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:Votes for deletion.
Keep Annoying, but that's kind of the point.--Abc 18:01, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Keep What the hell is wrong with you people? Get some better computers if your collective panties are in a wad! It needs a better punchline though maybe. Mr. Briggs Inc. 20:29, 5 April 2007 (UTC) Eh?
Gasp! Strong Keep! One of the meta-humour pages, so not everyone's going to like it, but some of us are great fans of things like this. -- (but) UntrueWhhhy?Whut?How?*Back from the dead* 21:30, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
KeepWhy delete it? The article is a good idea in my opinion Randomator 21:53, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
It's meta. Which is what the hip kids call cool, nowadays. --SirModusoperandiBoinc! 02:16, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Keep Though metahumour is kind of wearing thin.Rogpyvbc 03:52, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Keep There's nothing wrong with it, per say. Sir Judgement F@H UmP VFH {talk} 05:16, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Nom & Beleat. The only POSSIBLE use I see for an annoying page such as this is trolling. I put it to the voters rather than deleting it outright.--<<>> 14:57, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Delete In Physics, GUT stands for Grand Unified Theory. This is neither Grand, nor Unified (although I guess it is a theory). -- (but) UntrueWhhhy?Whut?How?*Back from the dead* 21:49, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Execute - Yup, the Capercorn Trials continue. This is a bad article, short, and stupid and has way too much German. Capercorn 23:37, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
nazijokes=instahuff. I'm sick of this shit --» >UF|TLK|▋» 01:02, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Raze to the Ground - It's just not funny. --Sir Judgement F@H UmP VFH {talk} 05:14, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Delete- What a load of rubbish! Randomator 07:44, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Kinda stupid, but Keep anyway. SirCs1987UOTM.t.c 08:53, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Keep - Maybe it's because I am Evil, but this is funny. Capercorn 15:45, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Keep It is actually funny. TheLemonofIchabod is a sockpuppet of someone who didn't like the article and vandalized it and got banned. --Lt.SirOrion Blastar (talk) 15:58, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
While it's meh, it's meh on the side of good; like dressing for a meh salad. --SirModusoperandiBoinc! 16:14, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Delete
Nom and Delete Shitty satire and no hope for adding substance. TheLemonOfIchabod 06:25, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Keep this is Uncyclopedia, not Wikipedia.SteveSims 21:40, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Delete
Delete as per comments. ----OEJ 02:15, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Delete - hmm, I wonder if deleted articles count towards the 15... SirCs1987UOTM.t.c 02:19, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
--Uh-oh, I dint count. ----OEJ 02:33, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Delete to save the author from wasting huge amounts of time. Also Delete other pages and the two templates. -- (but) UntrueWhhhy?Whut?How?*Back from the dead* 09:36, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Delete
Schoolcruft --GeneralInsineratehymn 00:35, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Comments
This article is the "home" article of what appears to be a recently initiated set of articles on an Illinois highschool. Currently it appears the author plans 8 articles in the series, and has started on 3 (counting the main article). They are properly tagged as under construction; the question is, does the community wish to allow these articles to go forward? (As far as I am concerned, 'tis vanity and God knows we don't need to establish a precedent of allowing in-depth articles on kids' local highschools.) ----OEJ 02:14, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
It always bothers me that there's no official way to say to somebody "look, this article is unlikely to ever be funny, so please don't waste days and days on it unless you know something we don't." Technically I guess we shouldn't have this on here yet but I get your point. Perhaps a reminder of our vanity policies on User:MackMan's talk page would be good? -- (but) UntrueWhhhy?Whut?How?*Back from the dead* 12:46, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Delete When it was young, this article went on a magical journey. (Paragraph of waffle.) Then it came home and was still crap. The End. -- (but) UntrueWhhhy?Whut?How?*Back from the dead* 00:17, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Part of this appears to be plagiarized. Two of the paragraphs appear verbatim here. The rest of it is in no way parodic, satirical, or comedic. It reads like a report someone wrote for school. ----OEJ 03:35, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Delete - Hopefully the last of many articles beginning with D I will put on here...for now. I will move on to other letters of the alphabet soon. SirCs1987UOTM.t.c 04:38, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Short, non-notable. ----OEJ 15:19, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Delete Aww - look what you drew! Is it a bird? No mummy, it's a Dinopus!! Well, that's the best drawing of a dinopus I've ever seen! Etc. I promise I'm not drunk or nothing; it's just a funny mood I'm in tonight...! -- (but) UntrueWhhhy?Whut?How?*Back from the dead* 00:24, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
this poop is very shitty --» >UF|TLK|▋» 00:09, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Delete, but keep the image. It's so bad, it's good. -- Mustkillroy
Delete. Yes, vanity. The forum referenced is here. There is a user "RarewareFan" and moderators "Sean" and "Behonkiss", so the vanity article is probably referring to specific forum members. ----OEJ 15:25, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Delete Hello old GameFAQs article. How I have missed you. Must you leave again so soon? Oh well, never mind. -- (but) UntrueWhhhy?Whut?How?*Back from the dead* 00:19, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Not exactly sure what this article is, but it seems to be vandalized a lot in its own little way. The original wasn't a keeper, anyway. --TKF 03:49, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Delete, but will probably succumb to QVFD anyway. SirCs1987UOTM.t.c 03:53, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
