Uncyclopedia:Votes for deletion

From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia

(Difference between revisions)
Jump to: navigation, search
(Lost (TV series)/Previous recaps)
({{VFDn|World War Revolution}})
 
(8,761 intermediate revisions by more than 100 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|HowTo:Play chess}} ==
{{VFDRules2}}
 
<div style="display: none;">
 
<!-- COPY, do not CUT, the below template, and place it at the TOP of the page, replace ARTICLENAME as appropriate and please remove the arrows and stuff. It's unnecessary to keep that stuff.
 
   
==[[ARTICLENAMEHERE]]==
+
{{VFDt|time=19:50, September 19, 2014 (UTC)
{{Votervfd|time=~~~~~
+
|delnumber=4
  +
|delete=
  +
#{{Delete}} Nothing worth saving. Just a load of old ranty pants in my view. --{{User:Romartus/sig2}} 12:38, September 19, 2014 (UTC)
  +
#{{Delete}} Written in 2008 by {{U|DangerousMan}}, this ramble leads with Jew-bashing, bickering quote-cruft and the trite "nobody knows." The only work has been in correcting the coding and appending the bit about shoving the pieces up one's ass. {{User:SPIKE/signature}}<small>13:44 19-Sep-14</small>
  +
#{{Delete}} It's pretty bad. [[User:Snarglefoop|Snarglefoop]] ([[User talk:Snarglefoop|talk]]) 14:17, September 19, 2014 (UTC)
  +
#The beginning and middle are taken up by a somewhat random ramble about the history of chess; the last two paragraphs, all the article has to say about actually playing chess, are about as bad. Adding Chuck Norris did not improve matters. {{User:Llwy-ar-lawr/sig|20140919195743}}
 
|keepnumber=0
 
|keepnumber=0
 
|keep=
 
|keep=
|delnumber=1
 
|delete=
 
 
|comments=
 
|comments=
  +
*{{Comment|Hmmm}} Actually there's one bit which might be salvageable, which is the idea that the black and white pieces represent characters in a race riot (OK it doesn't exactly say that in the article but it hints at it). Tie that in with the (real) origin of chess somewhere sometime in India, and with the invasion of India by some (presumed) white tribe or other at the end of the Bronze Age and there might be a hook to hang something on. Maybe throw in some obscure references to the caste system as India's apartheid, and voila, an article with jokes that only an anthropologist would get. Oh, well, whatever.... [[User:Snarglefoop|Snarglefoop]] ([[User talk:Snarglefoop|talk]]) 14:17, September 19, 2014 (UTC)
  +
*:Yes, there's some merit there but it seems like the sort of thing that should be given centre stage in [[Chess]] and perhaps just a side mention in [[HowTo:Play chess]]. {{User:Llwy-ar-lawr/sig|20140919195743}}
  +
*Llwy placed {{Tl|VFD}} tag; clock is reset. {{User:SPIKE/signature}}<small>20:15 19-Sep-14</small>
 
}}
 
}}
Don't mingle with with the above template. Seriously. You may succumb to peer pressure.
 
   
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.
+
== {{VFDc|Worst reasons to become a Christian}} ==
   
New nominations at the top of the page below this line; --></div>
+
{{VFDg|time=02:35, September 21, 2014 (UTC)
+
|delnumber=2
==[[Republic of Lee Kingdom]]==
+
|delete=
{{Votervfd|time=00:57, May 30, 2012 (UTC)
+
#{{delete}} More like 100 reasons to roll your eyes. Good old random yet still fairly intolerant trash that will drive away users, especially the part where it goes "priest molestation lol" without even making a joke. --[[User:Nikau|Nikau]] ([[User talk:Nikau|talk]]) 02:35, September 21, 2014 (UTC)
|keepnumber=0
+
#{{Delete}} Simple Ricky Gervais humour with half the effort. I'm sure the article on [[Christianity]] would have the same jokes, only funnier and written in the form of a paragraph. If you need 100 bulletpoints to elaborate your joke, it simply isn't funny. [[User:ConCass2|ConCass2]] ([[User talk:ConCass2|talk]]) 10:00, September 21, 2014 (UTC)
  +
#:Indeed, our whole "Worst 100" family actively recruits crap to make them "complete." Recently, we've done a few of these without the "100" target. {{User:SPIKE/signature}}<small>14:16 21-Sep-14</small>
  +
|keepnumber=3
 
|keep=
 
|keep=
|delnumber=1
+
#{{Keep|Rewritten.}} {{User:SPIKE/signature}}<small>16:05 22-Sep-14</small>
|delete=
+
#{{Keep}} Very funny now! {{User:Anton199/sig}} 19:42, September 22, 2014 (UTC)
#{{Delete}} I believe this is about Singapore, which already has an article to itself. Also, so many redlinks and it just looks very unfunny. {{User:Iwillkillyou333/sig}}
+
#Yes, it's definitely better. But is it really a 'Worst 100'-type thingy anymore? Something to think about... or not. {{User:Llwy-ar-lawr/sig|20140922194731}}
  +
#:Does seem to belong in Why: rather than Worst 100. {{User:SPIKE/signature}}<small>22:36 22-Sep-14</small>
 
|comments=
 
|comments=
  +
*I am more comfortable with "intolerant" than "random." If a bigot wants to write a truly entertaining article, fine. This one starts out with a fanboy intro, a big long [[UN:LIST|list]] where none of the items are developed but most are simple slaps expected to be funny on their own; and ends with a gigantic UnScript of hilarious bickering between opposing caricatures playing out in some Uncyclopedian's mind. But I'm not yet convinced it couldn't acquire a comedy strategy. "of All Time" in the title is surplus. {{User:SPIKE/signature}}<small>02:46 21-Sep-14</small>
  +
*:I'm not comfortable with intolerance (unless it's a parody), there's a line between taking the piss and being hateful. On second viewing this isn't too intolerant, but it is still offensively unfunny. I despise most of the 100 lists because they're always about 75 entries too long and 3/4 entries are filler. --[[User:Nikau|Nikau]] ([[User talk:Nikau|talk]]) 04:06, September 21, 2014 (UTC)
  +
*I don't know... some of the list items are sort of funny. There shouldn't be so much bold text, though. And it's one of the 'Worst 100 of All Time' things, hence the title and the listness. Worst 100 are generally in a form similar to this, though the list items could be developed. {{User:Llwy-ar-lawr/sig|20140921031433}}
  +
*:They are bold text because they are "unnumbered headlines." But elaboration would be funnier than just one-liners. {{User:SPIKE/signature}}<small>03:23 21-Sep-14</small>
  +
*'''Renamed.''' {{User:SPIKE/signature}}<small>14:22 21-Sep-14</small> '''And again''' as there are no longer 100 reasons. {{User:SPIKE/signature}}<small>19:52 22-Sep-14</small>
 
