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.
The big man is really like a Scottish Chuck Norris, I see no reason why it should be deleted. I believe you are being to strict over an article about a pop culture character you may not have seen if you live south of the border...
Delete
Delete - Pretty much all of this is quotes, namedropping and a list. SirCs1987UOTM.t.c 05:47, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
Delete. "The big man is really like a Scottish Chuck Norris" - reason 1. Also, I've spent a lot of time north o' the border, and know that Scots are capable of being very funny. This is not funny. It's listy, badly formatted, full of unfunny quotes and not particularly coherent. There we go, random unsigned person, plenty of reasons! /me dons flameproof jacket --SirUnder User(Hi,HowAreYou?)VFHKUN 08:27, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Ditto to Uncer_user, and what's with all the unnecessary and ungrammatical capitalization? Di' ye nae ken th' spellin'? ----OEJ 02:37, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
Delete. At first, this was Big Boss related crap, but I tried to fix that by removing all BB references. Needless to say, the rest of it is also crap and whatever continuity there was got severed with the removal of Big Boss. A delete would be best. --TKFUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUCK 20:28, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
Delete --GeneralInsineratehymn 20:43, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
Delete. We do need a good article on the Joker. But this mess isn't it. As TKF found, I think this would be really tough to fix in its current state, so purge it and when someone (funnier than me) has inspiration, they can start afresh. --SirUnder User(Hi,HowAreYou?)VFHKUN 08:31, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Worst sentence: "It didn't took long and Simon heard strange noises from the attic, he checked the attic ussing a2fsck -y and found a portal, which he intered, WOW! WTF?" ----OEJ 02:40, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
Delete. You really have dredged up a lot of random & dull stubs today, haven't you Sir Roger? How you must have suffered! --SirUnder User(Hi,HowAreYou?)VFHKUN 10:35, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
Delete --GeneralInsineratehymn 14:47, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
This is the third time I vote keep. Hands off Chuck! ~ 07:48, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
Keep - It's the third most edited page on the site, which suggests it is fairly popular. Also, this is far less annoying as a subpage than sticking the huge list on the article. SirCs1987UOTM.t.c 13:47, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
Delete I realise it's illegal to contemplate deleting Chuck Norris cause he'd probably kill me with his eyelid or something equally as shit. But do we need the facts? The Oblong Lobster 21:46, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Fucking kill it You can find this crap elsewhere on the internet. It's pointless and not funny anyways. Roman Dog Bird 23:51, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Roundhouse kick it to oblivion --Kip > Talk•Works••
Comments
This was twice before nominated for deletion this year, and kept both times. It's best to avoid clogging up VFD with kept articles, so there is a notice on each article's talk page. Having said that, I can see why anyone would want to delete this! Sir Roger 06:47, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
I know the Chuck Norris article has been nominated twice, but I didn't realise the Chuck Norris/Facts page, which is just a list, had been. If it has then I apologise. The Oblong Lobster 08:06, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
Delete Even Jesus realises that when an article's going badly, sticking a list in it is just going to make matters worse. The Oblong Lobster 23:17, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Delete - This is currently irredeemable stamp. It needs deleting so the next version does not resemble this one. SirCs1987UOTM.t.c 02:47, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Agreed. And this is almost worth it on its own: "sucsess". Sigh. --SirUnder User(Hi,HowAreYou?)VFHKUN 08:25, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Delete. And she wiiiiiiiiiiiiilll be huffed! --Kip > Talk•Works••
Delete this awful sexcruft. Sir Roger 05:07, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Delete. I think I'd rather listen to one of their songs than read this again. It must be bad. --SirUnder User(Hi,HowAreYou?)VFHKUN 08:31, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
