Uncyclopedia:Votes for deletion

From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia

(Difference between revisions)
Jump to: navigation, search
(Unquotable:Quotes in Piratespeak, Unquotable:Quotes_in_Obfuscata, Unquotable:Quotes in Gangsta,Unquotable:Quotes in Français)
({{VFDn|Sudden Instant Death Syndrome}}: Deleted)
 
(6,690 intermediate revisions by 97 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{deletiondebates|[[UN:VFD]]}}{{VFDRules}}
+
{{VFDr}}
  +
[[Category:Uncyclopedia deletion]]
  +
[[Category:Pages repeatedly nominated on VFD]]
  +
[[es:Inciclopedia:VPB]]
  +
[[id:Tolololpedia:PUP]]
  +
[[ko:포럼:세탁소]]
  +
[[pt:Desciclopédia:Eliminação de páginas]]
  +
<!-- Do not edit above this line -->
   
=Pages for Deletion=
+
== {{VFDn|Vietnamese}} ==
{{VFDRules2}}
 
<div style="display: none;">
 
<!-- COPY, do not CUT, the below template, and place it at the TOP of the page, replace "ARTICLE NAME HERE" as appropriate and please remove the arrows and stuff. It's unnecessary to keep that stuff.
 
   
== [[ARTICLE NAME HERE]] ==
+
{{VFDg|time=17:42, November 20, 2014 (UTC)
{{Votervfd|time=~~~~~
+
|delnumber=5
|keepnumber=0
 
|keep=
 
|delnumber=1
 
 
|delete=
 
|delete=
|comments=
+
#{{Delete}} A bunch of pornographic content and a few sentences about how the Chinese are better than the Vietnamese. --[[User:Precious Star|Precious Star]] ([[User talk:Precious Star|talk]]) 17:44, November 20, 2014 (UTC)
}}
+
#{{Delete}} Not an "encyclopedia article" but a pictorial essay, to make the unfunny assertion that the Vietnamese are whores. {{User:SPIKE/signature}}<small>18:05 20-Nov-14</small>
Don't finagle with with the above template. Seriously. You may succumb to peer pressure.
+
#{{Delete}} Words cannot describe just how terrible this article is. So, it's pretty bad. [[User:ConCass2|ConCass2]] ([[User talk:ConCass2|talk]]) 19:39, November 20, 2014 (UTC)
+
#{{Delete}} Just when you think all the ancient junk has gone...this one pops up! --{{User:Romartus/sig2}} 22:43, November 21, 2014 (UTC)
And place the VFD tag on the page, dammit! Otherwise, we will scrape your balls with a rusty razor blade! If you don't have balls we are willing to improvise.
+
#An attempt to look nice at the expense of anything remotely intelligent. {{User:Llwy-ar-lawr/sig|20141122000235}}
 
New nominations at the top of the page below this line; --></div>
 
 
== [[Unquotable:Litterbox]] ==
 
{{Votervfd|time=19:58, February 18, 2013 (UTC)
 
 
|keepnumber=0
 
|keepnumber=0
 
|keep=
 
|keep=
|delnumber=4
 
|delete=#{{delete}} Back in 2006, {{U|some user}} created a copy of the [[sandbox]] in quotespace. Literally. --{{User:Mnbvcxz/sig5}} 19:58, February 18, 2013 (UTC)
 
#{{Delete}} An alternate namespace no more needs its own Sandbox than, well, the F.C.C. needs its own judges and welfare system. Happily, this aberration we can get rid of without a union grievance. {{User:SPIKE/signature}}<small>20:03 18-Feb-13</small>
 
#{{Delete}} No need for this redundancy. The quotes on this page aren't even that funny. {{User:Simsilikesims/sig}} 00:01, February 19, 2013 (UTC)
 
#Delete like it's 1999. [[user:Aleister|''Aleister'']] 00:52 19-2-'13
 
 
|comments=
 
|comments=
 
}}
 
}}
   
== [[Unquotable:Quotes in Piratespeak]], [[Unquotable:Quotes_in_Obfuscata]], [[Unquotable:Quotes in Gangsta]],[[Unquotable:Quotes in Français]] ==
+
== {{VFDn|Chav/Translations}} ==
{{Votervfd|time=19:37, February 18, 2013 (UTC)
 
|keepnumber=1
 
|keep=#{{keep}} I like the idea of these other "languages", and the unquotable pages are classic examples of these other faux languages. Besides, removing these pages should be a decision put off until the fate of the Unquotable namespace is decided, since they are linked to on the main page of the Unquotable namespace, and would require a change to that page. {{User:Simsilikesims/sig}} 00:36, February 19, 2013 (UTC)
 
|delnumber=3
 
|delete=#{{delete}} Argh matey. This be unquotes in piratespeak. Shiver me timbers and hoist the mizzen mast. Make this land-lubbing article walk the plank and send it to Davy Jones's locker. Avast, ye scalawags: yo-ho-ho and a bottle of rum. --{{User:Mnbvcxz/sig5}} 19:37, February 18, 2013 (UTC)
 
#{{Delete}} Could have sworn that ''Groundhog Day'' has passed, but I keep seeing the same page over and over. Nominator counted 37 pages in this namespace: How many are prank copies of the same text? (Don't spend time researching that question....) {{User:SPIKE/signature}}<small>19:41 18-Feb-13</small>
 