}}
 
}}
   
==[[Talk Talk]]==
+
== {{VFDn|Emo Prison}} ==
{{Votervfd|time=23:40, May 29, 2012 (UTC)
+
|keepnumber=0
+
{{VFDt|time=05:10, September 21, 2014 (UTC)
|keep=
+
|delnumber=5
|delnumber=2
 
 
|delete=
 
|delete=
#{{Delete}} Talking shit about a band does not make an article funny. In fact, it makes you look stupid. {{User:Iwillkillyou333/sig}}
+
# {{delete}} - Dated like hell. Who's even said Emo since 2008? --[[User:Nikau|Nikau]] ([[User talk:Nikau|talk]]) 05:10, September 21, 2014 (UTC)
#{{Delete}} Am always happy to vote against an article whose brand of humor is, "Look at me! I don't know what I'm talking about!" Band members include "The Other Guy" and "Another Guy" and not until Sec. 2 does anything relate to the actual band, and even then a quote is attributed to "some snobby assed music journalist." Lame. {{User:SPIKE/signature}}<small>23:47 29-May-12</small>
+
#{{Delete}} The 2006 creation of {{U|Evilcorporatemetaljesus}} takes something real (the Emo craze) and joins it to something unreal in the way that no reader will guess. The result is a springboard to randomness that never really gets clever. {{User:SPIKE/signature}}<small>12:50 21-Sep-14</small>
|comments=
+
#{{Delete}} Dated, not dated, whatever, doesn't really matter -- but unfortunately it's not funny. [[User:Snarglefoop|Snarglefoop]] ([[User talk:Snarglefoop|talk]]) 13:51, September 21, 2014 (UTC)
}}
+
#What everyone else said. {{User:Llwy-ar-lawr/sig|20140921135746}}
+
#What Spike said which means {{Delete}} {{unsigned|TheWikiMan026}}
==[[NASDAQ]]==
 
{{Votervfd|time=22:15, May 29, 2012 (UTC)
 
 
|keepnumber=2
 
|keepnumber=2
 
|keep=
 
|keep=
# {{keep}} I fixed this up a bit, but I don't see anything wrong with it. Could be funny with a coordinated attack. --{{User:Qzekrom/sig6}} 22:36, May 29, 2012 (UTC)
+
#{{Keep}} An article being "dated" is not a valid condition to be delete on. By that logic, [[World War 2]] should be deleted because it happened in the fourties. It's not a bad article. [[User:ConCass2|ConCass2]] ([[User talk:ConCass2|talk]]) 09:53, September 21, 2014 (UTC)
#{{Keep|Rewritten.}} I fixed it up a bit more. {{User:SPIKE/signature}}<small>23:12 29-May-12</small>
+
#{{Keep}} Not my cup of tea but the article isn't that bad to scrap it in my view. Will fix some typos. --{{User:Romartus/sig2}} 22:12, September 22, 2014 (UTC)
|delnumber=1
+
#:Then you must do some very good writing to counteract the fact that it will still be an article about nothing. You must write as though the PLS depended on it. {{User:SPIKE/signature}}<small>22:37 22-Sep-14</small>
|delete=
 
#{{Delete}} I don't like this. {{User:Iwillkillyou333/sig}}
 
 
|comments=
 
|comments=
* Having seen stock traders before, I would have to say that the tuxedo stereotype really adds flavor to this article! Speaking of which, have we an article about [[necktie]]s? --{{User:Qzekrom/sig6}} 23:22, May 29, 2012 (UTC)
+
*The problem is not that the Emo fashion is now out-of-fashion. We could have an article on [[Lava lamp]]; but an article [[Lava Lamp University]] or [[War of the Lava Lamps]] might not even be saved by good writing. Author lives on, through his other Uncyclopedia contribution, [[Samuel L. Vacuum]], a made-up person who becomes a springboard for [[navelism]] about what it's like to write an article — God-help-us, a Featured Article that we aren't supposed to touch. {{User:SPIKE/signature}}<small>12:50 21-Sep-14</small>
*:There's [[Clip-on tie]]. {{User:SPIKE/signature}}<small>23:31 29-May-12</small>
+
*:Is there any reason we're not supposed to touch featured articles, other than 'because I said so'? On Wikipedia they can be de-featured, and presumably they can be taken to AFD any time you like. I see no reason why we shouldn't work the same way. If any ballot-stuffing goes on we can always strike the undesirable votes. {{User:Llwy-ar-lawr/sig|20140921135746}}
*::Kay. There's also [[Bow tie]]. I'll make a disambiguation page. --{{User:Qzekrom/sig6}} 23:33, May 29, 2012 (UTC)
+
*::FA status doesn't amount to much anyway. It goes in a big category, the end. As for the article, fads are nothing like historical events or objects. Nudge nudge humor about an ancient joke isn't funny with nothing to back it up. Something like Kennedy being a womanizer is in the public consciousness today and so jokes about that work, the behavior of an old highschool clique isn't so they don't. --[[User:Nikau|Nikau]] ([[User talk:Nikau|talk]]) 15:01, September 21, 2014 (UTC)
  +
*:::Yeah, all FA status amounts to is immunity from deletion, which increasingly seems to me to be rather a bad thing. I'm not fond of Samuel L. Vacuum either, since it goes on and on about itself and I prefer articles that don't try to give themselves away. If it weren't featured it might be deletable, since most of the people who voted for it on VFH aren't here anymore. 'If only, if only,' the woodpecker sighs... {{User:Llwy-ar-lawr/sig|20140921165127}}
 
}}
 
}}
   
==[[Malcolm Glazer]]==
+
== {{VFDn|The Church of Ass and Nipple Slips}} ==
{{Votervfd|time=19:11, May 29, 2012 (UTC)
 
|keepnumber=1
 
|keep=
 
#{{Keep}} It is about someone real and notable (the owner of the Manchester United football club). It has a theme (map him onto the ''Lord of the Rings''). It has a fun shoop. What it lacks is explanation about '''why''' he relates to ''Lord of the Rings''--it is random allegory but humor is not far away. {{User:SPIKE/signature}}<small>19:55 29-May-12</small>
 
|delnumber=2
 
|delete=
 
#{{Delete|I piss on this article}} And on the person responsible for it's cration. {{User:Iwillkillyou333/sig}}
 
