1. Keep. I think this article should be deleted.... but only when its author will finish it, so we will be able to judge if it is a vanity or not. Did you visit its history: it says it was created yesterday. Anton (talk) 08:29, May 20, 2013 (UTC)

   I did in fact visit the history. The construction tag wasn't put there by the IP that made it, and I will scrawl "fancy that" into my forehead with a drill if they every come back. --TheDarthMoogle (talk) 08:55, May 20, 2013 (UTC)

   Let's just wait and see. Anton (talk) 09:50, May 20, 2013 (UTC)

   Then, Moogle, you would have seen that the tag was placed by Admin Simsilikesims. In view of this, you ought not try to delete the page on any forum, but make your case to her (as I have now done). Spıke ¬ 15:27 20-May-13

1. Delete. Vanity article fo' sure, probably should've put it on QVFD --TheDarthMoogle (talk) 07:50, May 20, 2013 (UTC)

• Vote closed. READ THE DELETION RULES--follow the link at the top of this page. Token 2-hour ban for nominator. Spıke ¬ 12:23 20-May-13

1. Keep. I know it is awful but that is because of the content and humour. The concept is fine and very good comedians can make something like this funny. It can be fixed with improvement and probably needs to be a HowTo (HowTo:Try to hard to make an acronym fit a pre-chosen work). It requires a bit of effort from a user. Unfortunately I have exams at the moment and I don't think I am good enough to make this funny (I could give it a try next week if it is still around). I vote to keep it to give inspiration to what could potentially be a great article. Sir ScottPat CUN VFH UnS (talk) 16:41, May 20, 2013 (UTC)

   Occasional votes that read, "Put it in my userspace and maybe I'll work on it" are unhelpful. Your vote that, if I may paraphrase, "I know it is awful but I am voting to support good writing, only I am not going to be the one doing it, just now," is less helpful. If you agree it is awful and cannot improve it while the vote proceeds, you are free to "give it a try next week" even if it is not still around. Spıke ¬ 17:15 20-May-13

   I just thought maybe someone else could write it as there are many good writers and it is a fun subject to play with. It has too much potential to be deleted even though the style of humour currently is forced as you said. I am not changing my vote as I found the concept funny enough. Everyone has different humour styles. Sir ScottPat CUN VFH UnS (talk) 17:27, May 20, 2013 (UTC)

   That is a better rationale. Spıke ¬ 17:32 20-May-13

   Sorry I struggle to write clearly sometimes. Sir ScottPat CUN VFH UnS (talk) 17:35, May 20, 2013 (UTC)

1. Delete. The title sums up one of the ways pubescent authors write crappy articles. The content is a list of examples. Anon just devised C.U.N.T. today--charming. Spıke ¬ 00:21 20-May-13
2. Delete. My wife is currently making me a ham, egg and cheese sandwich. That sandwich, as yet unmade and nonexistent, is a better article than this miserable piece of whale dreck. It deserves an undignified death. Rev. Zim_ulator (Talk) I am the dirt under your rollers 16:49, May 20, 2013 (UTC)

• The Intro tries its hand at authentic humor--but its topic, the U.S.A. P.A.T.R.I.O.T. Act (whose title was overt manipulation) is treated superficially and with humor that is just as forced as the examples that follow. Spıke ¬ 00:21 20-May-13

1. Keep. A stubby article from 2005 was tagged "No Redeeming Value" and expanded by Neca (I never met him) in 2006. The absurdly long section heads do seem to be a recurring gag, though what this has to do with Anna Pavlova I don't know. Read the initial photo caption: This is no mere hacker. The writing uses randomness, but an erudite randomness rather than memes. All it needs is another photo, fixing the red-links, and more relevant humor from an author who actually knows something about Pavlova. Anton, ready to earn a VFD Save? Spıke ¬ 13:56 19-May-13

   I can try to. Anton (talk) 14:59, May 19, 2013 (UTC)