STRONG KEEP This is an excellent, laugh-your-ass off article that has length AND oomph, and a few politically correct, sexually ambiguous critics shouldn't be allowed to ruin other people's fun just because they're against free speech and lack a sense of humor. Why do people like that access Uncyclopedia, anyway? Little Bo 01:06, 1 April 2007 (UTC)Little Bo
Keep - God, it's awful, but FUNNY - it's godawful funny!!!' Weebils 01:56, 1 April 2007 (UTC) Weebils
Delete Okay, last one. Seems like just a rant to me - maybe somebody had a bad experience? -- (but) UntrueWhhhy?Whut?How?*Back from the dead* 11:10, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete I reverted this after it got vandalised the other day. Then I read it and thought, "why did I bother?" It's not funny and, as the lady says, just a fairly pathetic rant. Hang on, you are a lady, aren't you? ;) RabbiTechno 15:30, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Kill. ~ 15:52, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Comments
Interesting nomination. It's better-written than many articles, and longer, and has more illustrations. I don't like it very much, but that's just taste and not an indication of quality. Hmmm. Interesting. --OEJ 19:46, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
It seemed rather bad irrespective of taste to me, although I'll admit it isn't to mine. The pictures didn't really help to convince me of its merits, to be honest - seems like a place for said person to store the pictures they like to look at to suppress the memories... -- (but) UntrueWhhhy?Whut?How?*Back from the dead* 20:33, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Having said all that, maybe we should keep it around on here for slightly longer than we might otherwise, and see if anybody (sane) with the right kind of taste turns up to argue for it...? -- (but) UntrueWhhhy?Whut?How?*Back from the dead* 20:33, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Well, Strange, I don't think the nommie to VFD was unreasonable, but I don't feel strongly enough to vote either pro or con. I just decided to watch the community in action and let the gender reassignment chips fall where they may. --OEJ 02:42, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Weebils, see my longer comments below, under Sonia Gandhi. This particular article appears to fall under the Uncyclopedia:Vanity Policies, ie, it is an article about someone's favorite webforum. It fails the simplest test for vanity: there is no Wikipedia article on it. It is very likely therefore non-notable and of interest only to the people who frequent that particular forum. --OEJ 02:49, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Keep It's a keeper.Weebils 01:35, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Keep You might have missed the old version in the history - I've merged the two together (because I rather like the scale thing actually) and now at least the latter parts of it are worth keeping. -- (but) UntrueWhhhy?Whut?How?*Back from the dead* 09:34, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
KEEP - another funny article that's incurred the wrath of impotent, wannab humorists nd critics. Weebils 14:19, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Delete
Delete. Not satire, not funny, insulting piece written primarily by a large number of one-time or short-term editors identified only with IP addresses.Rogpyvbc 00:37, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Delete. I've used "'tard" on a couple of pages. I hope that those were funnier than this. (Note: They were. True story.) SirModusoperandiBoinc! 01:25, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
More or less the Strongest delete I've ever voted. A horrible article that's just got worse over the years. -- (but) UntrueWhhhy?Whut?How?*Back from the dead* 14:59, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Delete "One of the many benefits of joining the GNFC is the personal monkey awarded to each member." -- (but) UntrueWhhhy?Whut?How?*Back from the dead* 17:37, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Withdrawn vote - I've decided to put a rewrite on this instead. SirCs1987UOTM.t.c 04:32, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Comments
This page should be a serious vote on deleting after people read and think about each article, and not used just to automatically vote to keep everything. Weebles, do you actually read the stuff you vote on? Rogpyvbc 17:09, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
A gamer with writing powers could really make this a decent article. Weebils could do it if he wanted to. ----OEJ 17:50, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
The only reason I didn't just delete it was a vague fear I might be missing something? Don't think I am though... -- sannse (talk) 21:33, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
I don't care. Regardless of whether it has any relevance or not, I think this article is crap. Delete. SirCs1987UOTM.t.c 04:29, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
I think it's about the Stephen King novel/film, if that's what you were missing. I've only got a vague idea of the plot though, so I'm not sure I should vote delete in case I'm missing something too... Do tell, somebody more well-read. -- (but) UntrueWhhhy?Whut?How?*Back from the dead* 00:07, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
KEEP - another funny article that's incurred the wrath of impotent, wannab humorists nd critics. Weebils 14:17, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Delete
Execute - My two arch nemiises, Nazis and Commies wraped up in one! Capercorn 15:55, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Or rather wrapped up in two. Very different articles, but both bad in their own ways. -- (but) UntrueWhhhy?Whut?How?*Back from the dead* 18:56, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
nazi jokes are getting dreadfully dull thanks to this crap --» >UF|TLK|▋» 22:03, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Delete Commu-nazi. Short and randumb. I abstain from Commi-Nazi, however. (Don't think it's worth much, don't find it worthless either.)----OEJ 17:49, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
