Uncyclopedia:Votes for deletion

From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia

(Difference between revisions)
Jump to: navigation, search
m (Terms of Use: Reply to POTR)
m ({{VFDn|Indiana Jones}})
 
(6,486 intermediate revisions by 93 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|Lake Zurich, Illinois}} ==
{{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]] ==
+
{{VFDt|time=14:13, October 10, 2014 (UTC)
{{Votervfd|time=~~~~~
+
|delnumber=3
  +
|delete=
  +
#{{Delete}} Imagine, a small Midwestern town that has two kinds of assholes, megalomaniacs, and Mexicans! Anon was just in to correct the list of elementary schools. Either that, or cyber-bully. Who knows? Who cares? {{User:SPIKE/signature}}<small>14:13 10-Oct-14</small>
  +
#What do Lake Zurich and this article have in common? They're both boring. {{User:Llwy-ar-lawr/sig|20141010162239}}
  +
#Lake what? Where?? --{{User:Romartus/sig2}} 12:55, October 15, 2014 (UTC)
 
|keepnumber=0
 
|keepnumber=0
 
|keep=
 
|keep=
|delnumber=1
 
|delete=
 
 
|comments=
 
|comments=
  +
*{{Abstain}} Nobody's ever going to look this up but maybe for the one or two people from Lake Zurich that do, they'll find it funny. --{{User:Xamralco/sig}} 17:12, October 11, 2014 (UTC)
 
}}
 
}}
Don't finagle 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.
+
== {{VFDn|Third World War}} ==
   
New nominations at the top of the page below this line; --></div>
+
{{VFDt|time=09:47, October 11, 2014 (UTC)
  +
|delnumber=4
  +
|delete=
  +
#{{Delete}} Nothing much in the article. No humour, no encyclopedic parody. {{User:ScottPat/sig3}} 09:47, October 11, 2014 (UTC)
  +
#{{Delete}} Concept is Wacky War plus history-of-the-future. Execution is stuck in lists, including the unfunny list of names of countries. Writing style is gibberish, starting with the first sentence — "...an armed conflict in The Third World, that took place during The Third World..." — not even a conundrum; ending with, "The outcome...is unclear." {{User:SPIKE/signature}}<small>15:01 11-Oct-14</small>
  +
#{{delete|123,456,789 (which is roughly over 9000).}} Little more than a few bad puns glued together with randomness and nonsense numbers. Includes a poke at Jews for good measure--of stupidity. {{User:Llwy-ar-lawr/sig|20141011161411}}
  +
#{{Delete}} Boring. --{{User:Xamralco/sig}} 17:16, October 11, 2014 (UTC)
  +
|keepnumber=0
  +
|keep=
  +
|comments=
  +
}}
   
== [[Glenn_Beck_(Asshat)]] ==
+
== {{VFDn|The Last World War}} ==
{{Votervfd|time=14:19, February 15, 2013 (UTC)
+
  +
{{VFDt|time=09:49, October 11, 2014 (UTC)
  +
|delnumber=3
  +
|delete=
  +
#{{Delete}} In depth analysis, stage-by-stage using maps, of a made-up conflict that only the author cares about. Complete with made-up statistics like "123,456" as well. {{User:ScottPat/sig3}} 09:49, October 11, 2014 (UTC)
  +
#{{delete|It is occasionally criticized for being slightly destructive.}} The intro--from which that sentence is taken--looked promising, but the descriptions of the conflict didn't do anything for me. {{User:Llwy-ar-lawr/sig|20141011162737}}
  +
#{{Delete}} This article about nothing keeps begging for editors' time to fix it up, while never inducing anyone to take control and make it funny. See also '''Comments'''. {{User:SPIKE/signature}}<small>12:05 13-Oct-14</small>
 
|keepnumber=1
 
|keepnumber=1
 
|keep=
 
|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
+
#{{Keep}} Sorry, but I found it funny, especially the maps. {{User:Anton199/sig}} 12:27, October 11, 2014 (UTC)
|delnumber=1
 
|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)
 
