Uncyclopedia:Votes for deletion/old

From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia

< Uncyclopedia:Votes for deletion(Difference between revisions)
Jump to: navigation, search
(Thomas Shithead: vote)
(Pages for Deletion)
Line 18: Line 18:
 
-->
 
-->
 
<!-- Put all entries below this line -->
 
<!-- Put all entries below this line -->
  +
==[[Empathy]] ==
  +
{|{{purtytable}}
  +
||'''Keep'''||
  +
  +
|-
  +
||'''Delete'''||
  +
*'''Nom & Delete''' - Too listy and not much potential --{{User:Bonner/Sig}} 12:02, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
  +
|-
  +
||'''Comments'''||
  +
|}
  +
  +
 
==[[Melinda Gates]] ==
 
==[[Melinda Gates]] ==
 
{|{{purtytable}}
 
{|{{purtytable}}

Revision as of 12:02, September 23, 2007

Shortcut:
{{{1}}}
Deletion Policy
QuickVFD
Votes for deletion

Intensive Care Unit

del log

Rules and procedures:

  1. If you're too lazy to read the deletion policy, please, at least, carefully read this list of rules.
    1. But seriously, read the deletion policy.
    2. Do not put anything up for VFD that is not appropriate for VFD.
    3. Abusers of the policy will be abused by the claw end of a hammer. You have been warned.
  2. If you have an article that meets the criteria for VFD:
    1. Check the revision history of the page. It may have been vandalised, or just badly edited over a long period of time. If so, find a better version and revert the article. It may not be suitable for deletion.
    2. Add {{vfd}} to the article in question. Failure to do so will invalidate the vote.
    3. Provide an initial vote (see below) and include a comment as to why you have placed the article on VFD.
  3. If you are here to vote on the deletion/salvation of articles:
    1. Thank you.
    2. No really, thank you.
    3. Edit the section for the article you are addressing.
    4. Pick a space under the appropriate heading (Keep, Delete, Comment), add your sig/comment preceded with a #
      1. # - Creates a numbered bullet for your entry and makes sure that things are formatted correctly (do not put a space before the #).
      2. Comment - If you care to, leave a comment, even if it is as short as "The article is not at all funny". Votes without comments are less useful in analyzing the quality of an article.
      3. --~~~~ - Sign and timestamp your vote. Unsigned votes will be removed without prejudice.
  4. Do not revert edits of the administrators.
  5. If an article survives VFD, do not resubmit it for at least 1 month or you will get a bollocking.
  6. If you are neither an Administrator nor a designated Poopsmith, do not remove anything from VFD; doing so will get you banned for a very long time.
Un-vfd

Don't let your articles turn to trash

Pages for Deletion

Zombiebaronvs.Braydie

Make sure that you have read the rules (above) and the deletion policy. Please don't nominate Main Page or Votes for Deletion; that joke has been done so many times we might just beat you with a nail bat before we tear our hair out in frustration. This also applies to Featured Articles and Uncyclopedia In-Jokes.


How to quickly find VFDable articles (using special pages):


Notes for Administrators:

  • Allow at least 24 hours before closing a nomination or deleting an article.
  • Remember to delete any unused images from deleted articles and, if necessary, check what links to the article and remove any backlinks. Make sure to delete any broken redirects created as well.
  • To avoid confusion, try to remove closed nominations which cause the page to exceed to 20 articles.
  • If a nomination is kept, please add {{Oldvfd}} to the article's talk page.

To add an article, edit this section, and follow the directions in the comments.


Don't flood VFD full of articles, or at least leave a space between your nominations.

If you increase the number of articles on VFD to over 20, you will be blocked for 1 day, no exceptions. This means do not increase the number of active votes on VFD to over twenty. Inactive votes are shown with either a red link (where they have been deleted), or with the 🔒 Closed nomination H T D Oldvfd tag to indicate that the article has been kept. You have been warned.

Please remember to check an article's history, in case of recent or long term vandalism, before nominating an article. Also, check the article's talk page and 'What links here' for prior nominations. If the article has been nominated before there will be a link from a VFD archive page.