But it's used by things in userspace. Sorry. And uploaded by Codeine, so go complain at him. If you dare...! -- (but) UntrueWhhhy?Whut?How?*Back from the dead* 23:06, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
Delete
I was disappointed to find out that this kind of gross ED style picture, survived here for so long. ~ 22:40, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
Strong Delete This image is more offensive and not at all funny. --Kip > Talk•Works••
Delete Are we supposed to vote differently depending on who uploaded the picture? The Oblong Lobster 23:08, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
Strong delete. Oh man, this doesn't so much cross the line as not notice the line is there and whoosh past it at speed. Don't care who uploaded it, it's awful. --SirUnder User(Hi,HowAreYou?)VFHKUN 08:28, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
I really have to be blunt on this. I don't care who uploaded this one or for what it's used. This is where humor ends. The usage of this picture as having a humorist value is an abomination to me. I'd like to see someone dare uploading a picture of the VTEC massacre's victims thrown all over the place and write "I PWN YOU NOOBZ" and not getting infinibanned on the spot. These are human beings, tortured and gassed to death - and this picture has no place here whatsoever. Nor would any other picture showing bodies, victims etc. Have we lost all sense of what's humor and what not? ~ 23:18, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
Delete --GeneralInsineratehymn 16:32, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
Delete Ooh deary me, that is a bad one. RabbiTechno 16:35, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
Delete Name-dropping and prostitution. I don't envy you having to sit in the front seat of this one Rabbitechno. :-) -- (but) UntrueWhhhy?Whut?How?*Back from the dead* 23:15, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
Delete - The humour in this is awful. SirCs1987UOTM.t.c 02:44, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Delete. There was humour? Must have missed it. I'm not reading it again to try and find it though. Ugh. --SirUnder User(Hi,HowAreYou?)VFHKUN 08:21, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Weak Delete "...but have you ever heard of Alexander the Grey-t, the famous Greek-ish philosopher." No, no I haven't. -- (but) UntrueWhhhy?Whut?How?*Back from the dead* 23:18, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
Delete' Very poor. RabbiTechno 16:43, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
Delete And the Phil Ken Sebben should read "Ha ha! Female impersonation!" not "Ha ha ha! Female impersonation!" --Dexter111344 22:37, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
Delete I have no idea what Dexter is on about but I whole heartedly agree with him. The Oblong Lobster 23:22, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Articles are both the exact same and have no real humoristic value. - Admiral Enzo Aquarius-Dial the Gate 23:39, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
QVFD both -OR- ICU one and QVFD the other. I see no real need for an hour old article to be put on VFD --TKFUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUCK 23:56, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
DELETE Just in case it doesn't get QVFD'd...DELETE with extreme prejudice. ----OEJ 16:32, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
I very much wish that a substantial article about a non-British, non-American place which rates a Wikipedia article of its own could be retained. Yes, the prose is bad -- it reads like it was written by a Norwegian or something. And truly it has not been revised and polished to the standards we would wish. But we have the skills to do that. (If I had the time to do it today I would be voting Keep instead of Abstain.) Articles on places like this could enrich our international perspective considerably. ----OEJ 16:39, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
Keep and revert to the first version that got deleted, but not the latest. Too many newfags edited the latest one, and might've sparked Matt Lobster's shitting up. If you guys are so stuck up about not reverting it, then just delete all together.--TravisBatos 20:41, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Delete
Delete and Protect - Seriously, this needs to go. It's been created and huffed too many times to remain here. In fact, so much controversy was caused by this, a user threatened on the talk page to go to ED and leave Uncyc forever. --SirStarnestommy (Talk • Contribs • CUN • Capt.) 19:47, August 10, 2007