2. Keep. It's a proper article in need of some love. Rev. Zim_ulator (Talk) I am the dirt under your rollers 16:58, May 20, 2013 (UTC)

   Can I move it to my user space and then try to make it better? Anton (talk) 17:15, May 20, 2013 (UTC)

   You can copy the text to your userspace, like the text of any other page. Moving an established article out of mainspace requires a vote of this forum (which is not going well). You are free to install your edit over this article, or in place of it after it is deleted, but you should run it by someone else first; you are not free, for example, to install essentially the same thing if VFD should vote to delete it. Spıke ¬ 17:32 20-May-13

1. Delete. The titles of the sections are too long and too unfunny. On the contrary, the sections themselves are too short and ... unfunny. All in all, this gives us a badly written, untrue and unfunny article. Anton (talk) 13:33, May 19, 2013 (UTC)

No keep votes.

1. Delete. The authors experience the joy of conducting a vulgar rant at the readers. I cannot imagine the readers laughing at all. Spıke ¬ 03:08 19-May-13
2. Delete. This conspiracy rant had some potential in early 2012, but it has outlived its usefulness. It is obsolete now, as noted by the late awkward addition near the bottom of the page that says that the destruction of the internet as we know it will be complete by 2030. Also, it assumes that everybody uses services like DeviantArt, (which happens to be a website to showcase art including terrible fandom porno art and view art that others have posted) and so on. The internet is broad enough in scope and changing quickly enough that this article will be obsolete again in no time, and will be forever incomplete even if an update is attempted (something perhaps suggesting that the internet ended in 2012 but was restarted). -- Simsilikesims(♀UN) Talk here. 00:35, May 20, 2013 (UTC)
3. Delete. Let's add in some jokes about George Bush. And maybe something about the Falkland's war. And the Chinese building a wall against the Monguls. Timely humour needs to be both timely and humour. Fails on both counts. Sir CPT Dr PuppyOnTheRadio GUN UmP WotM NotM FP VFP VFH CM POTM UGM 04:48 20 May 2013
4. Delete. Apparently there is a much better treatment on the subject here. This one is awful and delete-worthy. Rev. Zim_ulator (Talk) I am the dirt under your rollers 17:27, May 20, 2013 (UTC)

Abstain. Great concept however a bit old now...outdated I mean (so 2012). Very unencyclopedic. I would say that it just needs improving but then the apocalypse is over so what's the point? Sir ScottPat CUN VFH UnS (talk) 19:44, May 19, 2013 (UTC)

No keep votes.

1. Delete.-- 20:36, May 17, 2013 (UTC)
2. Delete. Start over. This article, if done right, should be more than an excuse to dabble in incoherency. Spıke ¬ 22:50 17-May-13
3. Delete. It could be funny but terrible grammar (as you can see even I noticed it) and the absence of any other jokes except for memory loss spoil everything. Anton (talk) 12:31, May 18, 2013 (UTC)
4. Adele-te Ignoring the ignoring of framework, first person articles can sometimes work. Dementia would work better as an encyclopaedic style with repitition to the effect that the author has forgotten what is being said. To quote Kryten “Kryten personal black box recording. Time: unknown. Location: unknown. Cause of accident: unknown. Should someone find this recording, perhaps it will shed light as to what happened here. My short-term memory has been erased. This, I ascribe to the proximity of the magnetic coils from Starbug's rear engine. Secondly, due to the proximity of the magnetic coils, my short term memory appears to have been erased. This, combined with the erasure of my short-term memory, has left me a little disoriented, disoriented, disoriented.” Given that this topic has the potential of a strong article, a lukewarm one in it's place seems a shame. Bulldoze, and make way for something better. Without meme driven humor. Sir CPT Dr PuppyOnTheRadio GUN UmP WotM NotM FP VFP VFH CM POTM UGM 04:45 20 May 2013

It's not encyclopedic but still kind of funny. I'm abstaining. Sir ScottPat CUN VFH UnS (talk) 20:39, May 17, 2013 (UTC)

No keep votes.