#Delete like it's 1999. [[user:Aleister|''Aleister'']] 00:52 19-2-'13
 
|comments=*'''Clarification.''' There about about 65 pages, 37 of which are "real articles". This type of stuff is not counted as a "real article". There are <s>two</s> three more repeats of the mainpage. --{{User:Mnbvcxz/sig5}} 19:47, February 18, 2013 (UTC)
 
*:'''Yikes!''' We have allowed more than one article per VFD nomination, provided you specify exactly what is to be deleted when nominating, and you don't mind having the vote be all-or-nothing. Hint, hint. {{User:SPIKE/signature}}<small>19:55 18-Feb-13</small>
 
*::Iz admin, go ahead and do it. Other three are [[Unquotable:Quotes_in_Obfuscata]], [[Unquotable:Quotes in Gangsta]], and the somewhat "different" [[Unquotable:Quotes in Français]] --{{User:Mnbvcxz/sig5}} 19:59, February 18, 2013 (UTC)
 
*:::By consensus of the only voters so far, it is so ordered. {{User:SPIKE/signature}}<small>20:09 18-Feb-13</small>
 
*:::PS--The Français page is a disambig over to our French counterpart, something we should not put ourselves in the business of doing except via the Sidebar; the Obfuscata illustrates something that should be a canon rule: The bonus points for "writing an article in the style of the thing it's about" should have a big red warning sign for the repetitive, the gratuitously confusing, and the otherwise very bad, which this one is. {{User:SPIKE/signature}}<small>20:14 18-Feb-13</small>
 
}}
 
   
== [[Unquotable:Quotes_on_Wheels]] ==
+
{{VFDg|time=17:28, November 21, 2014 (UTC)
{{Votervfd|time=19:28, February 18, 2013 (UTC)
+
|delnumber=5
  +
|delete=
  +
#{{Delete}} I don't think this is particularly funny or worth keeping. {{User:Anton199/sig}} 17:28, November 21, 2014 (UTC)
  +
#{{Delete}} Various editors (overwhelmingly Anons) have used this overlong list to catalog the "funny" things that chavs say rather than write original humor. {{User:SPIKE/signature}}<small>17:52 21-Nov-14</small>
  +
#{{Delete}} The same joke repeated hundreds of times --[[User:Precious Star|Precious Star]] ([[User talk:Precious Star|talk]]) 19:26, November 21, 2014 (UTC)
  +
#{{Delete}} Flypaper. --{{User:Romartus/sig2}} 22:46, November 21, 2014 (UTC)
  +
#Can't tell if all this stuff is even about chavs at all. In any case, it's not of much use. {{User:Llwy-ar-lawr/sig|20141122000658}}
 
|keepnumber=0
 
|keepnumber=0
 
|keep=
 
|keep=
|delnumber=3
 
|delete=#{{delete}} another unquotable reskin. This was has formatting to make it look vandalized. Largely untouched since 2006. Apparently, adding "ON WHEEELS" randomly and repeatedly was funny back in 2006. --{{User:Mnbvcxz/sig5}} 19:28, February 18, 2013 (UTC)
 
#{{Delete}} Did the <s>vandal</s> author know that a VFD template was coming when he wrote his SPAN with absolute positioning to overlay it? I had a notion to hack this prank away, but I hope and expect the entire page will meet its maker soon. {{User:SPIKE/signature}}<small>19:30 18-Feb-13</small>
 
#{{Delete}} This page is ugly, and really doesn't add much of anything, and isn't even close to another "language", doesn't teach n00bs anything either. It can go. {{User:Simsilikesims/sig}} 00:40, February 19, 2013 (UTC)
 
 
|comments=
 
|comments=
 
}}
 
}}
   
== [[Unquotable:Quotes_in_Dumbass]] ==
+
== {{VFDn|SEHS}} ==
{{Votervfd|time=13:48, February 18, 2013 (UTC)
 
|keepnumber=0
 
|keep=
 
|delnumber=2
 
|delete=#{{delete}} This is a basically a reskin of [[Unquotable:Main_Page]]. And by reskin, I mean text change. This is essentially the same article as it was in 2006. --{{User:Mnbvcxz/sig5}} 13:48, February 18, 2013 (UTC)
 
#{{Delete}} And the "text change" is to vulgar (not even original-vulgar but vulgar in the style of Dumbass). Amusing to the author (creatively named {{U|Some user}}, sigh), not clever for the reader. {{User:SPIKE/signature}}<small>14:04 18-Feb-13</small>
 
#{{Delete}} Dumb but not amusing. {{User:Simsilikesims/sig}} 00:42, February 19, 2013 (UTC)
 
|comments=
 
}}
 
   
== [[:Category:Things Retards Believe]] ==
+
{{VFDt|time=21:15, November 22, 2014 (UTC)
{{Votervfd|time=12:16, February 18, 2013 (UTC)
 
|keepnumber=0
 
|keep=
 
 
|delnumber=3
 
|delnumber=3
 
|delete=
 
|delete=
#{{Delete}} Another category by which to slap a tag on an article that you simply dislike the subject. Used in userspace and, of course, on [[Fox News]]. A clever insult is one thing; saying retards believe it is drive-by listcruft. {{User:SPIKE/signature}}<small>12:16 18-Feb-13</small>
+
#{{Delete}} SEHS being "Sudden Head Exploding Syndrome," a Wacky Ailment with which to piggyback off [[A splode]] in this article from 2005, which has little to say about the ailment no one will look up except that it runs in things — and American politicians — the authors don't happen to like. Before deleting the external links, I didn't follow them, so I can't say whether this entire Syndrome was invented at an external website, as our recent "Dihydrogen monoxide" was. {{User:SPIKE/signature}}<small>21:15 22-Nov-14</small>
#'''Yep''' per below {{User:PuppyOnTheRadio/sig3|01:23 18 Feb 2013}}
+
#Unlike [[Dihydrogen monoxide]], this doesn't deserve an article. {{User:Llwy-ar-lawr/sig|20141123001312}}
#{{delete}} Insult category. --{{User:Mnbvcxz/sig5}} 13:38, February 18, 2013 (UTC)
+
#{{Delete}} It's not terrible, but it's not good either. --{{User:Xamralco/sig}} 02:22, November 23, 2014 (UTC)
|comments=
 