Delete and CVP. --GeneralInsineratehymn 19:48, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Delete Heehee - anti-Moses - you couldn't make it up. Well, I guess you could. -- (but) UntrueWhhhy?Whut?How?*Back from the dead* 22:33, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Keep Got the joke, did laugh. I expect someone will pick this up and run with it some day, meanwhile I'm content to let it be small. -- (but) UntrueWhhhy?Whut?How?*Back from the dead* 22:31, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Send to Room 101 for questioning I must know...a species of what exactly? Kingdom, phylum, class, order, family, and genus would be nice to know. -- CUNPLSVFH(Miniluv•Minitrue•Unsoc) 06:24, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Crap article, mostly composed of ridiculous hating on people you wouldn't know about unless you attend school there(which I don't). EugeneKaywuzhere(whinethank) 05:32, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Delete as...vanity? Random ramblings? Schoolcruft? Yes, "schoolcruft"...that will do. (The fact that I had to invent a new word to describe how bad this article is should say something.) -- CUNPLSVFH(Miniluv•Minitrue•Unsoc) 06:19, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Delete I am not going to use one word to describe the crappiness of this article. I will, instead, say what makes it exactly so sucky. "History: it was realy big then it all got sold off" is awful, its lead has grammar and sentence structure that kills me (and that's the longest part), and the giant templates that take up 1/3 of the space don't help either.-SirLjlego, GUNVFHFIYCWotMSGWHotMPWotMAotMEGAEDMANotM+ (Talk) 18:22, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Rubbish Please get rid --(Bonner) (Talk). 19:36, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Keep - Umm, I think you's better check your comment Capercorn, as it doesn't appear to apply to this article. This isn't too bad. SirCs1987UOTM.t.c 05:53, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Weak keep --Dexter111344 06:16, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Shitty meme, shitty article. This kind of thing belongs on ED, not here. -- Sir CodeineK·H·P·B·M·N·C·U·Bu. · (Harangue) 18:39, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
You know what's NOT over 9000? THIS ARTICLE! LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL! --GeneralInsineratehymn 02:38, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Dragonballcruft Lists, excessive name dropping and lists, ugh. ~ Dame Ceridwyn ~ talkDUNVoNSEarc2.003:54, 10 August 2007
What lists? Those three very short ones with under 25 things on them total? I also see very little "name-dropping". Please vote again, madam. --Dexter111344 06:42, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
One, don't call me madam. Two, as Codeine said, don't tamper with my vote. Three, I looked again, my vote stands, the article is still rubbish. Sorry. ~ Dame Ceridwyn ~ talkDUNVoNSEarc2.008:34, 10 August 2007
What lists? Those three very short ones with under 25 things on them total? Vote again, sir. --Dexter111344 06:42, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Weak delete I liked the original YouTube video for its sheer randomness. Unfortunately, the written sequel simply didn't live up to its predecessor. I give it 2000 out of 9000. -- CUNPLSVFH(Miniluv•Minitrue•Unsoc) 05:59, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Delete. I realise that as a non-Dragonball fan, I may be missing out on some incredible joke or subtle humour here. Somehow, though, I doubt it. --Under user 08:59, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
while I wouldn't say delete on the premises that this is based off a youtube meme, any list deserves burnination --» >UF|TLK|▋» 14:31, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Delete It links three YouTube videos. These are the funniest things out of the article. Like Dirty Potter, it is the article, not the media, that people will care about.-SirLjlego, GUNVFHFIYCWotMSGWHotMPWotMAotMEGAEDMANotM+ (Talk) 18:09, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Comments
Most of the lists and/or name-dropping are now gone. --Dexter111344 05:44, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Ok, now its just plain ole crap, instead of crap with lists and name dropping. ~ Dame Ceridwyn ~ talkDUNVoNSEarc2.008:43, 10 August 2007