#No funny. --{{User:Xamralco/sig}} 21:22, May 29, 2012 (UTC)
 
|comments=
 
}}
 
   
==[[Mesherschmit Vs. Spitfire]]==
+
{{VFDt|time=01:19, September 22, 2014 (UTC)
{{Votervfd|time=04:02, May 29, 2012 (UTC)
 
|keepnumber=0
 
|keep=
 
 
|delnumber=4
 
|delnumber=4
 
|delete=
 
|delete=
[[File:ATT00071.jpg|thumb|right|100px]]
+
#{{Delete}} Listy (Galleries are photographic [[UN:LIST|lists]]) article in the trite Wacky Religion genre. Also: porn. {{User:SPIKE/signature}}<small>01:19 22-Sep-14</small>
#This is pure nonesense. {{User:Iwillkillyou333/sig}}
+
#{{Delete}} Yeah. '''''Please note that the talk page should be deleted as well.''''' I can't figure out if this is a rant, an attack page, or just soft porn but it's sure not humor. And whatever it is, the page's content seems to have slopped over onto its talk page, which does not actually contain anything like the discussion you might have expected. [[User:Snarglefoop|Snarglefoop]] ([[User talk:Snarglefoop|talk]]) 01:38, September 22, 2014 (UTC)
#{{Delete}} The initial shoop is entertaining but will live on elsewhere. Misspelling in page name; Brits with bad teeth and small penises. {{User:SPIKE/signature}}<small>11:54 29-May-12</small>
+
#Another article written with the expectation that sex is automatically funny. {{User:Llwy-ar-lawr/sig|20140922014709}}
#Yeah, I really did like the picture. Everything else is trash.{{User:Bizzeebeever/signature|20120529123127}}
+
#{{Delete}} {{User:Anton199/sig}} 19:37, September 22, 2014 (UTC)
#Meshershit Vs. Shitfire. --{{User:Xamralco/sig}} 21:17, May 29, 2012 (UTC)
 
#:Ok, now why the ''Hell'' didn't ''I'' think of that? You bastard.{{User:Bizzeebeever/signature|20120529213710}}
 
#::Lol--{{User:Iwillkillyou333/sig}} 22:05, May 29, 2012 (UTC)
 
|comments=
 
}}
 
 
==[[Diet Cola]]==
 
{{Votervfd|time=03:59, May 29, 2012 (UTC)
 
 
|keepnumber=0
 
|keepnumber=0
 
|keep=
 
|keep=
|delnumber=6
 
|delete=
 
#Da fuq? {{User:Iwillkillyou333/sig}}
 
#It is garbage with no concept and a single image with a ''non sequitur'' caption. And it was written by two ten-year-olds who just ate a bunch of taffy. That's ''what the fuq''.{{User:Bizzeebeever/signature|20120529071441}}
 
# I hate those articles saying "That food/drink is evil!"--{{User:Mr-ex777/sig}} 09:09, May 29, 2012 (UTC)
 
#{{Delete}} Yes, Mr-ex777, that is about all this article says. A health scare needs to be done cleverly. I have grabbed the Hebrew Coke can for [[Diet Coke]], which itself is in sad shape. {{User:SPIKE/signature}}<small>11:50 29-May-12</small>
 
#Reads like vandalism. --{{User:Xamralco/sig}} 21:16, May 29, 2012 (UTC)
 
#{{burninate}} Too much crass, sex, and randomness. --{{User:Qzekrom/sig6}} 22:38, May 29, 2012 (UTC)
 
 
|comments=
 
|comments=
 
}}
 
}}
   
==[[Lost (TV series)/Previous recaps]]==
+
== {{VFDc|Jew/Classic}} ==
{{Votervfd|time=21:16, May 28, 2012 (UTC)
+
  +
{{VFDg|time=01:51, September 22, 2014 (UTC)
  +
|delnumber=5
  +
|delete=
  +
#{{Delete|Delete, or explain how it's funny.}} And, to quote Gandalf, "''who will laugh, I wonder?''" Starts with a quote from Hitler, goes on to rehash a bunch of trite negative stereotypes about Jews -- how is this not just an attack page? The silliness about bagels really doesn't save it, IMHO. [[User:Snarglefoop|Snarglefoop]] ([[User talk:Snarglefoop|talk]]) 01:51, September 22, 2014 (UTC)
  +
#As I have said before--on a site where I was ultimately proved wrong--this isn't Encyclopedia Dramatica. {{User:Llwy-ar-lawr/sig|20140922020201}}
  +
#{{Delete}} There are many ways of dealing with the subject of Jews, and the way we do it, at [[Jew]] (in the obvious voice of a rambling Rabbi) is fine. This older version, by comparison, starts ranty and continues ranty. As I suggest at [[CoW#Extremists]], it is very hard to write anti-Semitism (or many other things), even, say, for the sake of ridiculing anti-Semites, and not give the impression of serious advocacy. {{User:SPIKE/signature}}<small>02:22 22-Sep-14</small>
  +
#{{Delete}} Hello kids who watched Southpark. --[[User:Nikau|Nikau]] ([[User talk:Nikau|talk]]) 08:54, September 22, 2014 (UTC)
  +
#{{Delete}} There are at least ten different articles in there with ten different ideas behind them. Choose one and make something good out of it. {{User:Anton199/sig}} 19:35, September 22, 2014 (UTC)
 
|keepnumber=0
 
|keepnumber=0
 
|keep=
 
|keep=
|delnumber=5
 
|delete=
 
# {{delete|Huff, then turn into a content fork.}} This is currently the top article on [[Special:LongPages]], at 394,674 bytes. I suggest splitting it into separate articles by season, namely "Lost (TV series)/Season #". --{{User:Qzekrom/sig6}} 21:16, May 28, 2012 (UTC)
 
#:Is the material worth preserving, or not? If so, you hardly need our vote to organize it better. {{User:SPIKE/signature}}<small>13:27 29-May-12</small>
 
#::{{Delete|Another reason to huff:}} It's illogical to have a subpage of [[Lost (TV series)|a redirect]]. --{{User:Qzekrom/sig6}} 22:11, May 29, 2012 (UTC)
 
#:::That's not a reason at all. It's very easy to change the title of the subpage so it's no longer a subpage of a redirect but of the page being redirected to. {{User:Sockpuppet of an unregistered user/sig4}}<small>''00:31, 30 May 2012''</small>
 
#::::Have we created a guide for choosing the best title for your work? If not, I can start one. --{{User:Qzekrom/sig6}} 01:55, May 30, 2012 (UTC)
 
#[[Supernatural (TV series)|Huff outright]]. Just like <<< that page, this one is bloated, tedious splooge.{{User:Bizzeebeever/signature|20120529071010}}
 