 
|comments=
 
|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>
+
*I voted {{Keep|Keep}} [[Uncyclopedia:Votes_for_deletion/Archive235#The_Last_World_War|last time]] based on Aleister doing work, a commitment that he says in the ballot he never made. I had been moved at the concept of the unknowability of a Last War; now I find the concept undeveloped and I think the bit about humanity going extinct and the author being a panda is dumb. Llwy is working on it, but the maps Anton199 likes suggest to me comic book, not encyclopedia; and the problem is the text, which needs a better comedy theme than "War so nutty!" {{User:SPIKE/signature}}<small>16:48 11-Oct-14</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.
+
*:All I did was fix some spelling and formatting, and I don't see myself doing any more; I wouldn't overestimate me. It's more readable now, but no funnier. {{User:Llwy-ar-lawr/sig|20141011165618}}
*::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>
 
 
}}
 
}}
   
== [[2012 (Video Game)]] ==
+
== {{VFDn|Devon}} ==
{{Votervfd|time=12:46, February 15, 2013 (UTC)
+
  +
{{VFDt|time=02:09, October 12, 2014 (UTC)
  +
|delnumber=2
  +
|delete=
  +
#{{Delete}} Yet another article about some small area in England which is said to be inhabited by some sort of subhuman creatures that don't really speak English. [[User:Snarglefoop|Snarglefoop]] ([[User talk:Snarglefoop|talk]]) 02:09, October 12, 2014 (UTC)
  +
#{{delete|the disease known as ‘chav’.}} Long string of attacks on Devon, with no humour and less concept. I believe there was a campaign to clear out such towncruft earlier in the century, but I wasn't there at the time; I was busy huffing imaginary rainbows. {{User:Llwy-ar-lawr/sig|20141012021357}}
 
|keepnumber=0
 
|keepnumber=0
 
|keep=
 
|keep=
  +
|comments=
  +
*[http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/Devon?oldid=153094 Here] is the last version by the first author; it's nothing spectacular and it's very short, but it's better than what's there now. {{User:Llwy-ar-lawr/sig|20141012022051}}
  +
*:Not much in the original version worth keeping, nor even worth the time to give it mark-up. I've deleted a lot of cruft from the current version; there is material inside that one could make an article out of. The content-free Intro prepares the reviewer for the worst. Unfortunately, the new author of [[Dudley]], {{U|Mjr74}} lives far away from Devon, if I read my maps aright, so we can't saddle him with this. {{User:SPIKE/signature}}<small>11:25 12-Oct-14</small>
  +
*:I notified Mjr74 anyway; he says he has visited Devon and has stuff he could add. {{User:SPIKE/signature}}<small>01:56 14-Oct-14</small>
  +
}}
  +
  +
== {{VFDn|Good Electricity and Bad Electricity}} ==
  +
  +
{{VFDt|time=14:04, October 12, 2014 (UTC)
  +
|delnumber=2
  +
|delete=
  +
#{{Delete}} A tiny bit of pseudo-intellectualism. Might fit on Illogicopedia. {{User:SPIKE/signature}}<small>14:04 12-Oct-14</small>
  +
#Agreed. I'll stick it there right now. {{User:Llwy-ar-lawr/sig|20141012183634}}
  +
|keepnumber=0
  +
|keep=
  +
|comments=
  +
}}
  +
  +
== {{VFDn|UnNews:NRA celebrates Colorado theatre shootings}} ==
  +
  +
{{VFDt|time=20:14, October 12, 2014 (UTC)
 