Keep, remove dodgy images and fix up formatting. Also needs an expansion tag, since it doesn't seem to be complete. Still, it's a good idea. SirCs1987UOTM.t.c 01:49, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Keep "We have no credit cards, just extremely annoying and unhelpful mottos like 'What goes around, comes around' or 'C'est la vie'." -- (but) UntrueWhhhy?Whut?How?*Back from the dead* 22:11, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Weak keep I didn't laugh out loud, but deep down in my heart, I can feel that this article has potential. -- CUNPLSVFH(Miniluv•Minitrue•Unsoc) 06:34, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Hehe I suppose its a start Randomator 15:18, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Keep Good random idea. The fact that it executes its randomness slightly better than awfully is reason enough to keep it. Bonus points for the presence of relevant pictures.-SirLjlego, GUNVFHFIYCWotMSGWHotMPWotMAotMEGAEDMANotM+ (Talk) 18:05, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Keep It made me smile...and I like the fact at the top --(Bonner) (Talk). 19:42, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Delete Random, unfunny, boring and just plain stupid. ~ Dame Ceridwyn ~ talkDUNVoNSEarc2.003:44, 09 August 2007
Comments
I don't know. On the one hand I quite like the opening section, and the general idea. On the other, I think the rest is pretty bad, and would need a lot of improvement. Don't want to vote delete, but in the current state it doesn't grab me enough for a keep. Abstain it is then. --Under user 09:22, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Kept Per the tasteless masses. Someone please help this article. SirFamine,Gun♣Petition»08/10 19:27
Weak keep because I am sad and get both the OOP stuff and the Scientology references it's mixed in with. -- (but) UntrueWhhhy?Whut?How?*Back from the dead* 23:28, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Keep - I find the programming references quite funny. I don't know why, though. SirCs1987UOTM.t.c 04:49, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
Weak keep. I get the references and everything, but more because it fits with the Objectivism Oriented Programming article linked from it, which I quite like. --Under user 08:28, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
Weak keep It induced a half-smile from me as I sit in OO programming class. Oh the irony! ~ Dame Ceridwyn ~ talkDUNVoNSEarc2.003:27, 09 August 2007
Weak Keep This article is clever. While its execution is substantially lacking, it's not absolutely awful. It's aeons ahead of a lot of the crap that I see here, and in all honesty made me laugh a little. Not VFH-worthy by any stretch of the imagination, but also not VFD-worthy.-SirLjlego, GUNVFHFIYCWotMSGWHotMPWotMAotMEGAEDMANotM+ (Talk) 17:52, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Delete
Old stub --GeneralInsineratehymn 23:13, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Very Weak Keep because I laughed when I read "Judas said nothing because he knew that he was out, for the rules had been set down by the Lord." --Dexter111344 13:39, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Throw a man a fish and...I'm not remembering that correctly. SirModusoperandiBoinc! 19:55, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
Keep and extend The ending is ...and you entertain him for hours. MO. Actually this doesn't necessarily require extending. I changed a couple words too. Its not often a VFD candidate inspires me to add to it! Also its not often that we see a genuinely innocent Biblical joke, I didn't find it offensive in the slightest, in fact I thought the idea of the disciples playing a game of catch very cute XD ~ Dame Ceridwyn ~ talkDUNVoNSEarc2.003:31, 09 August 2007
Delete
Old stub --GeneralInsineratehymn 23:33, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Delete - Stub, unfunny. SirCs1987UOTM.t.c 04:57, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Poor, stubby, huffable. --Under user 08:39, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Author could do a lot better. --Nordamus(blab • crap) 23:42, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Delete It's quite random. In fact, there is little to no coherency connecting this article to itself. It's relatively innocuous, certainly, and it's not at all ranty, but that doesn't excuse it from being bad. It simply doesn't merit being on the site. It won't be missed if it's gone, and it should be.-SirLjlego, GUNVFHFIYCWotMSGWHotMPWotMAotMEGAEDMANotM+ (Talk) 18:00, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Stagnant lists. --Mitch 10:10, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Sweet mother of the blessed village cat, that's a lot of pointless listage. --Under user 12:55, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Delete This just isn't funny, and then you make a bunch of unfunny lists. --Dexter111344 19:34, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Delete I hate to repeat what's already been said, but this is just stagnant lists, pointless listage AND unfunny lists all in one. ~ Dame Ceridwyn ~ talkDUNVoNSEarc2.003:53, 10 August 2007