#Since Qzekrom brought this nom here more or less pointlessly, I am going to one-up him and vote to actually kill it a la Bizzee. --{{User:Thekillerfroggy/sig}} 19:28, May 29, 2012 (UTC)
 
#Pointless rambling. --{{User:Xamralco/sig}} 21:16, May 29, 2012 (UTC)
 
#{{Delete}} Convinced by BB, below. {{User:SPIKE/signature}}<small>22:09 29-May-12</small>
 
 
|comments=
 
|comments=
*{{Comment|Abstain.}} Am not sure that this or any article with satirical renditions of hour-long TV shows from 2004 is not funny to some niche audience, no matter how tedious they are (the parodies, not the audience), and this is why I also abstain from bandcruft, gamecruft, and fightcruft. Surely Star Trek, from about 1970, is doted on comparably and everyone approves. {{User:SPIKE/signature}}<small>21:52 29-May-12</small>
+
*Since this is a substantial work by a former editor here ({{u|MrN9000}}), I am tempted to suggest it is simply moved off the main space and put there. --{{User:Romartus/sig2}} 09:50, September 23, 2014 (UTC)
*:I watched every last episode of Lost, and I can tell you that I personally do not find anything the least bit funny about this concentrated pile of Fail. As for Star Trek, I feel rather lukewarm towards it and its spin-offs. However, if there were a Star Trek article that was 400 kB long, and was as comparatively unfunny, I'd vote to kill that thing with nukes.{{User:Bizzeebeever/signature|20120529215646}}
+
*:'''Done.''' {{User:SPIKE/signature}}<small>12:04 23-Sep-14</small>
 
}}
 
}}
   
==[[Horizon]]==
+
== {{VFDc|Silicon}} ==
{{Votervfd|time=13:58, May 28, 2012 (UTC)
+
  +
{{VFDg|time=08:56, September 22, 2014 (UTC)
  +
|delnumber=1
  +
|delete=
  +
#'''Delete''' Practically a stub. --[[User:Nikau|Nikau]] ([[User talk:Nikau|talk]]) 08:56, September 22, 2014 (UTC)
 
|keepnumber=2
 
|keepnumber=2
|keep=#Most of this seems more than acceptable content. Why are you nomming this? {{User:Sockpuppet of an unregistered user/sig4}}<small>''14:03, 28 May 2012''</small>
+
|keep=
#This isn't bad. --{{User:Xamralco/sig}} 14:11, May 28, 2012 (UTC)
+
#{{Keep}} Inelegant or vandalized article is full of red-links but has all the ingredients for good comedy; I'll try to improve it. {{User:SPIKE/signature}}<small>09:19 22-Sep-14</small>
|delnumber=2
+
#Has a decent concept and executes it well. It does now, anyway. {{User:Llwy-ar-lawr/sig|20140922200549}}
|delete=#{{Delete}} You have got to be joking.--{{User:Iwillkillyou333/sig}} 13:58, May 28, 2012 (UTC)
 
#I've seen so many shit pages today, I'm kinda on He.Will.Kill's side on this one.{{User:Bizzeebeever/signature|20120529070529}}
 
 
|comments=
 
|comments=
 
}}
 
}}
   
==[[Niggas in Paris]]==
+
== {{VFDn|National Llama Party}} ==
{{Votervfd|time=13:24, May 28, 2012 (UTC)
+
|keepnumber=5
+
{{VFDt|time=18:12, September 22, 2014 (UTC)
|keep=#Hey bro, don't be hatin' on my homie's sweet page, yo. {{User:Sockpuppet of an unregistered user/sig4}}<small>''13:56, 28 May 2012''</small>
+
|delnumber=5
#'''Keep'''. I chuckled. Good enough. Spike can't tell me what's funny. -{{User:Optimuschris/sig}}<small><small>16:12, 28 May</small></small>
+
|delete=
#Prolly as an appropriate article for the song as you can ever get. And it repeats itself because that's the joke. --{{User:Thekillerfroggy/sig}} 00:25, May 29, 2012 (UTC)
+
#{{Delete}} Wikipedia lists four parties whose acronym is NLP in the English-speaking world, and two elsewhere. Will we ever figure out which one this article refers to? Anon added an item to, and I deleted entirely, a listcruft section on who's in it, and the initial quotations should go as well, but this Wacky Party is just not funny. {{User:SPIKE/signature}}<small>18:12 22-Sep-14</small>
#{{Keep}} That shit cray. --{{User:Xamralco/sig}} 00:55, May 29, 2012 (UTC)
+
#{{Delete}} {{User:Anton199/sig}} 19:30, September 22, 2014 (UTC)
#Feature!--{{User:Mr-ex777/sig}} 12:57, May 29, 2012 (UTC)
+
#Six-toed waffles do not belong here. {{User:Llwy-ar-lawr/sig|20140922200256}}
|delnumber=3
+
#{{Delete|I'm copying it to Illogicopedia}} It's got llamas, guinea pigs, lemurs, and giant wind powered toasters, so it sure should go '''''somewhere'''''. If only it were actually funny it could stay right where it is. (I left the Oscar Wilde quote behind, tho -- anybody wants it, you can have it...) [[User:Snarglefoop|Snarglefoop]] ([[User talk:Snarglefoop|talk]]) 20:05, September 22, 2014 (UTC)
|delete=#{{Delete}} It repeats itself. How is that funny?--{{User:Iwillkillyou333/sig}} 13:24, May 28, 2012 (UTC)
+
#{{Delete}}Rambles on about nothing in particular. Not really anything that could be shoved into the [[Llamas]] article. --{{User:Romartus/sig2}} 22:30, September 22, 2014 (UTC)
#{{Delete}} I have the answer. It's not. {{User:Cat the Colourful/sig sig 2|13:28|28|May|2012}}
+
|keepnumber=0
#{{Delete|Let's hear it again!}} No, let's not. {{User:SPIKE/signature}}<small>13:38 28-May-12</small>
+
|keep=
 
|comments=
 
|comments=
 
}}
 
}}
   
==[[Constitution (Games)]]==
+
== {{VFDn|UnBooks:Guns don't kill people ... people kill themselves}} ==
{{Votervfd|time=17:15, May 27, 2012 (UTC)
+
|keepnumber=3
+
{{VFDt|time=19:38, September 22, 2014 (UTC)
|keep=
+
|delnumber=4
#{{Keep}} "Constitution" is the stamina-like attribute of characters in role-playing games. Word play, such as "constitution" as the opposite of "prostitution," is a fine humor form we rarely see. This article unfortunately spreads a small amount of material very thin, but it's about something real, is intelligent, and it has an idea what it wants to achieve. {{User:SPIKE/signature}}<small>17:24 27-May-12</small>
 