|delnumber=3
 
|delnumber=3
 
|delete=
 
|delete=
#The game was deleted. This was just another advertisement for a crappy text adventure from a now banned user. {{User:PuppyOnTheRadio/sig3|12:46 15 Feb}}
+
#<s>First paragraph discloses to us that we are about to be treated to a more or less serious portrayal of the incident. The rest of the article tries and fails to remedy this shortcoming. {{User:Llwy-ar-lawr/sig|20141012201424}}</s> It seems more like criticism than satire, even though it is over-the-top. I'm waffling though. {{User:Llwy-ar-lawr/sig|20141012214318}}
#{{delete}} per above. --{{User:Mnbvcxz/sig5}} 14:28, February 15, 2013 (UTC)
+
#:Errrmmmm ... Did you per chance read the linked article on Yahoo about the actual incident? More or ''less'' serious indeed.... [[User:Snarglefoop|Snarglefoop]] ([[User talk:Snarglefoop|talk]]) 20:56, October 12, 2014 (UTC)
#{{Delete}} Per above. {{User:SPIKE/signature}}<small>14:34 15-Feb-13</small>
+
#::Original rationale rescinded because it was stupid. Separately, the fact that it was written by Aimsplode is certainly not a factor (though having little souvenirs of him around is not particularly pleasant). {{User:Llwy-ar-lawr/sig|20141012214318}}
  +
#:::Indeed. (I moved part of Llwy's post, above, to avoid an empty nomination.) In my opinion, you could vote {{Delete|Delete}} from sheer advocacy or from unfunniness but Snarglefoop should resist the temptation to vote according to whether he agrees with its apparent thesis. {{User:SPIKE/signature}}<small>22:52 12-Oct-14</small>
  +
#::::Heaven forbid! ''Humor sit omne hominis!'' [[User:Snarglefoop|Snarglefoop]] ([[User talk:Snarglefoop|talk]]) 23:26, October 12, 2014 (UTC)
  +
#{{Delete}} The author is trying to write a satire, but has very little to satirise, and fails miserably. [[User:ConCass2|ConCass2]] ([[User talk:ConCass2|talk]]) 20:57, October 18, 2014 (UTC)
  +
#{{Delete}} I had hoped that opponents of the NRA/Christians would admit that this is blunt and unclever advocacy. They are silent, so I'll say it. {{User:SPIKE/signature}}<small>13:18 21-Oct-14</small>
  +
|keepnumber=0
  +
|keep=
 
|comments=
 
|comments=
  +
*Nomination suggested that the UnNews was a "serious portrayal" of a massacre; it is not. I don't agree with, nor like, its thesis, that gun crimes are evidence that the NRA (also, incidentally, Christians) are laughably wrong. The '''Source''', a ''Yahoo'' blog about a gloating tweet "associated" with the NRA, is misleading, as the NRA never endorses crimes using guns; I think the tweet was more likely planted. But I'm not sure that any of this, or the fact that it was written by a permabanned user, justify deleting it. {{User:SPIKE/signature}}<small>21:28 12-Oct-14</small>
  +
* Dunno. You have to hate the NRA pretty severely to find this funny, I think, 'cuz it's so totally contrary to reality. To be funny, I think stuff generally has to fall into the "uncanny valley" where it's ''almost'' believable, but not quite, and this is totally off the mark. To find it "almost believable" to you'd need to seriously believe the NRA was a bunch of raving lunatics.<br>And as to the post reported by Yahoo -- even if it was really from the NRA it was just a case of bad timing (and it was probably either auto-generated after being scheduled days before, or it was sent by someone who hadn't heard the news); it appeared to me to be entirely unrelated to the shooting incident. [[User:Snarglefoop|Snarglefoop]] ([[User talk:Snarglefoop|talk]]) 03:22, October 13, 2014 (UTC)
  +
*:Again, less likely to be the NRA celebrating the massacre than anti-NRA forces (I include Yahoo) trying to make hay over it. In any case, though, if the author is not already anti-NRA, he will not be laughing but will be trying to gauge what this article is advocating. Goes against [[CoW#Extremists|my advice to authors on writing about extremists]] (not that that means automatic deletion). {{User:SPIKE/signature}}<small>14:32 13-Oct-14</small>
 
