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: A little bit of rewrite here, some expansion there, make it more deadpan, and honestly, I think this one could be something. --CaptainSpamMUNPUTPBAA 01:51, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
I've done some of the things in the "events" section. They make even less sense when you're involved in them. SirModusoperandiBoinc! 01:53, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
Keep Reminds one of Monty Python's "Marching up and down the square." I had a dream about Monty Python last night; just shows where my mind has been lately. Rogpyvbc 17:25, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete
2005cruft --GeneralInsineratehymn 17:56, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete: There are computer scientists around the world striving to make good random number generators. Then this article happens, and researchers claim a breakthrough. --CaptainSpamMUNPUTPBAA 02:01, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
Comments
Comment: If I were to go out on a limb — a really, really fragile limb I have no desire to remain on — I would guess the author might have wanted this to have something to do with the works of directorial auteur Ed Wood. Of course, I only say this from the perspective of the title being "Glenda" and the article referencing Plan 9 From Outer Space. There's no accompanying "Glen" article, though (Glen or Glenda), and there's not much more Ed Woodish in there, so bang goes that theory. --CaptainSpamMUNPUTPBAA 02:01, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
In forkcruft, the author takes an encyclopedic title and spells it wrong. Alministrator is forkcruft. --Alksub - VFHCMWARV {talk} 19:47, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
Keep. It's on a guy's userpage, damnit. It's not clogging up teh internets... SirModusoperandiBoinc! 01:45, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
Do I go around VFDing images that only appear on your userpage? —HinoaKUN(talk) 08:16, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
Oh yeah - didn't see that. Thought it was just another badly made template. Well it clearly is, but it's been cleaned off all pages, so it's harmless now. -- (but) UntrueWhhhy?Whut?How?*Back from the dead* 09:14, 13 May 2007
(UTC)
Keep what MO said (and because my {{ajax}} got deleted without trial). --THINKER 09:59, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
Sorry didn't see it was on someones userpage. The spelling mistake still makes me cry. ~ Dame Ceridwyn ~ talkDUNVoNSEarc2.010:50, 13 May 2007
Delete
{{* Approves}}cruft --GeneralInsineratehymn 17:40, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
Keep Uhhh....these are my templates...so no. Give feed back and notice, not deletion. This is like the fourth attack on my work and I am glad that people are finally standing up for my stuff. I am just gonna save the codes with my "Final Attack+Revive"(after a few days or weeks so I don't get kicked off) on these bastards until I get more cooperation in terms of notice(especially with me moving and my exams I just finished), help and Pees that are more than just flames (though I salute those like Herr Doktor, who though disapprove of my articles are constructive) Happy Weasel 05:18, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
Keep Why delete? Ethereal 10:52, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
Keep. Maybe alter a little? Rogpyvbc 00:28, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
Keep! Not sure about alteration. There are many other articles that make "claims" about the author, so what? Are you going to vote to remove the WIP template? The Communist template(s)? MrMetalFLower 05:15, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
Keep'. But make them prettier. What about the elephant and the donkey for illustration. -- herrdoktorneedsAcell[scream!] 18:42, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
Keep - If you can't make fun of yourself... Mr. Briggs Inc. 02:08, 13 May 2007 (UTC) Eh?