*Comment: While this has no value by itself, the subcategories themselves are worth keeping, and preferably in a common area. A rename to something along the lines of “[[This page does not exist|Category:Lies for the gullible]]” or the ilk would work. {{User:PuppyOnTheRadio/sig3|12:36 18 Feb 2013}}
 
*:{{Delete}} The subcategories will survive the deletion of this category, as will, of course, the pages in the category. Apart from the un-P.C. reference to "retards," this category is an epithet with no cleverness. {{User:SPIKE/signature}}<small>13:05 18-Feb-13</small>
 
*::I know. I just think the deletion leaves a category gap. It's a stupid cat, though. {{User:PuppyOnTheRadio/sig3|01:23 18 Feb 2013}}
 
*:::Most categories are in multiple meta-categories, so category deletion does not create a gap. If this category is deleted, [[:Category:Ineffective Left Wing Propaganda]], [[:Category:Nasty Right Wing Bitches‎]], [[:Category:Political Bullshit‎]], and [[:Category:Politicians‎]] will no longer be sub-sub-categories of [[:Category:Retards]]. So it isn't destroying any information, other that a "People who politics I dislike, and therefore insult (immaturely)" category. --{{User:Mnbvcxz/sig5}} 13:38, February 18, 2013 (UTC)
 
}}
 
 
==[[Debate]] ==
 
{{Votervfd|time=13:46, February 17, 2013 (UTC)
 
 
|keepnumber=0
 
|keepnumber=0
 
|keep=
 
|keep=
|delnumber=4
 
|delete=
 
#{{delete|Delete and redirect}} to [[UnDebate:Main Page]]. {{User:PuppyOnTheRadio/sig3|01:46 17 Feb}}
 
#{{Delete}} Yes, do exactly that. Some day a student on the debate team will write an article with serious ridicule of that experience. That will beat the crap out of this long ramble that treats debate as yet another Wacky War. {{User:SPIKE/signature}}<small>14:40 17-Feb-13</small>
 
#{{delete}} per above. --{{User:Mnbvcxz/sig5}} 13:38, February 18, 2013 (UTC)
 
#{{Delete}} per above. I lost interest in this article about halfway through the sample debate, and couldn't be bothered to read all of it, it's that bad. {{User:Simsilikesims/sig}} 00:51, February 19, 2013 (UTC)
 
 
|comments=
 
|comments=
 
}}
 
}}
   
== [[Mexican Canadian War of 1984]] ==
+
== {{VFDn|Sudden Instant Death Syndrome}} ==
{{Votervfd|time=13:42, February 17, 2013 (UTC)
+
|keepnumber=0
+
{{VFDg|time=00:25, November 23, 2014 (UTC)
|keep=
+
|delnumber=5
|delnumber=3
 
 
|delete=
 
|delete=
# {{Delete}} as discussed on [[User talk:Aleister in Chains#Mexican Canadian War of 1984]]. A winner of the ''WTF and why is it here?'' award. {{User:PuppyOnTheRadio/sig3|01:42 17 Feb}}
+
#From the redundant and made-up title to the random lists of nonsensical items such as masturbating kittens, this article is about essentially nothing. {{User:Llwy-ar-lawr/sig|20141123002536}}
#{{Delete|Delete promptly.}} No one will ever look for this article (except Anon, overnight) and no one cares about author's random history-of-the-future (set in 1984 only because 1984 is a meme). {{User:SPIKE/signature}}<small>14:19 17-Feb-13</small>
+
#{{Delete}} Dead Baby Humor has to be especially good to be funny. This article, by comparison, uses most of the trite themes in the book: Author discussing himself, author apparently with A.D.D., "nobody knows anything," listcruft, memecruft, history-of-the-future, and another list of Notable Sufferers, inviting cyberbullying and not being disappointed in the response. {{User:SPIKE/signature}}<small>01:16 23-Nov-14</small>
#{{delete}} per above. --{{User:Mnbvcxz/sig5}} 13:38, February 18, 2013 (UTC)
+
#{{Delete}} Stupid. --{{User:Xamralco/sig}} 02:14, November 23, 2014 (UTC)
|comments=
+
#{{Delete}} HowTo:Not write an article {{User:Frosty/sig3}} 06:04, November 24, 2014 (UTC)
}}
+
#{{Delete}} Not funny at all. {{User:Newman66/sig}} 23:54, November 24, 2014 (UTC)
 
== [[Unquotable:Charles Darwin]] ==
 
*Please discuss the global issue further at [[Forum:Crapspaces]]. {{User:SPIKE/signature}}<small>13:50 17-Feb-13</small>
 