In the Soviet Russia, Nazi's delete YOU!--Scott 23:40, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Delete Says "molest" in every paragraph, and then starts talking about specific people from GameFAQs. -- (but) UntrueWhhhy?Whut?How?*Back from the dead* 17:41, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Delete. This article is very badly written: for example, "critisizm" is not a word in English, French, Spanish, Urdu, or Martian. Neither is "unleaseshed" or "defencless" or "enviromentalests". The phrase "women went on an outrage" is just wrong; the writer probably meant "women went on a rampage". And the bulk of the article is dumb preteen sex-talk. Christ almighty, this is a bad article. ----OEJ 17:58, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Delete Shit, pure shit. Roman Dog Bird 00:31, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Delete. I don't know why people think character assassination referencing genitals and sexual habits equals humor. It's stupid. The article in question here is short, pathetically vicious, lacks pics, and displays the wit of gravel. ----OEJ 03:08, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Delete - OEJ, don't you think the comparison you made is an insult to gravel? I certainly do. SirCs1987UOTM.t.c 04:27, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Keep This article is absolute genious, you need to be a part of this school to understand it. It is hella funny. Aznphatb0i 18:43, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
That's exactly why it can't stay - it's funny exclusively to a tiny minority, while being an absolutely huge article that takes up lots of reverting time. Incidentally, I don't think you're going to help your case by vandalising my votes on this or other articles. -- (but) UntrueWhhhy?Whut?How?*Back from the dead* 19:28, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep and vanity-tag the hell out of it. It is badly written (the authors need to pay attention in English class) but Wickedpedia has a long article on it and the author(s) spent some time on parodying their school. But vanity tag the sucker. Wait, I'll do it.--OEJ 19:31, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
KEEP - I think it's funny, too, and I'm not a minority. Weebils 01:59, 1 April 2007 (UTC) Weebils
Keep-Girls and Boys are not allowed to leave the cafeteria after dinner at the same time, as it is highly likely that the boys will abduct the girls, take them into the bushes and impregnate them in a matter of seconds.Witt,ofUNionEntertain me* 05:40, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Delete
Delete I finally read this - turns out this thing I keep having to revert is just a rant. -- (but) UntrueWhhhy?Whut?How?*Back from the dead* 09:45, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
WAIT A DAMN MINNIT -- if Aznphatb0i has been vandalizing votes someone needs to get out the banhammer. I see only two edits to the VFD page on the user's contribution page, so it may have been a case of first-offense offensiveness. --OEJ 20:10, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
OK, I checked the contrib log. Looks like two tampering incidents 6 minutes apart. Not good behavior, Aznphatb0i.--OEJ 20:14, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep, but rewrite The article is bad, but it is on a topic Uncyc should have a subject on. Jedibob5 12:30, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Ditto It would be replaced by something much worse within the day. Has some funny stuff in there too even though I don't know much about the subject. And long and rambly just means it's in need of a good haircut. -- (but) UntrueWhhhy?Whut?How?*Back from the dead* 18:36, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep - it's fine just the way it is. Weebils 02:02, 1 April 2007 (UTC) Weebils
Keep One of those indefinably funny ones: "Later, Barnflimper earned praise from foreign policy experts for his decision to withdraw all troops from Iraq and attack Norway instead, for the fish." -- (but) UntrueWhhhy?Whut?How?*Back from the dead* 09:16, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
The most tentative Keep I can muster. Bits have humor potential. Also, I was a bit harsh on the last article. --Smrt-guy 01:54, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete Another attempt to be funny by stringing together random made-up facts. (Note: The writer's username is also Barnflimper) Rogpyvbc 01:24, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Comments
Abstain It needs lots of help in having a coherent story that keeps it "together" and a lot of the pointless randomness needs to either be humourously explained or removed. If you do remove it, you're not left with much, but what's left is potentially funny. Maybe we could just lift the jokes off this and stuff them on a page of another politician who has a coherent backstory but lacks zing? -Drdisque 07:09, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep - why would anyone want to delete it??????????? Weebils 01:57, 1 April 2007 (UTC) Weebils
Delete
Delete I don't know who she is, but a large number of people seem to dislike her very much... -- (but) UntrueWhhhy?Whut?How?*Back from the dead* 09:52, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete - I saw the older revisions. They was crap. SirCs1987UOTM.t.c 14:51, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Yeah, the version here is representative of the longer-but-nastier early versions. --OEJ 19:35, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Short. Previous versions were drivel. Blarch --Alksub - VFHCMWARV {talk} 06:58, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
In general, Weebils, articles arrive on the Vote For Deletion page because they are 1) no longer being actively developed; 2) underdeveloped to the point of helplessness, 3) very badly written, 4) gratuitously obscene or offensive, or 5) about somebody's otherwise non-notable school, friends, enemy, webpage, forum, garage band, or whatever. As with a non-parody encyclopedia, Uncyc articles should be reasonably well-developed, take something notable or at least non-personal for their subject, and not be offensive for no particular reason. The current version of Sonia Gandhi fits the second criterion: it is so badly underdeveloped it is uninteresting. The earlier version of the article fit the third and fourth criteria: it was needlessly obscene and offensive, and very badly written to boot.