#'''Keep.''' It needs some work, like maybe an image or two, but it's promising. {{User:GEORGIEGIBBONS/sig}} 19:20, May 27, 2012 (UTC)
 
#{{Keep|Not bad enough.}} {{User:Sockpuppet of an unregistered user/sig4}}<small>''12:27, 28 May 2012''</small>
 
|delnumber=2
 
 
|delete=
 
|delete=
#{{Delete}} The article was just.... I don't really know how to put it in words. It's bad, but as I read one, it got worst. It had a way of explaining itself, and it gets worse because it just puts some random stuff that's no sense and just very random and immature. If goes off topic more than once, and I honesty believe thaey were just putting stuff there just for the hell of it. It was so random and illogical, my brain actually felt really bad after trying to comprehend what the article is trying to say. I also highly doubt the subject that its talking about even exist (and if it does then it was not made by a intelligent person, and I'm not just saying that.--{{User:Iwillkillyou333/sig}} 17:15, May 27, 2012 (UTC)
+
#{{Delete}} As with [[The things your family doesn't know]] (nominated above), author (who has shut down his account across Wikia) uses non-standard typography and excruciatingly slow development to make the reader read too far to understand there is no humor, there was never going to be humor, it is about murder rather than humor, and author is too swell to simply work on a satire encyclopedia. Prank funny. {{User:SPIKE/signature}}<small>19:38 22-Sep-14</small>
#This is pretty bad. --{{User:Xamralco/sig}} 13:44, May 28, 2012 (UTC)
+
#I read this a while back when it was up for VFH on the fork. I didn't find it funny, but I voted for it anyway because I felt like it was one of those articles that I was ''supposed'' to find funny, you know? {{User:Llwy-ar-lawr/sig|20140922195537}}
  +
#{{Delete}} If by "fork", Llwy is referring to en.uncyclopedia, then it is of my understanding the crap we VFD is what they VFH. And this may be more evidence. [[User:ConCass2|ConCass2]] ([[User talk:ConCass2|talk]]) 20:27, September 22, 2014 (UTC)
  +
#:Indeed. That's an easy conclusion to jump to, but they do often feature decent or half-decent writing there, and they often don't feature articles that we would consider crap. Just because two sets overlap does not mean they are the same set. {{User:Llwy-ar-lawr/sig|20140922203608}}
  +
#::{{Comment|Aieee!}} Run for the foxholes, the mud slinging has begun! [[User:Snarglefoop|Snarglefoop]] ([[User talk:Snarglefoop|talk]]) 20:47, September 22, 2014 (UTC)
  +
#{{Delete}} Holy flying spaghetti monsters, that's ''awful''. And people (somewhere, anywhere) thought it was ''funny?'' And what's with the font size? [[User:Snarglefoop|Snarglefoop]] ([[User talk:Snarglefoop|talk]]) 21:06, September 22, 2014 (UTC)
  +
|keepnumber=1
  +
|keep=
  +
#{{Keep}} That's not about murder, but suicide. The main joke comes at the end, or at least, I think so, when the narrator says how much he hates his wife, even though she is already dead. It won't make you laugh, but there is still some humour. {{User:Anton199/sig}} 16:29, September 23, 2014 (UTC)
 
|comments=
 
|comments=
*@SPIKE- That could work if it wasn't written so randomly.--{{User:Iwillkillyou333/sig}} 17:26, May 27, 2012 (UTC)
+
*Regarding mudslinging, I have warned ConCass2 on his talk page, and Llwy can consider this a second warning. Please address the merits of the article. {{User:SPIKE/signature}}<small>23:52 22-Sep-14</small>
*:Now we're down to quibbles. (Get started! I already saved one today.) I suggest a section listing famous personalities with high (or low) Constitution ratings (who bare all on the cinema: constitution/prostitution) with the implications for the D&D cards of each. {{User:SPIKE/signature}}<small>17:31 27-May-12</small>
 
*:I dumped some new ideas into it and scrubbed the old D&D-cruft. But the result just doesn't hang together. Someone else should take a turn. {{User:SPIKE/signature}}<small>10:01 28-May-12</small>
 
----
 
*Previously [[Uncyclopedia:Votes_for_deletion/Archive260#Constitution_.28Games.29|VFD'd]], Jan'12; 0-3 Delete; kept by Lyrithya citing "apathy." {{User:SPIKE/signature}}<small>17:35 27-May-12</small>
 
*Better title would be [[Constitution (gaming)]] but is protected to Admins due to past vandalism. {{User:SPIKE/signature}}<small>17:38 27-May-12</small>
 
 
}}
 
}}
   
==[[Tank Abbot]]==
+
== {{VFDn|UnBooks:Those uncomfortable moments when no one knows what to do}} ==
{{Votervfd|time=09:52, May 26, 2012 (UTC)
+
|keepnumber=2
+
{{VFDt|time=22:51, September 22, 2014 (UTC)
  +
|delnumber=3
  +
|delete=
  +
#{{Delete}} The basic premise seems to be that using the word "rape" a whole lot is funny, particularly when we combine it with the word "dog", and when we include a bunch of pictures of dogs. [[User:Snarglefoop|Snarglefoop]] ([[User talk:Snarglefoop|talk]]) 22:36, September 22, 2014 (UTC)
  +
#This at least has a concept that conveys something of the absurdity required for humour, but it doesn't really get there. Also, I like dogs. {{User:Llwy-ar-lawr/sig|20140922223953}}
  +
#{{Delete}} In fact, during the graphic descriptions and the speculation about inviting the guests to mate the pets or "rape" one another, it's entirely unclear to me that author is pursuing absurd humor at all. {{User:SPIKE/signature}}<small>23:42 22-Sep-14</small>
  +
|keepnumber=0
 
|keep=
 
|keep=
#'''Keep'''. Weaker stuff - amusing for those who know who he is.--{{user:sycamore/sig}} 12:17, May 27, 2012 (UTC)
 
#'''Keep'''. It's not that bad actually. It just needs to be reworked and those awful red links removed.--{{User:Iwillkillyou333/sig}} 16:45, May 27, 2012 (UTC)
 
|delnumber=1
 
|delete=
 
#This is-a bad. {{User:Bizzeebeever/signature|20120526095235}}
 
 
|comments=
 
|comments=
  +
#I think it would work fine as an example of absurd humor, if it was starting in a very neutral way and then making quick transitions between different steps, skipping all the long description of dogs raping each other. {{User:Anton199/sig}} 17:15, September 23, 2014 (UTC)
 