Delete
Delete I find these particularly irritating, maybe because they use dark colours and make claims about the authors of the article. --Alksub - VFHCMWARV {talk} 21:02, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Delort. I hate these kinds of templates. Political humo(u)r shouldn't be flagged with a big notice announcing it to the world, it should be subtle. Plus, it reminds me of the damn "* Approved" templates. —HinoaKUN(talk) 00:07, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete I hate political jokes in general. Mostly because I have no idea what they mean. ~ Dame Ceridwyn ~ talkDUNVoNSEarc2.005:37, 12 May 2007
If it takes a political template to tell you on what side of the political spectrum a political page skews, the page needs a rewrite. SirModusoperandiBoinc! 03:05, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
Comments
Ooh, I think I'd better abstain from this one. Before these appeared the author and I had just had what he called "creative differences" over his right to spam previous templates over loads of pages. So just in case I still bear a grudge, I'm not voting. -- (but) UntrueWhhhy?Whut?How?*Back from the dead* 22:29, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Side note with VFD Maintenance hat on: Normally I'd say "one article per entry," but in the interest of fairness, if one goes, so does the other. —RT. HON.HINOA, KNIGHT COMMANDER OF THE ORDER (BEG FOR MERCY)00:07, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
No way can we keep it in this stateSirCs1987UOTM.t.c 03:40, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete But it doesn't parody a Canadian institution well. Rogpyvbc 00:44, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
I spent time in a Canadian institution. For breakfast we got waffles. SirModusoperandiBoinc! 03:03, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
Comments
I did check the Plate exists before VFD, and if folk find the article funny then by all means keep - could do with expansion though -Asahatter (annoy) 17:51, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete There is NOTHING funny about this. And if it needs a rewrite then let's start by kicking this shite in the stomach. The Oblong Lobster 00:42, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
Won't vote against, but the only way I'd vote to keep is if this page gains a (funny) picture. --THINKER 01:31, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
All the keep votes seem to not like this article. While I see the points being made, can't we just keep it simple in the fact that if the general concensous is that the article is shit it gets deleted. Let's worry about a rewrite, reincarnation, robotic-dance tribute at a later date. The Oblong Lobster 00:44, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
Image:Stupid sign.png is used in this template and should be deleted with it. Also, one article per VFD entry blah blah blah. —HinoaKUN(talk) 00:11, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete Pretty much the epitome of what we delete here. Rogpyvbc 00:30, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete This isn't good enough to be featured on this page. This is a dead cat, a rubbish mug, a miss-alligned hole-punch. The Oblong Lobster 00:36, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete How anyone can harbour this much hate for a random bunch of people who sing a few songs, I really don't understand... -- (but) UntrueWhhhy?Whut?How?*Back from the dead* 19:49, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete - "SpaceManJetMan can...", "SpaceManJetMan will...",... Why don't you just marry SpaceManJetMan if you love him so much? -- (but) UntrueWhhhy?Whut?How?*Back from the dead* 22:37, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete I strongly suspect that at least the first paragraph makes not a lick of sense to anyone. -- (but) UntrueWhhhy?Whut?How?*Back from the dead* 22:22, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Okay you've all convinced me --THINKER 01:31, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
Hideous --GeneralInsineratehymn 02:00, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
Comments
I'm just noming this, because it could be hilarious and I'm just not seeing it. There's lots of stuff on the page, none of which makes a lick of sense to me. --THINKER 17:42, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Didn't get QVFD'd, even though its a direct copy of Wikipedia's Superman 64 article. Nothing would lead me to believe its going to receive any legitimate work. --THINKER 17:36, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
believe me, if I had sysop powers, I'd instahuff this right now, but for now, this is the best I can do --» >UF|TLK|▋» 18:28, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete Either that or delete Wikipedia article so we're not the same any more. -- (but) UntrueWhhhy?Whut?How?*Back from the dead* 22:19, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete Its not even a spork, its just a cut and paste. ~ Dame Ceridwyn ~ talkDUNVoNSEarc2.011:23, 11 May 2007
Comments
(sigh) Pay attention, everyone:
Do not forget to add {{VFD}} to pages that are nominated for deletion.
Do not VFD pages that are less than one or two weeks old.
Do not VFD pages that are blatant copypasta*. QVFD them instead.