{{Votervfd|time=10:59, February 17, 2013 (UTC)
 
 
|keepnumber=0
 
|keepnumber=0
 
|keep=
 
|keep=
|delnumber=1
 
|delete=#{{delete}} I'm throwing this out to see if we want to trim back the UnQuotable project. I support its deletion, because scattershot lists of quotes are not funny. --{{User:Mnbvcxz/sig5}} 10:59, February 17, 2013 (UTC)
 
 
|comments=
 
|comments=
*[[Unquotable]] is a parody of Wikiquote. This means that it's essentially a scattershot of lists of quotes. Some of these are okay, given that it's a very limited frame. Most of them are terrible. And [[Unquotable:Steven Wright]]<ref>Now deleted, independent of the issues discussed here; a cut-and-paste from an external humor website. -Spike</ref> has recently been recreated, and as with previous incarnations is pretty woeful. While I'd agree with a massive trim on these pages (which I went through and trimmed out a lot of these a year ago, but VFD'd few of them), the namespace has it's place. {{User:PuppyOnTheRadio/sig3|11:04 17 Feb}}
+
*It hardly discusses babies anyway. Only two paragraphs at the end. {{User:Llwy-ar-lawr/sig|20141123013038}}
*:Just because Wikipedia does something doesn't mean we should copy it. An example is the fork's recent "UnVoyage" which is likely to turn into Ultra-Towncruft, if it isn't forgotten in a few months. While the unquotable format does parody an actual thing, it is not particularly conducive to writing good material. There is no good reason why there should be a quote page by Charles Darwin, and not one by, say Preggobear. I could create a quote page for Preggobear, but anything I can say there can be , and probably is, said better in paragraph format in the mainspace article. --{{User:Mnbvcxz/sig5}} 11:18, February 17, 2013 (UTC)
 
*::Yeah, but if we tried to do a [[Captain Oblivious]] article it... well, you can see what I ended up doing with it. I've trimmed this particular page down now to remove some of the worst quotes. (Although I agree - I see no value in UnVoyage. It'll go much the same way as UnBestiary in the end.) {{User:PuppyOnTheRadio/sig3|12:17 17 Feb}}
 
*:::My issue is that you are saving weak articles by moving them out of mainspace into a "crapspace" for lack of a better term. Articles like [[Captain Oblivious]] should stand or fall on their own merits, not hide their flaws behind a namespace. It would like moving '''Robotic ghost pirates''' to '''UnLegacyRandumbo:Robotic ghost pirates''' instead of taking it to VFD. --{{User:Mnbvcxz/sig5}} 13:13, February 17, 2013 (UTC)
 
*::::Except that I didn't think it was VFD worthy. I felt it had merit, but not in the “frame” of mainspace. Otherwise we should delete UnDictionary because all the articles are stubs. Under that “frame”, this article works. {{User:PuppyOnTheRadio/sig3|01:42 17 Feb}}
 
----
 
<references />
 
 
}}
 
}}
   
== [[Avogadro]] ==
+
== {{VFDc|Samuel L. Vacuum}} ==
{{Votervfd|time=08:49, February 17, 2013 (UTC)
 
|keepnumber=0
 
|keep=
 
|delnumber=2
 
|delete=#{{delete}} Article consists of immaturely insulting the subject and grues. It is also unlinked from mainspace, besides a couple redirects. --{{User:Mnbvcxz/sig5}} 08:49, February 17, 2013 (UTC)
 
#{{Delete|Part-time penis.}} And I do hate it when grues are insulted. {{User:SPIKE/signature}}<small>14:21 17-Feb-13</small>
 
|comments=
 
}}
 
   
== [[Word Salad]] ==
+
{{VFDg|time=00:32, November 23, 2014 (UTC)
{{Votervfd|time=08:43, February 17, 2013 (UTC)
+
|delnumber=3
|keepnumber=0
+
|delete=
  +
#Article begins with an unimpressive sentence, explains in tedious detail why said unimpressive sentence is a comedic masterpiece, and ends with a gratuitous instance of {{tl|USERNAME}}. Was voted onto the front page by a group of editors who are mostly no longer here. {{User:Llwy-ar-lawr/sig|20141123003229}}
  +
#{{Delete|Navelism.}} Yes, it was a feature, a VFD moved to VFH by fallen-away editors who reveled in their freedom to feature a thoroughly bad article. That was not amusing the reader but self-amusement, a prank not a joke, and that goes for the article as well. No one will look for this transformation of Samuel L. Jackson's name, no one will laugh at the emphasis on Jackson's blackness, and after that sentence, no one will enjoy author's essay about trying to write an article. {{User:SPIKE/signature}}<small>01:21 23-Nov-14</small>
  +
#{{Delete}} Considering that there are already two save votes, this article probably won't go. But I reckon that this article would be much funnier if it were actually ''about'' Samuel L Vacuum as opposed to plain navelism along the lines of "here's why it's funny". [[User:ConCass2|ConCass2]] ([[User talk:ConCass2|talk]]) 11:26, November 23, 2014 (UTC)
  +
#:It was about Samuel L. Vacuum before it was rewritten to be about how terrible that concept was; see Comments. {{User:Llwy-ar-lawr/sig|20141123170359}}
  +
|keepnumber=2
 
