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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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 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)

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)

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)