}}
 
}}
   
== [[Terms of Use]] ==
+
== {{VFDn|Uterus or GTFO!}} ==
{{Votervfd|time=18:07, February 14, 2013 (UTC)
+
  +
{{VFDt|time=00:38, October 13, 2014 (UTC)
  +
|delnumber=3
  +
|delete=
  +
#Per Spike on my talk page, this article documents a meme without making it funny. It seems to exist mainly to advertise pictures of pregnant women. {{User:Llwy-ar-lawr/sig|20141013003852}}
  +
#{{Delete}} Per me on her talk page: "A flagrant example of (1) basing an Uncyclopedia article on a meme (viz, "Tits or GTFO," that is: post pornography or I will assume it never happened) from another website and (2) extrapolating so far that the reader has to "guess the punch line to read the joke." I stated no opinion on his goals, as I would grant {{U|Mnbvcxz}} his little affectation if he would just quit changing diapers and return. {{User:SPIKE/signature}}<small>00:49 13-Oct-14</small>
  +
#{{Delete}} {{User:Anton199/sig}} 18:17, October 20, 2014 (UTC)
  +
|keepnumber=0
  +
|keep=
  +
|comments=If anything brings back {{u|mnbvcxz|Preggo man}}, it will be deleting this article. --{{User:Romartus/sig2}} 12:05, October 16, 2014 (UTC)
  +
}}
  +
  +
== {{VFDn|Threesome}} ==
  +
  +
{{VFDt|time=12:11, October 13, 2014 (UTC)
  +
|delnumber=4
  +
|delete=
  +
#{{Delete}} Article, ostensibly about group sex, makes the point that Catholics whip sinners, and keeps making it and making it until it becomes totally non-encyclopedic and the goal is to see how far into the reader's head it can be driven, not to be funny. {{User:SPIKE/signature}}<small>12:11 13-Oct-14</small>
  +
#It's like the article is whipping the reader's brain for committing the sin of trying to read it. {{User:Llwy-ar-lawr/sig|20141013160517}}
  +
#{{Delete|Ho hum}} Whatever it is it doesn't seem to be funny. [[User:Snarglefoop|Snarglefoop]] ([[User talk:Snarglefoop|talk]]) 03:45, October 14, 2014 (UTC)
  +
#{{Delete}} Agreed. {{User:Newman66/sig}} 01:12, October 15, 2014 (UTC)
  +
|keepnumber=1
  +
|keep=
  +
#{{Keep}} It's a bit silly but I don't see why it should head for the shredder. --{{User:Romartus/sig2}} 22:01, October 17, 2014 (UTC)
  +
|comments=
  +
}}
  +
  +
== {{VFDn|Miranda Cosgrove's Uterus}} ==
  +
  +
{{VFDt|time=13:15, October 13, 2014 (UTC)
  +
|delnumber=4
  +
|delete=
  +
#{{Yuk|Delete}} I confess I only read the first paragraph. (If anyone wants to tell me I'm an irresponsible jerk for nomming it without first reading the whole thing, go right ahead ... but please read the whole thing yourself before you do that.) [[User:Snarglefoop|Snarglefoop]] ([[User talk:Snarglefoop|talk]]) 13:15, October 13, 2014 (UTC)
  +
#:Yeah, I'll step up to that task; the reason VFD is here is to ensure authors that their stuff won't be deleted without discussion, vote, and 24-hour notice; and authors should get the additional safeguard of knowing that any nominator will evaluate the whole thing. (Even the history, as the rules require, and perhaps the talk page.) If all you know is that it has a crappy Intro, repair might not require deleting the entire page. If you had gotten to the end, you would have seen a hint that this is one of the articles fleshing out {{U|Mnbvcxz}}'s pregnancy infatuation. Some voters may view this as an inherent part of the history of Uncyclopedia. On the nomination itself, I'm abstaining. Cosgrove is a celebrity but there is no real comedy point to us speculating about her innards. We have deleted knock-offs of this meme. {{User:SPIKE/signature}}<small>14:23 13-Oct-14</small>
  +
#::Wait ... did you say this is a ''meme?'' Like, claiming weird stuff about Miranda Cosgrove's organs is a standing joke on the Internet? I don't understand the world. That is clear. [[User:Snarglefoop|Snarglefoop]] ([[User talk:Snarglefoop|talk]]) 14:55, October 13, 2014 (UTC)
  +
#:I meant only an Uncyclopedia meme or [[Uncyclopedia:In-jokes|in-joke]], though this is not in any official list; not that it goes wider than Uncyclopedia. {{User:SPIKE/signature}}<small>15:03 13-Oct-14</small>
  +
#I, on the other hand, ''did'' read the whole thing, and I came to the same conclusion. Indeed, uterine newts (and sometimes eels) and Miranda Cosgrove (who played Carly Shay in [[iCarly]], which may have originated the newt-pregnancy meme) are injokes here, perpetuated by Mnbvcxz--and I don't find the newt pregnancy stuff to be funny, which is to be expected from something that is merely an expression of someone's fetish. On this tine of the fork, arousal does not equal amusement. I will also echo the importance of reading the whole article, as [[Chess]], which has a sucky intro but a perfectly good middle, was deleted on the fork in Forest Fire Week, IIRC after being tagged by someone who often does not read past the intro and has thus destroyed several perfectly good articles. This anecdote is here not to shoehorn in goings-on at another random website for no reason, but to provide an example of what we shouldn't do here. {{User:Llwy-ar-lawr/sig|20141013154855}}
  +
#:This is still a ballot, not a diary. Citing other websites and specific personalities at other websites is not a valid argument, in my opinion — either as examples or counterexamples. {{User:SPIKE/signature}}<small>16:09 13-Oct-14</small>
  +
#::Well, you see, I think of it as citing Uncyclopedia to prove a point about Uncyclopedia. Clearly you don't see it that way, and your opinion is no less valid than mine so I suppose I'll just keep my mouth shut. {{User:Llwy-ar-lawr/sig|20141013162602}}
  +
#{{Delete}} Straight to userspace. Unless I get to write an article about my disgusting fetishes. [[19 year old Colombian boys and girls covered in honey and tied up lightly]] coming to the main page soon. --[[User:Nikau|Nikau]] ([[User talk:Nikau|talk]]) 17:50, October 13, 2014 (UTC)
  +
#{{Delete}} Pointless article, most likely something not many people will look for. [[User:ConCass2|ConCass2]] ([[User talk:ConCass2|talk]]) 20:35, October 20, 2014 (UTC)
  +
#:No--but they may well look for [[Miranda Cosgrove]] and instead find themselves directed to the article on her uterus. Is this a good or bad thing? What was I trying to say? {{User:Llwy-ar-lawr/sig|20141020234246}}
 