|keep=
 
|keep=
|delnumber=2
+
#{{Keep|A Classic.}} Hilarious and clever. This is not about writing an Uncyclopedia article. It's a parody of comedy writing in general and critique of the overuse of memes in place of actual jokes. This was one of the first articles I read on Uncyclopedia and one of the first to get me interested in this site, so I would think that there are others who find it amusing as well. --{{User:Xamralco/sig}} 02:21, November 23, 2014 (UTC)
|delete=#{{delete}} random for the sake of random. This has been kept twice, but it has been 3 years since it has been taken to VFD. It has only 1 mainspace link, so I am guessing no-one really cares about it. --{{User:Mnbvcxz/sig5}} 08:43, February 17, 2013 (UTC)
+
#:Mocking bad writing by imitating it simply produces a bad page. Your apparent knowledge of the point of this pointless article is not evident by reading the article. {{User:SPIKE/signature}}<small>14:36 23-Nov-14</small>
#{{Delete}} I can't add to my argument in its last VFD; but in the one before that, before I arrived, it had overwhelming support: Don't delete until Romartus has had a say. {{User:SPIKE/signature}}<small>14:45 17-Feb-13</small>
+
#{{Keep|New low.}} Deleting featured articles? Petty petty. I don't particularly like it but enough people voted for it to highlight the site that you can't outright delete it. --[[User:Nikau|Nikau]] ([[User talk:Nikau|talk]]) 06:28, November 23, 2014 (UTC)
  +
#:Some featured articles can be utter shite. This one isn't terrible, but if it was exactly as it is now and didn't have the "featured" at the top, it would be VFD material. [[User:ConCass2|ConCass2]] ([[User talk:ConCass2|talk]]) 11:26, November 23, 2014 (UTC)
  +
#::This vote ought to be disregarded because it is based not on the quality of the article, but on an objection to the policy. {{User:Llwy-ar-lawr/sig|20141123170235}}
  +
#:::More problematic is disparaging fellow voters ("Petty petty"), a trend I thought had stopped when Shabidoo threw his Wikia pass-key down the gutter. However, you started it with the comment below, which suggests that a goal was to purge the site of a specific author. I famously enforce civility not with creative vote counting but with the ban-stick. {{User:SPIKE/signature}}<small>17:25 23-Nov-14</small>
  +
#::::I find it ironic that you would call Nikau's comment one that disparages other users and at the same time call my opinion of the article "apparent knowledge" that "is not evident by reading the article." That's a tad belittling, wouldn't you say? --{{User:Xamralco/sig}} 21:17, November 23, 2014 (UTC)
  +
#:::No I wouldn't, not ironic, not disparaging, and not belittling. I asserted that your statement about the point of the article is not evident from reading the article, that's all. {{User:SPIKE/signature}}<small>22:18 23-Nov-14</small>
 
|comments=
 
|comments=
  +
*While it was created by {{u|Evilcorporatemetaljesus}}, it was [http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/Samuel_L._Vacuum?diff=3315753&oldid=3294717 rewritten] by {{u|Mrmonkey72}}. Adding this because its original creator was mentioned in another discussion as having written this and other poor-quality articles. {{User:Llwy-ar-lawr/sig|20141123004021}}
  +
*The current policy at Uncyclopedia is to protect featured articles. If anyone feels strongly about this then a forum can be created to discuss it there. --{{User:Romartus/sig2}} 21:36, November 23, 2014 (UTC)
  +
*24 hours hasn't yet elapsed. Other articles are allowed more time; shouldn't this stay open a tad longer? {{User:Llwy-ar-lawr/sig|20141123231105}}
  +
:FA's don't go to VFD; that is a long standing policy. This matter can be discussed in a forum if required. I would vote to keep this one regardless as evidently lots of people found it funny at one point. --{{User:ChiefjusticeDS/sig}} 11:39, November 24, 2014 (UTC)
 
}}
 
}}
 
== [[Longinus]] ==
 
{{Votervfd|time=08:38, February 17, 2013 (UTC)
 
|keepnumber=0
 
|keep=
 
|delnumber=2
 
|delete=#{{delete}} red-link laden randumbo from 2006 that survived this long mainly due to mentioning kitten huffing. Although it has been edited a few times since 2006, it is still the same article. --{{User:Mnbvcxz/sig5}} 08:38, February 17, 2013 (UTC)
 
#{{Delete}} Pick a topic. Pick a meme. Shuffle. The result is filler. {{User:SPIKE/signature}}<small>14:49 17-Feb-13</small>
 
|comments=
 
}}
 
 
== [[World War III-XX]] ==
 
{{Votervfd|time=08:30, February 17, 2013 (UTC)
 
|keepnumber=0
 
|keep=
 
|delnumber=2
 
|delete=#{{delete}} a wacky war from the 31st century between Coke and Pepsi involving Harrison Ford, Tome Cruise, and Chuck Norris. --{{User:Mnbvcxz/sig5}} 08:30, February 17, 2013 (UTC)
 
#{{Delete}} Per above. There used to be World War articles on every number between III and about XV, and we got rid of all; did this one survive merely from our fatigue? {{User:SPIKE/signature}}<small>14:47 17-Feb-13</small>
 
|comments=
 
}}
 
 
== [[JC-bashers]] ==
 
{{Votervfd|time=11:59, February 16, 2013 (UTC)
 
|keepnumber=0
 
|keep=
 
|delnumber=4
 
|delete=#{{delete}} Randumbo with a hint of advocacy. It has largely been untouched since 2006, except for a wannabe-maintenance template. I think it might be a parody of Jehovah's Witnesses, since it seems that JC-bashers are Christians. (JC = Jesus Christ, I assume). Or maybe JC-bashers are bible thumpers. Whatever this article is supposed to be about, I assume we probably have (or should have) a better version somewhere. --{{User:Mnbvcxz/sig5}} 11:59, February 16, 2013 (UTC)
 