1. Delete. This article from 2005 is a receptacle for whatever unclever Randumbo you want to type. Spıke ¬ 19:14 17-May-13
2. Delete. A completely fictional country where all the Uncyclopedia (worst) jokes are situated. In addition to this, it is impossible to pronounce the article's name. Its creator wanted to make a parody on an average African country but didn't really achieve this. Anton (talk) 19:18, May 17, 2013 (UTC)

   Yup; and the right way to do this and maintain our encyclopedia façade is to pick a country and parody it. Only, that constrains the author to parody something real, rather than go completely freestyle. Spıke ¬ 19:52 17-May-13

3. Delete. Awful. Why don't they ever learn what encyclopedic means. Sir ScottPat CUN VFH UnS (talk) 20:23, May 17, 2013 (UTC)
4. Delete. Bleargh! Sir CPT Dr PuppyOnTheRadio GUN UmP WotM NotM FP VFP VFH CM POTM UGM 04:37 20 May 2013

1. Keep. It's written in the same style as Finnegans Wake is. In that respect, it's funny. -- HIPSTER T)alk C)untributions B)an 15:09, May 17, 2013 (UTC)
2. WWJJD? -- Sir Mhaille  (talk to me)
3. Keep. I agree with Hipster here. Though it's in dire need of a fix, I don't believe it warrants a blank slate. --TheDarthMoogle (talk) 07:42, May 20, 2013 (UTC)

1. Delete. Multilingual gibberish (by 2005 editors, then Matthlock), apropos of nothing. Spıke ¬ 15:36 16-May-13
2. Delete. Just seeing that the first word has no capital letter is bad enough!!! Absolute gibberish. Sir ScottPat CUN VFH UnS (talk) 15:46, May 16, 2013 (UTC)

   This stuff is easily fixed, and a page-in-the-style-of-the-thing-it's-about is appropriate. But James Joyce's prose, though "experimental," was not gibberish. I'd vote to defend deliberate, clever gibberish as satire of real gibberish; the present article is just a sandbox. Spıke ¬ 16:43 16-May-13

   I have to admit I know nothing about the topic and simply judged by first read. Didn't realise it was a satire of someone's book. My point stands that it still is a bit random. Sir ScottPat CUN VFH UnS (talk) 17:05, May 16, 2013 (UTC)

3. Delete. I would certainly vote for the deletion of this article if Hipster didn't put his comment which forced me to type "Finnegans Wake" in Google. Now I understand that it is a parody on the book. However, I still vote for its deletion as this article is still "multilingual rubbish". Its concept was not realized. Article on "J.D. Sallinger" is also a parody on Sallinger's writing style but it is very interesting and funny to read. Finally, the Russian sentence did not make any grammatical sense. Maybe Uncyclopedia needs an article on Finnegans Wake but definitely not this. Anton (talk) 12:25, May 18, 2013 (UTC)

   Wikipedia is a useful place for research on this; WP:Finnegan's Wake is the drinking song; WP:Finnegans Wake is the work of fiction, complete with pundits' opinions on the meaning of his omitting the apostrophe. Spıke ¬ 22:57 18-May-13

• No consensus to delete. Would one of the supporters please step up and give this article a little bit of cleverness? Spıke ¬ 12:23 20-May-13

No keep votes.