|keepnumber=2
 
|keepnumber=2
 
|keep=
 
|keep=
#I believe I am the Admin to whom Mnbvcxz refers. The cases where I didn't realize something was a joke are numerous and legend. In the case I was thinking about, I patrolled an edit to this page and reported it in passing to Sannse without viewing the page as a whole. Although it does air grievances with Wikia and risks attracting trolling by resentful users and perhaps from the Fork, it is seriously funny. We ought to have room for a page imitating legalism, but with a litany not to "publish, copy, display, distribute, [or] put mayonnaise on"--especially when it already has a disclaimer at the start that it's not the real thing. {{User:SPIKE/signature}}<small>19:04 14-Feb-13</small>
+
#{{Keep|"Her doctor...pronounced her Fallopian tubes "Thin as Paper" at a Veterinarian's office in L.A. called Healthy Hounds."}} I too have now given it a complete read for the first time, in fact and I enjoyed the ride. {{User:SPIKE/signature}}<small>16:24 13-Oct-14</small>
#:Actually, Wikia is not mentioned in here at all. {{User:PuppyOnTheRadio/sig3|07:55 15 Feb}}
+
#{{Keep}} I wanted to vote delete, but laughed several times while reading the page. {{User:Anton199/sig}} 18:37, October 20, 2014 (UTC)
#::No, not by name; but some of the material seems to be motivated by real-world gripes. {{User:SPIKE/signature}}<small>16:07 15-Feb-13</small>
 