#{{Delete}} Yes, exactly "randumbo with a hint of advocacy." If you are going to take on strident advocates/opponents of a sect (includes Glenn Beck), be playful and not extreme-sounding yourself--and above all, don't write crap. {{User:SPIKE/signature}}<small>12:12 16-Feb-13</small>
 
#I like [[Uncyclopedia:Legal_Department/JCbashers]], but I also like [[An Article Written by Somebody that Didn't Read How To Be Funny And Not Just Stupid: A Retrospective]]. I wouldn't want to reinstate the original article in that case either. {{User:PuppyOnTheRadio/sig3|12:28 16 Feb}}
 
#{{Delete}} Just not funny enough, looks like it was written by an 11 year old, except for the legal department link. That part was funny. {{User:Simsilikesims/sig}} 23:51, February 18, 2013 (UTC)
 
|comments=
 
*I've heard “JC bashers” used as a term for any grass roots Christian evangelist movement. It's not a common phrase here either though. {{User:PuppyOnTheRadio/sig3|12:28 16 Feb}}
 
 
}}
 
 
== [[Glenn_Beck_(Asshat)]] ==
 
{{Votervfd|time=14:19, February 15, 2013 (UTC)
 
|keepnumber=1
 
|keep=
 
#A vital page to keep Glenn Beck's honored name among the people who care most. [[user:Aleister|''Aleister'']] 14:20 15-2-'13
 
|delnumber=2
 
|delete=#{{delete}} and redirect to [[Glenn Beck]]. This is a combination of "I don't like this guy's politics" and a database of Youtube videos. We already have a much better article on the subject. --{{User:Mnbvcxz/sig5}} 14:19, February 15, 2013 (UTC)
 
#'''Delete'''. It's a redundancy, and not a good one. SPIKE has improved it, but I don't see a point on having a "passable" article on a topic where we have a "featured" article. {{User:PuppyOnTheRadio/sig3|11:43 16 Feb}}
 
|comments=
 
*As "Uncyclopedia is not a catalog to things found elsewhere on the Net," I've deleted three sections that had no function but to send readers to YouTube. '''Pieces of this article intended to serve up true utterances of Beck by which to discredit him are advocacy, not humor, even if you think he is ridiculously funny.''' Some funny stuff remains <s>and I would like to see it merged into [[Glenn Beck]], as</s> "Asshat" in the title is likewise too busy being advocacy to help the reader reach the article. I assume Aleister's vote is more advocacy rather than a vote. {{User:SPIKE/signature}}<small>14:31 15-Feb-13</small>
 
*:Advocacy? Are we wikipedia now? All the Fred Phelps pages are advocacy, the Hitler pages are too, I guess, and anti-Hitler pages are too, and on and on...[[user:Aleister|''Aleister'']] minutes later. I remember when we moved this page to here when Glenn Beck was replaced with the other page, and there was discussion about what to call it, and Asshat won.
 
*::I reply by boldfacing a sentence of my earlier reply. Multiple wrongs don't make a right. The Hitler pages have value added by Uncyclopedians. If you intend to reassemble the YouTube collection that I deleted, please take it to a more suitable website. {{User:SPIKE/signature}}<small>14:41 15-Feb-13</small>
 
*::I strike part of my earlier reply. [[Glenn Beck]] was a FA and should not receive any orphaned pieces of this article, especially if that is not an improvement. {{User:SPIKE/signature}}<small>16:06 15-Feb-13</small>
 
*:::I recall when Glenn Beck was written there was some discussion about if it should replace this article, which was an established page by that time. We decided sure, as long as this page was kept around, and the discussion of what to name it was heated and laster for about a year (no it didn't, but it was discussed). I don't like the Glenn Beck page itself, it's more of an UnBooks because it's a transcript of Beck's show. This page is more encyclopedic, and I think should have remained the Beck article. And why can't we put the videos back on the talk page????? This seems a suitable place to put them, and to enjoy them at our leisure. Videos work, and many pages use them. Do we have a limit on vids (three sounds reasonable if presented well, with captions and they are appropriate to the page. The vid at UnPoetia:Well-oil birds worked so perfectly you'd think it was designed for the page) and if so, let's put a couple of them back at least. Glenn, we hardly knew ye! [[user:Aleister|''Aleister'']] 12:45 16-2-'13
 
*::::Do we have a limit? My personal limit is 1; as when yesterday I cut out a section of [[Bear wrestler]] with no original comedy, designed only to share a TV show with other Uncyclopedians. Which is as close as you come to comedy in the deleted sections. We appreciate the work of cops but not enough to allow roughing up detainees; and we benefit from your skill but not when you use the website to catalog the rants of a commentator you disagree with. {{User:SPIKE/signature}}<small>14:27 17-Feb-13</small>
 
*:::::I just visited [[Bear wrestler]]. Imagine my disappointment when I discovered it wasn't about hairy homosexual gladiators. {{User:PuppyOnTheRadio/sig3|02:34 17 Feb}}
 
*On a related note, I found [[Unquotable:Glenn Beck]] which is similarly themed, although it is written like a bad uncyclopedia rather than a bad liberaladvocacypedia article. --{{User:Mnbvcxz/sig5}} 10:50, February 17, 2013 (UTC)
 
}}
 
 
=Archived VFD Discussions=
 
{{VFDarchive}}
 
 
[[Category:Articles deleted by Lyrithya at some point]]
 
[[Category:Uncyclopedia deletion]]
 
[[Category:Pages repeatedly nominated on VFD]]
 
 
[[es:Inciclopedia:VPB]]
 
[[id:Tolololpedia:PUP]]
 
[[ko:포럼:세탁소]]
 
[[pt:Desciclopédia:Eliminação de páginas]]
 

Latest revision as of 00:16, November 25, 2014

Shortcut:
UN:VFD
Deletion Policy
QuickVFD
Votes for deletion

Intensive Care Unit

del log

The goal here is to improve the quality of Uncyclopedia, not to win a vote. You can edit a page during a vote. You can flip your vote if the page improves or if other voters convince you.