}}
 
}}
   
==[[Apocalypse]]==
+
== {{VFDn|World War Revolution}} ==
{{Votervfd|time=15:57, May 24, 2012 (UTC)
+
|keepnumber=5
+
{{VFDt|time=00:49, September 23, 2014 (UTC)
  +
|delnumber=2
  +
|delete=
  +
#{{Delete}} A classic Wacky War article with no counterpart on Wikipedia. A World War as a video game (although we do this elsewhere), here involving everyone from Mugabe to Pac-man to Bush. Randomness of no benefit to the reader. {{User:SPIKE/signature}}<small>00:49 23-Sep-14</small>
  +
#Doesn't start off well, and goes off whatever rails it might have had when it gets to the Smurfs. {{User:Llwy-ar-lawr/sig|20140924022147}}
  +
|keepnumber=0
 
|keep=
 
|keep=
#'''Keep'''. Made this a little more encyclopedic, this is a major topic and has it's moments.--{{user:sycamore/sig}} 10:23, May 25, 2012 (UTC)
 
#Vital, maybe rewrite.--{{User:Mr-ex777/sig}} 06:43, May 26, 2012 (UTC)
 
#If the lists and redlinks were removed this would be a nice little article. {{User:Frosty/sig3}} 06:45, May 26, 2012 (UTC)
 
#{{Keep}} For no reason lol. --[[User:SecondChanceForMe|2<small><sup>nd</sup></small> Chance for me]] ''(because I was'' '''banned'''.'')'' [[User talk:SecondChanceForMe|<small>(Say)</small>]] 09:35, May 29, 2012 (UTC)
 
#{{Keep}} (Formerly '''Delete'''.) <s>Dumb disclaimer put me in a bad mood to encounter the long lists that followed. Instead, redirect it to [[Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse]] (though it is being worsened by a newbie today).</s> No longer a gaping sore thanks to Mr-ex777. Could still use an owner and an actual theme. Don't call the reader a wanker in the intro. {{User:SPIKE/signature}}<small>16:01 24-May-12</small>
 
|delnumber=2
 
|delete=#{{Delete}}And redirect to [[End of Time]]. --{{User:Scofield/sig}} 15:57, May 24, 2012 (UTC)
 
#{{Delete}} This is, once again, one of those articles that starts promisingly with a nice photo, nice thumbnail-text, nice first five/six sentences, then comes an ultimately random piece which, somehow, features a celebraty on some part (George Bush is a celebrity right?) and then turns into an endless like list which starts annoying the reader who turns his/hers back to the article and votes for deletion. This is sad. : ( {{User:Cat the Colourful/sig sig 2|16:55|28|May|2012}}
 
#* In that case, it should only be that long. --{{User:Qzekrom/sig6}} 22:41, May 29, 2012 (UTC)
 
 
|comments=
 
|comments=
*Lists and chuck norris removed.--{{User:Mr-ex777/sig}} 09:33, May 29, 2012 (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 02:21, September 24, 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 • Now hiring for Poopsmith • Engineered by Pup (report bugs here)

edit HowTo:Play chess H D

Score: 4
Elapsed Time: 102 hours
Delete (4)
  1. Symbol delete vote Delete. Nothing worth saving. Just a load of old ranty pants in my view. --LaurelsRomArtus*Imperator ITRA (Orate) ® 12:38, September 19, 2014 (UTC)
  2. Symbol delete vote Delete. Written in 2008 by DangerousMan, this ramble leads with Jew-bashing, bickering quote-cruft and the trite "nobody knows." The only work has been in correcting the coding and appending the bit about shoving the pieces up one's ass. Spıke ¬ 13:44 19-Sep-14
  3. Symbol delete vote Delete. It's pretty bad. Snarglefoop (talk) 14:17, September 19, 2014 (UTC)
  4. The beginning and middle are taken up by a somewhat random ramble about the history of chess; the last two paragraphs, all the article has to say about actually playing chess, are about as bad. Adding Chuck Norris did not improve matters. -– Llwy-ar-lawr (talkcontribs) 19:57 19 Sep 2014
Keep (0)

No keep votes.

Comments
  • Symbol comment vote Hmmm Actually there's one bit which might be salvageable, which is the idea that the black and white pieces represent characters in a race riot (OK it doesn't exactly say that in the article but it hints at it). Tie that in with the (real) origin of chess somewhere sometime in India, and with the invasion of India by some (presumed) white tribe or other at the end of the Bronze Age and there might be a hook to hang something on. Maybe throw in some obscure references to the caste system as India's apartheid, and voila, an article with jokes that only an anthropologist would get. Oh, well, whatever.... Snarglefoop (talk) 14:17, September 19, 2014 (UTC)
    Yes, there's some merit there but it seems like the sort of thing that should be given centre stage in Chess and perhaps just a side mention in HowTo:Play chess. -– Llwy-ar-lawr (talkcontribs) 19:57 19 Sep 2014
  • Llwy placed {{VFD}} tag; clock is reset. Spıke ¬ 20:15 19-Sep-14

edit 🔒 Worst reasons to become a Christian H T D Oldvfd Archive

Score: -1 • voting closed
Elapsed Time: 71 hours
Delete (2)
  1. Symbol delete vote Delete. More like 100 reasons to roll your eyes. Good old random yet still fairly intolerant trash that will drive away users, especially the part where it goes "priest molestation lol" without even making a joke. --Nikau (talk) 02:35, September 21, 2014 (UTC)
  2. Symbol delete vote Delete. Simple Ricky Gervais humour with half the effort. I'm sure the article on Christianity would have the same jokes, only funnier and written in the form of a paragraph. If you need 100 bulletpoints to elaborate your joke, it simply isn't funny. ConCass2 (talk) 10:00, September 21, 2014 (UTC)
    Indeed, our whole "Worst 100" family actively recruits crap to make them "complete." Recently, we've done a few of these without the "100" target. Spıke ¬ 14:16 21-Sep-14
Keep (3)
  1. Symbol keep vote Rewritten. Spıke ¬ 16:05 22-Sep-14
  2. Symbol keep vote Keep. Very funny now! Anton (talk) Uncyclopedia United 19:42, September 22, 2014 (UTC)
  3. Yes, it's definitely better. But is it really a 'Worst 100'-type thingy anymore? Something to think about... or not. -– Llwy-ar-lawr (talkcontribs) 19:47 22 Sep 2014
    Does seem to belong in Why: rather than Worst 100. Spıke ¬ 22:36 22-Sep-14
Comments
  • I am more comfortable with "intolerant" than "random." If a bigot wants to write a truly entertaining article, fine. This one starts out with a fanboy intro, a big long list where none of the items are developed but most are simple slaps expected to be funny on their own; and ends with a gigantic UnScript of hilarious bickering between opposing caricatures playing out in some Uncyclopedian's mind. But I'm not yet convinced it couldn't acquire a comedy strategy. "of All Time" in the title is surplus. Spıke ¬ 02:46 21-Sep-14
    I'm not comfortable with intolerance (unless it's a parody), there's a line between taking the piss and being hateful. On second viewing this isn't too intolerant, but it is still offensively unfunny. I despise most of the 100 lists because they're always about 75 entries too long and 3/4 entries are filler. --Nikau (talk) 04:06, September 21, 2014 (UTC)
  • I don't know... some of the list items are sort of funny. There shouldn't be so much bold text, though. And it's one of the 'Worst 100 of All Time' things, hence the title and the listness. Worst 100 are generally in a form similar to this, though the list items could be developed. -– Llwy-ar-lawr (talkcontribs) 03:14 21 Sep 2014
    They are bold text because they are "unnumbered headlines." But elaboration would be funnier than just one-liners. Spıke ¬ 03:23 21-Sep-14
  • Renamed. Spıke ¬ 14:22 21-Sep-14 And again as there are no longer 100 reasons. Spıke ¬ 19:52 22-Sep-14