Empathy

Keep
Delete
  • Nom & Delete - Too listy and not much potential --BonSig.png (Bonner) Icons-flag-gb (Talk) 12:02, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Comments


Melinda Gates

Keep
Delete
  • Nom & Delete - Unfunny Stub --BonSig.png (Bonner) Icons-flag-gb (Talk) 11:53, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Comments


Jury

Keep
Delete
Comments

Thomas Shithead

Keep
Delete
Comments

Vorderman

Keep
Delete
Comments

Smokey on O'Reilly transcript

Keep
  • Keep. Are we reading the same page? Lines like "So you think hard working Christian Americans should be deprived the right to let their fires burn?" are too funny to not be untrue. Sir Modusoperandi Boinc! 03:41, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep and throw in a picture. --Littleboyonly TKFUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUCK Oldmanonly 03:59, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak keep Although I hope we don't suddenly end up with several more O'Reilly transcript articles. Quadzilla99 04:14, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep --Aljolson Hi, hey! I'M A MOTERFUCKING NIGGER BITCH LOVER Aljolson 04:51, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. I didn't see anything that bad here. I actually chckled once as well. --Sir Under User (Hi, How Are You?) VFH KUN 11:58, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete
  • Delete O'Reilly: Look, most times when an article is bad it doesn't survive. Those are just the facts! Bear: Grrrrrrrrrrrrrraaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaalllllll O'Reilly is then eaten by bear. Note the lack of humor in this little tidbit. Imagine that, minus some of the particulars, and an entire damn page, and then you've got this page in a nutshell.-Sir Ljlego, GUN VFH FIYC WotM SG WHotM PWotM AotM EGAEDM ANotM + (Talk) 02:39, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete --Aljolson Hi, hey! I'M A MOTERFUCKING NIGGER BITCH LOVER Aljolson 03:21, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Comments

Я

Keep
Delete
Comments

Hand Egg

Keep
Delete
  • Delete I found this while looking through the database for Chuck Norris references to remove. This is one of them. While he is only mentioned in passing, the article itself is yet another example of how not to write an article. Through woefully unoriginal means, it names quite a few if not all irritating Internet memes, in a list no less. Before it does this, it goes through the motions of half-assed article writing: scattershot plotting, pseudo-anti-American sentiment, etcetera. Add to that a pathetically stupid concept, and this isn't worth keeping.-Sir Ljlego, GUN VFH FIYC WotM SG WHotM PWotM AotM EGAEDM ANotM + (Talk) 20:21, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. -- Mitch Icons-flag-au 00:52, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete --Aljolson Hi, hey! I'M A MOTERFUCKING NIGGER BITCH LOVER Aljolson 02:25, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Quadzilla99 04:00, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Scrap --Littleboyonly TKFUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUCK Oldmanonly 04:11, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. A nothing article. --Sir Under User (Hi, How Are You?) VFH KUN 11:50, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Comments

Reasons to become an atheist/the funny version

Keep
  • It's no worse than Reasons to become an Atheist. No better, neither. Damn atheists...always writing things. Sir Modusoperandi Boinc! 04:52, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - Not too bad. People don't tend to notice subpages as much as their main pages, so I tend to vote to keep most subpages. Icons-flag-au Sir Cs1987 UOTM. t. c 12:41, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete
Comments

Harriet Miers

Keep
  • Keep It's pretty funny. And besides, pages about Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinsky aren't very topical either. Err... well... Monica Lewinsky isn't... Bill still is. People still remember Harriet Miers. And she's the only groupie Bush has. Don't take that away from him. Also, since it hasn't changed since the two previous VFD's, it is technically ineligible. --Dexter111344 02:55, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. Starts off a bit weak, but the end is funny. What Dexter said about the topicality, too. --Littleboyonly TKFUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUCK Oldmanonly 03:21, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - Not too bad. Icons-flag-au Sir Cs1987 UOTM. t. c 12:27, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep I've seen much, much worse around here. Quadzilla99 03:17, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. Meh, it's not bad. --Sir Under User (Hi, How Are You?) VFH KUN 11:49, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete
  • Delete - This had potential when it was first created, but now that Harriet Miers has faded into the dust, it no longer has potential and a good rewrite won't ever be able to happen--Sir Manforman CUN 22:21, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete --Aljolson Hi, hey! I'M A MOTERFUCKING NIGGER BITCH LOVER Aljolson 01:03, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Comments
  • I don't feel strongly enough to vote either way, though I would suggest if this nomination results in a keep that someone up the rewrite to medium level. However, I must point out {{wikipedia}}, which rather helps one when they don't get the article. I've put a couple on, to good response. Also, I suggest looking at the talk page of an article to see if it's previously been VFD'd fruitlessly recently.-Sir Ljlego, GUN VFH FIYC WotM SG WHotM PWotM AotM EGAEDM ANotM + (Talk) 22:05, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I just slam on the keyboard and magic happens