For the past year and a half Uncyc has moved beyond an "anything goes" Wiki: the earliest articles were sometimes very short and very badly written and were not deleted, but that is no longer the case. As far as I know Uncyc is the largest and best parody encyclopedia online. We have received some notice in other media, and we try to maintain some standards. This article, and most of the others you have voted "Keep" on, do not in my opinion meet those standards.
Later: Sorry, Weebils, I assumed you had not been around enough to know about the basic policies. I see from your contributions history that you've done quite a lot since early December. You've not done much on the VFD page, though, so perhaps you're not as familiar with it and its policies as you are with other areas of Uncyc. At any rate, I did not mean to talk down to you. Sorry if it came across that way. --OEJ 03:12, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Yes, VFD should come with a warning: "Viewers who don't like throwing things away may find some scenes disturbing. By the way OEJ, is (1) really a criteria by itself? -- (but) UntrueWhhhy?Whut?How?*Back from the dead* 08:52, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
No, you're right, I think #1 is not a separate criteria and I should have listed it as a kind of precondition or something. That was sloppy writing, and sloppy writing indicates sloppy thinking, and sloppy thinking indicates -- oh damn, I just spilled tomato-turnip chowder all over my shirt, pants, shoes, carpet, dog, and the state capitol -- sloppy personal habits. --OEJ 15:40, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Delete Hmm... I hesitate to put this here because I don't know about the band, but it is short and the style is awful. -- (but) UntrueWhhhy?Whut?How?*Back from the dead* 10:33, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
* Keep It's fine. It's funny. It's a wiki!Weebils 01:37, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Delete
Because one is certainly enough. ~ 16:47, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete. ...and we already have many more than one Hitler. This one has one (1) idea which it regurgitates from start to finish. Bleah.--OEJ 20:01, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Weak Delete Just about. I think I have low standards for articles with Hitler in the title. Or maybe just a weakness for time travel. -- (but) UntrueWhhhy?Whut?How?*Back from the dead* 09:02, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Execute - huff. Capercorn 14:42, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Keep, please - love @ 1st sight. Weebils 01:38, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Delete
Delete - appears to be vanity. SirCs1987UOTM.t.c 15:25, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Wickedpedia has a stub on a hammer-dulcimer player with this name but it appears to be unrelated. The article to hand is just stupid and nasty. --OEJ 19:59, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete Ugh. Weebils, if you're voting to keep this, there is nothing you will ever vote to delete. -- (but) UntrueWhhhy?Whut?How?*Back from the dead* 09:05, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Comments
Weebils: See my comments under Sonia Gandhi. This article is almost certainly an example of cyber-bullying -- beating up on a private party for personal reasons. Uncyc's policy on cyberbullying is explained in Cyberbullying: Not funny, not cool, not acceptable. Period. That's probably why it was nominated to VFD. Uncyc allows articles on public persons, even if they're darned unflattering; we DO NOT allow attacks by name on private people. --OEJ 02:53, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Keep I laughed rather a lot. Good little satire on scientists with a decent punchline too. I'm tidying it up a bit. -- (but) UntrueWhhhy?Whut?How?*Back from the dead* 09:02, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete While we're on secret Nazi Forests, here's one linked from one of the others that you may have missed... Leet translation for the lazy available at this page. -- (but) UntrueWhhhy?Whut?How?*Back from the dead* 18:55, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