edit Emo Prison H D

Score: 3
Elapsed Time: 69 hours
Delete (5)
  1. Symbol delete vote Delete. - Dated like hell. Who's even said Emo since 2008? --Nikau (talk) 05:10, September 21, 2014 (UTC)
  2. Symbol delete vote Delete. The 2006 creation of Evilcorporatemetaljesus takes something real (the Emo craze) and joins it to something unreal in the way that no reader will guess. The result is a springboard to randomness that never really gets clever. Spıke ¬ 12:50 21-Sep-14
  3. Symbol delete vote Delete. Dated, not dated, whatever, doesn't really matter -- but unfortunately it's not funny. Snarglefoop (talk) 13:51, September 21, 2014 (UTC)
  4. What everyone else said. -– Llwy-ar-lawr (talkcontribs) 13:57 21 Sep 2014
  5. What Spike said which means Symbol delete vote Delete. The preceding unsigned comment was added by TheWikiMan026 (talk • contribs)
Keep (2)
  1. Symbol keep vote Keep. An article being "dated" is not a valid condition to be delete on. By that logic, World War 2 should be deleted because it happened in the fourties. It's not a bad article. ConCass2 (talk) 09:53, September 21, 2014 (UTC)
  2. Symbol keep vote Keep. Not my cup of tea but the article isn't that bad to scrap it in my view. Will fix some typos. --LaurelsRomArtus*Imperator ITRA (Orate) ® 22:12, September 22, 2014 (UTC)
    Then you must do some very good writing to counteract the fact that it will still be an article about nothing. You must write as though the PLS depended on it. Spıke ¬ 22:37 22-Sep-14
Comments
  • The problem is not that the Emo fashion is now out-of-fashion. We could have an article on Lava lamp; but an article Lava Lamp University or War of the Lava Lamps might not even be saved by good writing. Author lives on, through his other Uncyclopedia contribution, Samuel L. Vacuum, a made-up person who becomes a springboard for navelism about what it's like to write an article — God-help-us, a Featured Article that we aren't supposed to touch. Spıke ¬ 12:50 21-Sep-14
    Is there any reason we're not supposed to touch featured articles, other than 'because I said so'? On Wikipedia they can be de-featured, and presumably they can be taken to AFD any time you like. I see no reason why we shouldn't work the same way. If any ballot-stuffing goes on we can always strike the undesirable votes. -– Llwy-ar-lawr (talkcontribs) 13:57 21 Sep 2014
    FA status doesn't amount to much anyway. It goes in a big category, the end. As for the article, fads are nothing like historical events or objects. Nudge nudge humor about an ancient joke isn't funny with nothing to back it up. Something like Kennedy being a womanizer is in the public consciousness today and so jokes about that work, the behavior of an old highschool clique isn't so they don't. --Nikau (talk) 15:01, September 21, 2014 (UTC)
    Yeah, all FA status amounts to is immunity from deletion, which increasingly seems to me to be rather a bad thing. I'm not fond of Samuel L. Vacuum either, since it goes on and on about itself and I prefer articles that don't try to give themselves away. If it weren't featured it might be deletable, since most of the people who voted for it on VFH aren't here anymore. 'If only, if only,' the woodpecker sighs... -– Llwy-ar-lawr (talkcontribs) 16:51 21 Sep 2014

edit The Church of Ass and Nipple Slips H T D

Score: 4
Elapsed Time: 49 hours
Delete (4)
  1. Symbol delete vote Delete. Listy (Galleries are photographic lists) article in the trite Wacky Religion genre. Also: porn. Spıke ¬ 01:19 22-Sep-14
  2. Symbol delete vote Delete. Yeah. Please note that the talk page should be deleted as well. I can't figure out if this is a rant, an attack page, or just soft porn but it's sure not humor. And whatever it is, the page's content seems to have slopped over onto its talk page, which does not actually contain anything like the discussion you might have expected. Snarglefoop (talk) 01:38, September 22, 2014 (UTC)
  3. Another article written with the expectation that sex is automatically funny. -– Llwy-ar-lawr (talkcontribs) 01:47 22 Sep 2014
  4. Symbol delete vote Delete. Anton (talk) Uncyclopedia United 19:37, September 22, 2014 (UTC)
Keep (0)

No keep votes.

Comments

edit 🔒 Jew/Classic H Tag Oldvfd Archive

Score: 5 • voting closed
Elapsed Time: 48 hours
Delete (5)
  1. Symbol delete vote Delete, or explain how it's funny. And, to quote Gandalf, "who will laugh, I wonder?" Starts with a quote from Hitler, goes on to rehash a bunch of trite negative stereotypes about Jews -- how is this not just an attack page? The silliness about bagels really doesn't save it, IMHO. Snarglefoop (talk) 01:51, September 22, 2014 (UTC)
  2. As I have said before--on a site where I was ultimately proved wrong--this isn't Encyclopedia Dramatica. -– Llwy-ar-lawr (talkcontribs) 02:02 22 Sep 2014
  3. Symbol delete vote Delete. There are many ways of dealing with the subject of Jews, and the way we do it, at Jew (in the obvious voice of a rambling Rabbi) is fine. This older version, by comparison, starts ranty and continues ranty. As I suggest at CoW#Extremists, it is very hard to write anti-Semitism (or many other things), even, say, for the sake of ridiculing anti-Semites, and not give the impression of serious advocacy. Spıke ¬ 02:22 22-Sep-14
  4. Symbol delete vote Delete. Hello kids who watched Southpark. --Nikau (talk) 08:54, September 22, 2014 (UTC)
  5. Symbol delete vote Delete. There are at least ten different articles in there with ten different ideas behind them. Choose one and make something good out of it. Anton (talk) Uncyclopedia United 19:35, September 22, 2014 (UTC)
Keep (0)

No keep votes.