1. Delete. Ranty stereotypes about Poles and their diaspora is disguised as a self-test to reveal the same (certainly not disguised as an encyclopedia article, in which the same stereotypes could be made funny with a little work). An early and ill-advised work of veteran Uncyclopedian Ptok-Bentoniczny. Spıke ¬ 11:39 15-May-13
2. Delete. I can think of a many more much funnier ways of making fun of Polish people that don't involve thinking that they are all Jewish. As for lists... Sir ScottPat CUN VFH UnS (talk) 15:24, May 17, 2013 (UTC)
3. Delete. As I can see the purpose of this article is to convince a reader that he hates Polish people and then swear at him because he is such a person. Several jokes could be good, if put into a normal article. Test just makes them unfunny. Anton (talk) 13:39, May 19, 2013 (UTC)
4. Delete. This is an excellent article for Illogicopedia, but not suited to Uncyc sophisticates and aficionados. Please, when this thing is euthanized, would the executioner kindly move it to my userspace? I may contact the author to see how he feels about submitting it to ?pedia. Rev. Zim_ulator (Talk) I am the dirt under your rollers 15:00, May 20, 2013 (UTC)

• Userspaced. Although Zim's very return raises hope we could return to the traditional 5-vote quorum, his solution is fine, and one that can be implemented on only 4 votes--and no support for the article in 5 days. Spıke ¬ 15:21 20-May-13

No keep votes.

1. Delete. This page can amuse in two ways: (1) Let Anon name a playground pal who is a dick, and (2) let Anon name an opposition politician who is a dick. Amusing to the hack editor and of no benefit to the reader; this is why we strive against listcruft in general. Spıke ¬ 11:37 14-May-13
2. Delete. The list is too long to be read carefully, in addition to this it is not funny at all. Anton (talk) 15:15, May 14, 2013 (UTC)

   I endorse this comment on Anton's talk page but note that it is hardly unique to this article. Spıke ¬ 16:43 16-May-13

3. Delete.If there was a vote for execution then this so-called article would be number one on my list and number one of the list of my new article: 100 ways of writing dickish articles, which I made up just now after seeing this. I'm surprised that the article itself wasn't on the list. It's mutilated head should be displayed on the main page as a warning to any IP vandals popping by. Sir ScottPat CUN VFH UnS (talk) 15:21, May 14, 2013 (UTC)
4. Delete. I considered editing it to include ScottPats suggestion that the article be on it's own list. When I saw what a troll magnet it was, however, I begged off with the excuse that I feared it was catching. Kill this thing immediately! Rev. Zim_ulator (Talk) I am the dirt under your rollers 14:55, May 20, 2013 (UTC)
5. Delete.. NRV. Sir CPT Dr PuppyOnTheRadio GUN UmP WotM NotM FP VFP VFH CM POTM UGM 04:34 20 May 2013

1. Keep. This article is okay, yet needs tidying in the quotes dept. later on and a few minor changes to get readers to go 'aha, this is a bunch of bollocks!'. I don't see this as a vanity article as, well, the company clearly doesn't exist. --TheDarthMoogle (talk) 08:52, May 9, 2013 (UTC)

   The fact that the company doesn't exist is the very proof that authors are not writing about anything but themselves, that is, vanity. Spıke ¬ 11:31 9-May-13

1. Delete. This article is not poorly written; but Google has only two exact matches for this alleged consultancy: We are the first, and the second is a stub article at a business locator that "located" this business through Uncyclopedia. Codeine's Mum never worked there. It's a vanity project of a small clique. Spıke ¬ 23:56 7-May-13
2. Delete. Concur. --RomArtus*Imperator ITRA (Orate) ® 13:48, May 9, 2013 (UTC)
3. Delete. I agree with Spike as I saw Codeine's Mum the other day and she said she hadn't heard of it. Also why are the staff members the KKK? Random and pointless.Sir ScottPat CUN VFH UnS (talk) 05:49, May 10, 2013 (UTC)
4. Delete. Shame someone wasted so much time on it. Sir Reverend P. Pennyfeather (fancy a chat?) CUN VFH 16:14, May 13, 2013 (UTC)
5. Delete. I'm not convinced on the vanity angle - reads more like a fakey topic than personal glorification to me. But it is randumbo of the highest magnitude. Sir CPT Dr PuppyOnTheRadio GUN UmP WotM NotM FP VFP VFH CM POTM UGM 04:30 20 May 2013