Keep Deal with the n00bs, not the template. This can be useful elsewhere to show that someone's expressed dissatisfaction with an article. But I will admit it gets annoying sometimes even then... Hmm, I dunno, persuade me to change my mind! -- (but) UntrueWhhhy?Whut?How?*Back from the dead* 18:45, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Keep If the author of the page puts this little puppy on their page then delete the page. It's the best way to hold up the white flag. The Oblong Lobster 00:39, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
Keep unless you wanna volunteer yourself to remove it from every page it's on, no goddamn way. -- Prof. OliproKUN(W)AnchorOpBur. (Harass) 04:53, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete
This template is encouraging people - specially IPs and N00bs - to create self-complacent lazy entries and sticking it at the top as if saying "please, I know, it's bad, but let it live!". Better place ICU or rewrite instead. -- herrdoktorneedsAcell[scream!] 18:40, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Weak redirect to rewrite You've got to admit, this is annoying. And if we change the wording to encompass addition by editors other than the author, it just becomes a tool for destructive criticism. --Alksub - VFHCMWARV {talk} 21:10, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Comments
If we delete it, we lose tagging utility and the existing stash of tagged pages. However, too often users who haven't worked on a page tag with this, in flagrant violation of, "The author(s) acknowledge this." Argh. --Alksub - VFHCMWARV {talk} 23:29, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
We could simply turn it into a redirect to rewrite template. By the way, let's consider "delete" as votes for this action. -- herrdoktorneedsAcell[scream!] 23:32, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
See, Ceridwyn, you're not the only one who inadvertidly nominates popular stuff to VFD... -- herrdoktorneedsAcell[scream!] 05:13, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
I never pay attention to this template when I make my rounds, anyway. I could care less whether it stays or goes. Abstain (just because I think that's necessary). —HinoaKUN(talk) 23:58, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete Was very surprised to see this wasn't created with madlibs templates. -- (but) UntrueWhhhy?Whut?How?*Back from the dead* 13:28, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Is this a vanity page? Why is it still here?Count of Monkey Crisco 05:37, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete Probable vanity - I can't be bothered to wade through the Wikipedia disambig page to find out if anything clicks. -- (but) UntrueWhhhy?Whut?How?*Back from the dead* 09:42, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete Wouldn't go away on QVFD - best voted on here even though we know the outcome. Probably this was going to be part of some bigger project? -- (but) UntrueWhhhy?Whut?How?*Back from the dead* 09:39, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete though I wan't aware brain-dead people could find anything funny. Rogpyvbc 05:02, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete These people are clearly too wise for the likes of Uncyclopedia. They should go start a religion or summat. -- (but) UntrueWhhhy?Whut?How?*Back from the dead* 09:37, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete Not funny even if you're called Brian or Mike --Asahatter (annoy) 09:53, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Free this article from its mortal coil. --GeneralInsineratehymn 23:26, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete - again, stuff like this should be deleted, then rewritten after deletion. It ensures the article does not stay in this state. SirCs1987UOTM.t.c 03:43, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete as per Sir Cs 1987 Rogpyvbc 05:06, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete I'd have shot it on sight had I caught it sooner. -- Prof. OliproKUN(W)AnchorOpBur. (Harass) 02:51, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete Bandcruft, when what we actually need here is an article about the pagan festival it's named after. -- (but) UntrueWhhhy?Whut?How?*Back from the dead* 00:19, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Ugh just like SRV: good music, terrible page. :( --THINKER 00:21, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete Wikipedia's equivalent article is a meat stub. I'm going to go ahead and call this one too because it's such an awesome category. -- (but) UntrueWhhhy?Whut?How?*Back from the dead* 00:17, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
This was rejected by its own author. Let me move it to her user space and QVFD this link, all right? -- herrdoktorneedsAcell[scream!] 15:41, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Strong keep! Awful, but in a very good way. "You may need to wash the vegetables too." -- (but) UntrueWhhhy?Whut?How?*Back from the dead* 09:40, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
Keep it in. Isn't Uncyclopedia kind of anal retentive anyway? Rogpyvbc 17:20, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
In the last 10 hours, Insineratehymn has flooded VFD with 10 articles, and Modus and emc have added articles to an already overfull list, both of which usually result in 1 day bans. What the hell is going on? SirCs1987UOTM.t.c 02:55, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
Ban Modus!! BanModusbanModusbanModus! Oops, I mean: I'm sure it was an accident and no-one needs to get banned at all. :-P -- (but) UntrueWhhhy?Whut?How?*Back from the dead* 09:38, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm torn. This one is a hell of a lot better than Turd burger but still kinda obvious humo(u)r. Can't decide. ~ Dame Ceridwyn ~ talkDUNVoNSEarc2.004:27, 13 May 2007