Keep
Delete
Comments


Uncyclopedia:Useless Gobshite of the Month

Keep
  • Strong Keep as per before. If you get rid of UGotM, that's like getting rid of lipids. Sure, some people don't like lipids, but you need it to go along with all the other macromolecules that have been there since the beginning of existence. --Littleboyonly TKFUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUCK Oldmanonly 23:23, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Storong keep Look, If you can't take a joke... okay... just ignore it. Lemmee point this out to you:We are jackasses. --Lt. High Gen. Grue The Few The Proud, The Marines 23:30, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. -- Sir Mhaille Icons-flag-gb (talk to me)
  • The Internet: Serious Business. ~ Tophatsig 20/09/2007 @ 23:36
  • Again? --Aljolson Hi, hey! I'M A MOTERFUCKING NIGGER BITCH LOVER Aljolson 23:38, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, also, should the delete vote get higher then the keep vote on this, I recommend that we revert to the "Dead Award" status that we had earlier today. Also, I'd like to point out that Cajek's comment that it was already deleted today is to be taken with a very large grain of salt. Because it wasn't. -- Brigadier General Sir Zombiebaron 23:44, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
  • keep --- UnIdiot | GUN | Talk | Contribs - 23:51, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep So that some of us can dream. -- Kip > Talk Works Puzzle Potato Dry Brush CUN Icons-flag-us 05:53, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. Apparently, this isn't a good argument, but it's a joke, like everything else on uncyc. If you're taking it seriously, it's time to sit back and remember that this is the internet, not real life. Also, all of you are SO getting UGotM after this! P.M., WotM, & GUN, Sir Led Balloon Baloon(Tick Tock) (Contribs) 11:01, Sep 21
  • Keep Dont you understand!? This is the only thing I'll ever be good aaat!!!! Mr. Briggs Inc. 12:21, 21 September 2007 (UTC) Eh?
  • KEEP This ain't going no where! --Dexter111344 13:00, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep BUT have it limited to admins as per Mhaille's instructions in the forum. - RougethebatAdmiral Enzo Aquarius-Dial the Gate SonicLivesPicture 17:53, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keepy, but make it mandatory that the nominees accept.  Sir Skullthumper, MD (criticize  writings  SU&W) 19:15 Sep 21, 2007
  • Weak Keep If the Post nomantion bans does not disqulify a user is removed I think it will become more of joke a less a award for trolls.--Scott 22:11, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - Let Famine win--Sir Manforman CUN 22:42, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - It's a joke people...Let's hear the laughs now --BonSig.png (Bonner) Icons-flag-gb (Talk) 22:57, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - Delete it simply because a few people can't take a joke? Hell no! --General Insineratehymn 23:37, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Conditional Keep - Just don't flood it randomly like you have now. --AAA! (AAAA) 00:15, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - Uncyclopedia will have no way of expelling it's dumb asses out of its many sewers without it. --Eiyuu Kou 00:18, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Conditional Keep - Until recently, most UGotM winners actually deserved it, but the recent nominations are all crap. I'll be fine with it as long as either no more nominations are allowed or the requirements to be eligible for UGotm are changed. --Sir Starnestommy Icons-flag-us (TalkContribsCUNCapt.) 05:15, September 22, 2007
  • STRONG KEEP - Use it for jokes, not actual people who deserve to be banned. --Capercorn FLAME! what? UNATO OWS 14:28, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Use if for people who deserve it, not for jokes. The Oblong Lobster 15:37, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete
  • It wasn't given a chance, Full-Protection - less than a single day, it is off VFD and temporarily locked. Than it is moved to a "petition." 13 users sign without a good reason, the best reason was "It's a joke, don't take it seriously", but how on earth is it a joke?? Meanwhile, the minority has "better" reasons to delete. And when it was on VFD, we reached "delete". I do not care that it was on for a long time, we've had things for long times, and eventually, we need to give them up. There is alternatives to deal with disruptive editors and this is not one of them, give it a fair trial, and delete--Sir Manforman CUN 23:14, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
  • THIS WAS ALREADY DELETED TODAY We already voted, the page died. --  Le Cejak <-> 23:21, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per previous vote. Icons-flag-au Sir Cs1987 UOTM. t. c 04:49, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per previous arguments. Spang talk 04:53, 21 Sep 2007