Comments
  • Since this is a substantial work by a former editor here (MrN9000), I am tempted to suggest it is simply moved off the main space and put there. --LaurelsRomArtus*Imperator ITRA (Orate) ® 09:50, September 23, 2014 (UTC)
    Done. Spıke ¬ 12:04 23-Sep-14

edit 🔒 Silicon H D Oldvfd Archive

Score: -1 • voting closed
Elapsed Time: 41 hours
Delete (1)
  1. Delete Practically a stub. --Nikau (talk) 08:56, September 22, 2014 (UTC)
Keep (2)
  1. Symbol keep vote Keep. Inelegant or vandalized article is full of red-links but has all the ingredients for good comedy; I'll try to improve it. Spıke ¬ 09:19 22-Sep-14
  2. Has a decent concept and executes it well. It does now, anyway. -– Llwy-ar-lawr (talkcontribs) 20:05 22 Sep 2014
Comments

edit National Llama Party H D

Score: 5
Elapsed Time: 32 hours
Delete (5)
  1. Symbol delete vote Delete. Wikipedia lists four parties whose acronym is NLP in the English-speaking world, and two elsewhere. Will we ever figure out which one this article refers to? Anon added an item to, and I deleted entirely, a listcruft section on who's in it, and the initial quotations should go as well, but this Wacky Party is just not funny. Spıke ¬ 18:12 22-Sep-14
  2. Symbol delete vote Delete. Anton (talk) Uncyclopedia United 19:30, September 22, 2014 (UTC)
  3. Six-toed waffles do not belong here. -– Llwy-ar-lawr (talkcontribs) 20:02 22 Sep 2014
  4. Symbol delete vote I'm copying it to Illogicopedia It's got llamas, guinea pigs, lemurs, and giant wind powered toasters, so it sure should go somewhere. If only it were actually funny it could stay right where it is. (I left the Oscar Wilde quote behind, tho -- anybody wants it, you can have it...) Snarglefoop (talk) 20:05, September 22, 2014 (UTC)
  5. Symbol delete vote Delete.Rambles on about nothing in particular. Not really anything that could be shoved into the Llamas article. --LaurelsRomArtus*Imperator ITRA (Orate) ® 22:30, September 22, 2014 (UTC)
Keep (0)

No keep votes.

Comments

edit UnBooks:Guns don't kill people ... people kill themselves H D

Score: 3
Elapsed Time: 30 hours
Delete (4)
  1. Symbol delete vote Delete. As with The things your family doesn't know (nominated above), author (who has shut down his account across Wikia) uses non-standard typography and excruciatingly slow development to make the reader read too far to understand there is no humor, there was never going to be humor, it is about murder rather than humor, and author is too swell to simply work on a satire encyclopedia. Prank ≠ funny. Spıke ¬ 19:38 22-Sep-14
  2. I read this a while back when it was up for VFH on the fork. I didn't find it funny, but I voted for it anyway because I felt like it was one of those articles that I was supposed to find funny, you know? -– Llwy-ar-lawr (talkcontribs) 19:55 22 Sep 2014
  3. Symbol delete vote Delete. If by "fork", Llwy is referring to en.uncyclopedia, then it is of my understanding the crap we VFD is what they VFH. And this may be more evidence. ConCass2 (talk) 20:27, September 22, 2014 (UTC)
    Indeed. That's an easy conclusion to jump to, but they do often feature decent or half-decent writing there, and they often don't feature articles that we would consider crap. Just because two sets overlap does not mean they are the same set. -– Llwy-ar-lawr (talkcontribs) 20:36 22 Sep 2014
    Symbol comment vote Aieee! Run for the foxholes, the mud slinging has begun! Snarglefoop (talk) 20:47, September 22, 2014 (UTC)
  4. Symbol delete vote Delete. Holy flying spaghetti monsters, that's awful. And people (somewhere, anywhere) thought it was funny? And what's with the font size? Snarglefoop (talk) 21:06, September 22, 2014 (UTC)
Keep (1)
  1. Symbol keep vote Keep. That's not about murder, but suicide. The main joke comes at the end, or at least, I think so, when the narrator says how much he hates his wife, even though she is already dead. It won't make you laugh, but there is still some humour. Anton (talk) Uncyclopedia United 16:29, September 23, 2014 (UTC)
Comments
  • Regarding mudslinging, I have warned ConCass2 on his talk page, and Llwy can consider this a second warning. Please address the merits of the article. Spıke ¬ 23:52 22-Sep-14

edit UnBooks:Those uncomfortable moments when no one knows what to do H D

Score: 3
Elapsed Time: 27 hours
Delete (3)
  1. Symbol delete vote Delete. The basic premise seems to be that using the word "rape" a whole lot is funny, particularly when we combine it with the word "dog", and when we include a bunch of pictures of dogs. Snarglefoop (talk) 22:36, September 22, 2014 (UTC)
  2. This at least has a concept that conveys something of the absurdity required for humour, but it doesn't really get there. Also, I like dogs. -– Llwy-ar-lawr (talkcontribs) 22:39 22 Sep 2014
  3. Symbol delete vote Delete. In fact, during the graphic descriptions and the speculation about inviting the guests to mate the pets or "rape" one another, it's entirely unclear to me that author is pursuing absurd humor at all. Spıke ¬ 23:42 22-Sep-14
Keep (0)

No keep votes.

Comments
  1. I think it would work fine as an example of absurd humor, if it was starting in a very neutral way and then making quick transitions between different steps, skipping all the long description of dogs raping each other. Anton (talk) Uncyclopedia United 17:15, September 23, 2014 (UTC)

edit World War Revolution H D

Score: 2
Elapsed Time: 25 hours
Delete (2)
  1. Symbol delete vote Delete. A classic Wacky War article with no counterpart on Wikipedia. A World War as a video game (although we do this elsewhere), here involving everyone from Mugabe to Pac-man to Bush. Randomness of no benefit to the reader. Spıke ¬ 00:49 23-Sep-14
  2. Doesn't start off well, and goes off whatever rails it might have had when it gets to the Smurfs. -– Llwy-ar-lawr (talkcontribs) 02:21 24 Sep 2014
Keep (0)

No keep votes.

Comments
Personal tools
projects