff from some article on killing birds. Text includes: "did you know...
...that I'm moist?
...that AAAAAA Aaaa aa aaaaaaaaaa aaa!" and racist jokes. How long has this been there? Ugh. Oh yeah, I couldn't add the template because some joker protected the page. Huff instantly.--Gubby 16:17, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
Delete This is a non-satirical article, probably an early version of Wikipedia's cancer staging article. Except for my ill-advised attempts at revision it had only one author and one version. ----OEJ 15:54, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