  • While this page used to have a point, where someone who was bad enough to keep but not bad enough to ban got a jab in the ribs telling him or her to shape up, it has degenerated, rather consistently, into a page of bad vibes, drama and, yes, gobshitery. I never really liked this page, it's time for it to go. It's a bile-filled, festering trainwreck of a mixed metaphor and Uncyclopedia would be better off without it. Sir Modusoperandi Boinc! 06:10, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Give Dead Award status At least for a while, to give people a chance to calm down. Maybe reinstate it later if people promise to be good. --Strange (but) Untrue  Whhhy?Whut?How? *Back from the dead* 08:29, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, it has become something we should not be encouraging at this site. ~Sir Rangeley Icons-flag-us GUN WotM UotM EGA +S (talk) 12:36, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Very strong delete What is the point of an award meant to put down other users? Isn't that a violation of our golden rule, "Don't be a dick"? Seriously, selecting a "Useless Gobshite of the Month" is just asking for bitter flamewars to break out. This website will be much better without UGotM.-- Phlegm Leoispotter * (garble! jank!) 20:42, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
  • De-1337 --Hotadmin4u69 [TALK] 00:38, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Comments
  • CUN, can we please have real reasons why this should be kept or deleted? I don't get whatever the hell it is yer talking about. --  Le Cejak <-> 23:26, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
    • I gave a giant paragraph of real reasons the last time this was nominated (earlier today), and I don't feel this nomination worthy enough to do that again. So you can take your "real reasons" and SHOVE IT into a 401k, that way it generates more interest over time. --Littleboyonly TKFUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUCK Oldmanonly 23:35, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
  • You don't need to call me "CUN" Cajek. It's a just a rank I acheived for writing a featured article. Also, I was explaining that earlier today, we reached a "delete" verdict this morining, and hear it is, back again. It was not given a fair trial so I re-nominated it--Sir Manforman CUN 23:40, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - I think Cajek is talking about the VFD verdict--Sir Manforman CUN 23:46, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Manforman, I'd just like to point out to you that all of the actions that you describe being taken were taken under the assumption that the majority was against UGotM. I doubt that this page can ever be "deleted", per se, because so many pages link to it. The only answer is to have it as a "Dead Award", as it was earlier today. -- Brigadier General Sir Zombiebaron 23:47, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
    • I guess you're right ZB, it should probably be a "dead" award.--Sir Manforman CUN 23:49, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
      • "Should", not being the optimal word, given the mass of "Keep" votes. --Littleboyonly TKFUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUCK Oldmanonly 00:19, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
        • I'd like to see this get a full 3 days. And possibly put a note in the dump, as a lot of people are bound to not check VFD regularly. Spang talk 04:53, 21 Sep 2007
  • Watch, as I guaruntee you if this award is to be deleted or given dead award status some user is going to ressurect it in their userspace, although probably with a different name. ~ Tophatsig 21/09/2007 @ 11:43
$10 on TomMayfair's userspace. -- Brigadier General Sir Zombiebaron 13:39, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Just because a couple of users can't take a joke doesn't mean this should die. There are many more users who want to keep this than delete or end it. Oh and regarding that "We already voted, the page died.", that was on VFD for a few hours and only a few VFD regulars even got a chance to vote on it before it was killed. That's just plain fucked up. --Dexter111344 13:27, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Discussion can go on at the forum topic, so as not to take up too much space here. As for not taking a joke, I think the first line here covers a lot of aspects of what UGotM has become. It might be a joke to you, but if the people who "can't take a joke" don't want the award, it's not funny to force it upon them like what happens now. Spang talk 05:16, 21 Sep 2007