To nominate a page for deletion
  • Read these rules and the deletion policy.
  • Do not increase the number of active nominations on VFD to over 20, as a 1 day ban often offends. (Inactive votes, which are grayed out, don't count in the limit of 20.)
  • Please check an article's history before nominating it. If there has been vandalism, revert it to the best past version. Also, check the article's talk page to see if it is in Category:Deletion Survivor. If so, Special:WhatLinksHere will find the relevant VFD archive(s); read about how the previous vote(s) went.
  • Add {{VFD}} to the article in question. Failure to do so will invalidate the vote.
  • If an article survives VFD, do not resubmit it for at least 1 month.

Add a new article here


How to quickly find VFDable articles (using special pages)

To vote to delete or keep an article
  • Edit the section for the article in question.
  • To vote, start a new line at the end of the delete= or keep= section, beginning with #. This creates a numbered entry. Do not put a space before #. Increment the delnumber or keepnumber, whichever applies.
    • To post brief indented replies to a vote, start lines with #: with one or more colons; anything else breaks the numbered list.
  • To type a comment, start a new line at the end of the comments= section, beginning with * (as comments need not be numbered).
  • Votes with an explanation, and comments, are more helpful in analyzing the quality of an article.
  • ~~~~ - Sign and timestamp your vote. Unsigned votes will be removed without prejudice.

Do not delete any content without authorization. To change a vote, strike your old one and add a new one. Do not change other users' posts. At least 24 hours must pass before a nomination is closed or an article is deleted.

Moderated by Spike or any Admin • Poopsmithed by Llwy-ar-lawr • Engineered by Pup (report bugs here)

edit Vietnamese H Archive

Score: 5 • voting closed
Elapsed Time: 150 hours
Delete (5)
  1. Symbol delete vote Delete. A bunch of pornographic content and a few sentences about how the Chinese are better than the Vietnamese. --Precious Star (talk) 17:44, November 20, 2014 (UTC)
  2. Symbol delete vote Delete. Not an "encyclopedia article" but a pictorial essay, to make the unfunny assertion that the Vietnamese are whores. Spıke ¬ 18:05 20-Nov-14
  3. Symbol delete vote Delete. Words cannot describe just how terrible this article is. So, it's pretty bad. ConCass2 (talk) 19:39, November 20, 2014 (UTC)
  4. Symbol delete vote Delete. Just when you think all the ancient junk has gone...this one pops up! --LaurelsRomArtus*Imperator ITRA (Orate) ® 22:43, November 21, 2014 (UTC)
  5. An attempt to look nice at the expense of anything remotely intelligent. -– Llwy-ar-lawr talk contribs 00:02 22 Nov 2014
Keep (0)

No keep votes.

Comments

edit Chav/Translations H Archive

Score: 5 • voting closed
Elapsed Time: 126 hours
Delete (5)
  1. Symbol delete vote Delete. I don't think this is particularly funny or worth keeping. Anton (talk) Uncyclopedia United 17:28, November 21, 2014 (UTC)
  2. Symbol delete vote Delete. Various editors (overwhelmingly Anons) have used this overlong list to catalog the "funny" things that chavs say rather than write original humor. Spıke ¬ 17:52 21-Nov-14
  3. Symbol delete vote Delete. The same joke repeated hundreds of times --Precious Star (talk) 19:26, November 21, 2014 (UTC)
  4. Symbol delete vote Delete. Flypaper. --LaurelsRomArtus*Imperator ITRA (Orate) ® 22:46, November 21, 2014 (UTC)
  5. Can't tell if all this stuff is even about chavs at all. In any case, it's not of much use. -– Llwy-ar-lawr talk contribs 00:06 22 Nov 2014
Keep (0)

No keep votes.

Comments

edit SEHS H T D Survivor

Score: 3
Elapsed Time: 99 hours
Delete (3)
  1. Symbol delete vote Delete. SEHS being "Sudden Head Exploding Syndrome," a Wacky Ailment with which to piggyback off A splode in this article from 2005, which has little to say about the ailment no one will look up except that it runs in things — and American politicians — the authors don't happen to like. Before deleting the external links, I didn't follow them, so I can't say whether this entire Syndrome was invented at an external website, as our recent "Dihydrogen monoxide" was. Spıke ¬ 21:15 22-Nov-14
  2. Unlike Dihydrogen monoxide, this doesn't deserve an article. -– Llwy-ar-lawr talk contribs 00:13 23 Nov 2014
  3. Symbol delete vote Delete. It's not terrible, but it's not good either. --Pwn head Sir Xam Ralco the Mediocre 02:22, November 23, 2014 (UTC)
Keep (0)

No keep votes.