Utter crap. --Dexter111344 19:48, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Delete Geordie versus Mackem rivalries strike again. This time, at humour. -- (but) UntrueWhhhy?Whut?How?*Back from the dead* 22:44, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Delete Wha? VFD leaves me confused today. Almost seems like some sort of vanity page? ~ Dame Ceridwyn ~ talkDUNVoNSEarc2.003:51, 10 August 2007
Delete - Manages to be quite silly, but not funny. SirCs1987UOTM.t.c 07:38, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Random and unfunny. Completely lost me. --Under user 09:28, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Delete At first, I thought it talking about American football. Then I realized it was about actual football. Either way, it isn't funny. --Dexter111344 19:17, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Delete. It's a shame people can devote so much effort to something so unfunny. WWE Fancruft. --Under user 09:26, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Delete. As a lifelong wrestling fan, it always saddens me to see how awful the wrestling articles are. This is probably the worst I've seen. --15Mickey20(talk to Mickey) 13:02, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Delete. As a lifelong wrestling article fan, it always saddens me to see how awful actual wrestling is. This, however, is an exception. --TKFUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUCK 02:44, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Delete --GeneralInsineratehymn 03:05, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Delete Unfunny, boring, and the huge section of The Legend of XXXXX: Killed was appalling. ~ Dame Ceridwyn ~ talkDUNVoNSEarc2.003:48, 10 August 2007
Delete - Stupid, random and unfunny. SirCs1987UOTM.t.c 05:54, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Delete Stopped reading at "Madison is known for a wide varied of exports, most commonly the doctor and Syphilis." Was that okay? I just figured that by that point it would only get worse. Was I right? --Dexter111344 06:24, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Delete Depends, do you think: "The Night Life in Madison is very diverse. It entails beautiful scenery along with the smell of vomit in the evening air." is better? ~ Dame Ceridwyn ~ talkDUNVoNSEarc2.007:01, 09 August 2007
Ineligible User page sanctuary is more sacred than American pride. Sorry. -- (but) UntrueWhhhy?Whut?How?*Back from the dead* 00:40, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Keep per SbU. --Dexter111344 00:45, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Keep - It's a user subpage, and it isn't offensive. That means we have no reason to delete this. SirCs1987UOTM.t.c 01:46, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Strong Keep I also must disagree with Uncyclopedian. As long as anything within a user subspace is added by the eponymous user, it's untouchable. And as this has been added by Blake C, then there's nothing we can do.-SirLjlego, GUNVFHFIYCWotMSGWHotMPWotMAotMEGAEDMANotM+ (Talk) 01:50, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Strong Keep as per Uncyclopedian. And Ljlego, what about when other users move or recreate an article there for another, perhaps newer user they might be helping. Han does it often for users he is helping out. ~ Dame Ceridwyn ~ talkDUNVoNSEarc2.003:40, 09 August 2007
What I meant was that when Uncyclopedian said "anything can be in userspace but shock images and trolling." However, if those images or trolls are added by the eponymous user. Those are untouchable.-SirLjlego, GUNVFHFIYCWotMSGWHotMPWotMAotMEGAEDMANotM+ (Talk) 20:51, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
I dunno - point me to shock images in people's userspaces and I think I'd delete them. Hopefully, that was a hypothetical situation and I'll not have to do much of this though... -- (but) UntrueWhhhy?Whut?How?*Back from the dead* 22:00, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Keep - Userspace rule. You know, SbU, you have the POWER to end votes with a keep now. --CapercornFLAME!what?UNATOOWS 06:02, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Delete
Delete - Yes, a user sub-page. Sue me. But I don't see how this is satirical, parody, or even funny in any way. --AAA! (AAAA) 00:24, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
There is no 9/11 conspiracy, you morons. --GeneralInsineratehymn 00:36, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Delete It's not an attempt at anything to do with Uncyclopedia The Oblong Lobster 19:54, 9 August 2007 (UTC)