Acctaully, the first sentence of that page ("Bullying: what is it?") doesn't really apply to UGotM at all. It's more of a question, really. Also, nobody is forcing the award on anybody. I think since that one guy (who's username escapes me, at the moment) decided not to accept NotM, its become fairly accepted that you can choose not to accept an award, and instead give it to the person with the next highest score. Finnally, if anyone feels bullied, they should just talk to an admin who can solve the problem. -- Brigadier General Sir Zombiebaron 21:44, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
You dodge any of my arguments against it with semantics about what is the first line of what I referenced, and then you say anyone is free to not accept the award after the debacle with manforman etc, when he clearly didn't want it? Ugh. Spang talk 03:14, 22 Sep 2007
Cri moar plz. --ShroomsShroom!Gay2Sir Flammable KUN Prince%21.gif (Na Naaaaa...)Gay2Shroom!Shroomirror 15:21, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I'm afraid I have no idea what "the debacle with manforman" is. You're going to have to speak more clearly if you want me to continue to make you look silly. -- Brigadier General Sir Zombiebaron 14:46, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm going to go ahead and jump right in here, regardless of how dangerous it might be to my "banned" status. Look, I don't particularly love UGotM. It's basically become a place where we borderline cyber-bully people, whether intentionally or otherwise. Part of the problem there is that people have lost track of what it's supposed to be. I don't think the "IT'S A DAMN JOKE!" is a sufficient reason to make people stop complaining that they got nommed. Another problem with it is that it seems to be pervaded with new people, which means people who don't know the concept behind it. It's not like it's very clear on the vote page. For all intents and purposes, reading it completely neutrally, it seems to be a legitimate page where users decide to mess around with people. I've been trying to cut down on my swearing lately, but this has become an absolute fucking nightmare. There has been a fair amount of controversy on the page as of late (at least two per month). Now, Zombiebaron (by the way, it was Anyone who declined NotM), don't make me go and link you to all the "debacles" that we've had so far. But they're there.
I'm tired of watching this site, which I am very fond of, steeped in arbitrary controversy such as this. There is absolutely no reason why we should have to deal with all of this. As was the situation with Template:Featuredarticle the other night, sometimes the only way to fix a problem is to blank the source. And, as I've noted multiple times in this month alone, there has been a taut and somewhat unwelcoming atmosphere about the place recently. I don't know about any of you guys, but I think this could one of the major sources of the problem. I don't really like ranting the way I have, but I'm absolutely tired of this garbage.
Bottom line, this is getting ridiculous. Currently, we have admins and users alike feuding rather heatedly over a page that is supposed to be a joke. All of them are users I consider to be useful. Therefore, we are tearing apart a tight-knit group of users that should be doing stuff that counts, not fighting over the fate of a vote page conceived in jest. I'm not expecting the adversity to go away, but I honestly don't think that this is helping matters at all. And that is simply unacceptable.-Sir Ljlego, GUN VFH FIYC WotM SG WHotM PWotM AotM EGAEDM ANotM + (Talk) 15:18, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Very well put, Ljlego. Here's my two cents: We should unban Fonchezzz, let him win UGotM, infiniban him again, then put this silly award to death.-- Phlegm Leoispotter * (garble! jank!) 15:29, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
In all due respect Leoispotter, that's the worst idea I've ever heard. -- Brigadier General Sir Zombiebaron 19:09, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Really? Worse than the idea of adding a small thermal exhaust port that leads straight to the reactor on the Death Star? Sir Modusoperandi Boinc! 02:50, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Well, that exhaust port had a purpose. Namely, to be at the end of a long, poorly defended, hallway-style ditch. It's like those "Do Not Enter" doors that took you an hour to find in the first place. Except you don't ussually blow up "Do Not Enter" doors. -- Brigadier General Sir Zombiebaron 03:56, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
If you look really closely, there was a sign reading deus ex machina beside the port. Sir Modusoperandi Boinc! 04:10, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Spang says this should be given a full three days, and it has got a full three days. The keep response seems overwhelming. Kept?--Littleboyonly TKFUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUCK Oldmanonly 06:07, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Archived VFD Discussions

Template:VFDarchive

Personal tools
In other languages
projects