Comments

edit Sudden Instant Death Syndrome H Archive

Score: 5 • voting closed
Elapsed Time: 96 hours
Delete (5)
  1. From the redundant and made-up title to the random lists of nonsensical items such as masturbating kittens, this article is about essentially nothing. -– Llwy-ar-lawr talk contribs 00:25 23 Nov 2014
  2. Symbol delete vote Delete. Dead Baby Humor has to be especially good to be funny. This article, by comparison, uses most of the trite themes in the book: Author discussing himself, author apparently with A.D.D., "nobody knows anything," listcruft, memecruft, history-of-the-future, and another list of Notable Sufferers, inviting cyberbullying and not being disappointed in the response. Spıke ¬ 01:16 23-Nov-14
  3. Symbol delete vote Delete. Stupid. --Pwn head Sir Xam Ralco the Mediocre 02:14, November 23, 2014 (UTC)
  4. Symbol delete vote Delete. HowTo:Not write an article ~Sir Frosty (Talk to me!) Icons-flag-au 06:04, November 24, 2014 (UTC)
  5. Symbol delete vote Delete. Not funny at all. Newman66 Visit my table here! Contributions My works 23:54, November 24, 2014 (UTC)
Keep (0)

No keep votes.

Comments
  • It hardly discusses babies anyway. Only two paragraphs at the end. -– Llwy-ar-lawr talk contribs 01:30 23 Nov 2014

edit 🔒 Samuel L. Vacuum H T D Survivor Oldvfd Archive

Score: 1 • voting closed
Elapsed Time: 95 hours
Delete (3)
  1. Article begins with an unimpressive sentence, explains in tedious detail why said unimpressive sentence is a comedic masterpiece, and ends with a gratuitous instance of {{USERNAME}}. Was voted onto the front page by a group of editors who are mostly no longer here. -– Llwy-ar-lawr talk contribs 00:32 23 Nov 2014
  2. Symbol delete vote Navelism. Yes, it was a feature, a VFD moved to VFH by fallen-away editors who reveled in their freedom to feature a thoroughly bad article. That was not amusing the reader but self-amusement, a prank not a joke, and that goes for the article as well. No one will look for this transformation of Samuel L. Jackson's name, no one will laugh at the emphasis on Jackson's blackness, and after that sentence, no one will enjoy author's essay about trying to write an article. Spıke ¬ 01:21 23-Nov-14
  3. Symbol delete vote Delete. Considering that there are already two save votes, this article probably won't go. But I reckon that this article would be much funnier if it were actually about Samuel L Vacuum as opposed to plain navelism along the lines of "here's why it's funny". ConCass2 (talk) 11:26, November 23, 2014 (UTC)
    It was about Samuel L. Vacuum before it was rewritten to be about how terrible that concept was; see Comments. -– Llwy-ar-lawr talk contribs 17:03 23 Nov 2014
Keep (2)
  1. Symbol keep vote A Classic. Hilarious and clever. This is not about writing an Uncyclopedia article. It's a parody of comedy writing in general and critique of the overuse of memes in place of actual jokes. This was one of the first articles I read on Uncyclopedia and one of the first to get me interested in this site, so I would think that there are others who find it amusing as well. --Pwn head Sir Xam Ralco the Mediocre 02:21, November 23, 2014 (UTC)
    Mocking bad writing by imitating it simply produces a bad page. Your apparent knowledge of the point of this pointless article is not evident by reading the article. Spıke ¬ 14:36 23-Nov-14
  2. Symbol keep vote New low. Deleting featured articles? Petty petty. I don't particularly like it but enough people voted for it to highlight the site that you can't outright delete it. --Nikau (talk) 06:28, November 23, 2014 (UTC)
    Some featured articles can be utter shite. This one isn't terrible, but if it was exactly as it is now and didn't have the "featured" at the top, it would be VFD material. ConCass2 (talk) 11:26, November 23, 2014 (UTC)
    This vote ought to be disregarded because it is based not on the quality of the article, but on an objection to the policy. -– Llwy-ar-lawr talk contribs 17:02 23 Nov 2014
    More problematic is disparaging fellow voters ("Petty petty"), a trend I thought had stopped when Shabidoo threw his Wikia pass-key down the gutter. However, you started it with the comment below, which suggests that a goal was to purge the site of a specific author. I famously enforce civility not with creative vote counting but with the ban-stick. Spıke ¬ 17:25 23-Nov-14
    I find it ironic that you would call Nikau's comment one that disparages other users and at the same time call my opinion of the article "apparent knowledge" that "is not evident by reading the article." That's a tad belittling, wouldn't you say? --Pwn head Sir Xam Ralco the Mediocre 21:17, November 23, 2014 (UTC)
    No I wouldn't, not ironic, not disparaging, and not belittling. I asserted that your statement about the point of the article is not evident from reading the article, that's all. Spıke ¬ 22:18 23-Nov-14
Comments
  • While it was created by Evilcorporatemetaljesus, it was rewritten by Mrmonkey72. Adding this because its original creator was mentioned in another discussion as having written this and other poor-quality articles. -– Llwy-ar-lawr talk contribs 00:40 23 Nov 2014
  • The current policy at Uncyclopedia is to protect featured articles. If anyone feels strongly about this then a forum can be created to discuss it there. --LaurelsRomArtus*Imperator ITRA (Orate) ® 21:36, November 23, 2014 (UTC)
  • 24 hours hasn't yet elapsed. Other articles are allowed more time; shouldn't this stay open a tad longer? -– Llwy-ar-lawr talk contribs 23:11 23 Nov 2014
FA's don't go to VFD; that is a long standing policy. This matter can be discussed in a forum if required. I would vote to keep this one regardless as evidently lots of people found it funny at one point. --ChiefjusticePS2 11:39, November 24, 2014 (UTC)
Personal tools
projects