#{{Keep}} Too funny to let die. Besides, if you actually read it, or even scan it, you will realize it isn't the real thing, besides there's a disclaimer at the top pointing to the real thing. {{User:Simsilikesims/sig}} 07:05, February 15, 2013 (UTC)
 
|delnumber=1
 
|delete=#{{delete}} and soft redirect to Wikia's real terms of use. This fake page has confused even an admin, and isn't that funny. --{{User:Mnbvcxz/sig5}} 18:07, February 14, 2013 (UTC)
 
 
|comments=
 
|comments=
  +
*{{Yuk}} So after being double-barked at over wimping out after the first paragraph, I went back and read the whole thing. It is a fantasy piece of the sort dreamed up by 12 year old boys, which gave the author the chance to write "uterus" many times and even use such exciting terms as "cervix" and "reproductive system" in a few places. Unfortunately most of it is too far away from reality to be taken as anything except nonsense, and ''none of it is funny''. Furthermore, down at the end, it mutates briefly into a Wacky War article, which doesn't really improve things.<br>On the plus side, the grammar and spelling are both very clean. And that'll get you a free ride on the MBTA (at least, it will if you've also got two dollars along, to put in the little 'contributions' box at the front of the bus). [[User:Snarglefoop|Snarglefoop]] ([[User talk:Snarglefoop|talk]]) 16:12, October 13, 2014 (UTC)
 
}}
 
}}
   
== {{VFDc|Glasses}} ==
+
== {{VFDn|Arsene Wenger}} ==
{{Votervfd|time=08:19, February 14, 2013 (UTC)
+
|keepnumber=3
+
{{VFDt|time=13:17, October 14, 2014 (UTC)
  +
|delnumber=2
  +
|delete=
  +
#{{Delete}} I am nominating this to try to achieve improvements to, not deletion of, this article on the football manager by some editor Over There. I am not even sure whether getting thrown out of a cinema relates to anything. As it stands, the initial and recurring theme is Pedo/Anal/Rape/SexWithBlackMen Humor. {{User:SPIKE/signature}}<small>13:17 14-Oct-14</small>
  +
#Can't we just delete this? I don't see anyone stepping forward to help. {{User:Llwy-ar-lawr/sig|20141018213221}}
  +
#:We can and will, if we prevail in the vote. {{User:SPIKE/signature}}<small>01:27 19-Oct-14</small>
  +
|keepnumber=0
 
|keep=
 
|keep=
#{{Keep}} The intro has glimpses of brilliance; Section 1, despite its HowTo: tone, might be rescued; and the lists obviously have to go. <small>12:10</small> {{Keep|Saved.}} {{User:SPIKE/signature}}<small>12:42 14-Feb-13</small>
+
|comments=
#{{Keep}} We've seen worse. Admit it. It only needs to be improved just a little... --[[User:RockoRocks|RockoRocks]] ([[User talk:RockoRocks|talk]]) 17:54, February 14, 2013 (UTC)
+
*I'm not sure what's supposed to happen here, but you might be interested in [http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/Arsene_Wenger?oldid=1635086 this] slightly more sanitary version. {{User:Llwy-ar-lawr/sig|20141014173645}}
#{{keep}} per above. --{{User:Mnbvcxz/sig5}} 18:10, February 14, 2013 (UTC)
+
*:It is much cleaner, but it is also from 2007, and presumably omits comedy based on news in the last seven years — I assume there is some. Is there a Brit in the house who would like to do a merge? {{User:SPIKE/signature}}<small>18:11 14-Oct-14</small>
  +
}}
  +
  +
== {{VFDn|HP Costa Rica Today}} ==
  +
  +
{{VFDt|time=20:17, October 15, 2014 (UTC)
  +
|delnumber=3
  +
|delete=
  +
#{{Delete}} 2007 Uncyclopedian {{U|Hpsucks}} believes this offshore affiliate of Hewlett-Packard is gay. {{User:SPIKE/signature}}<small>20:17 15-Oct-14</small>
  +
#Boring. {{User:Llwy-ar-lawr/sig|20141015204131}}
  +
#{{Delete}}Even the article's title is a turn off. --{{User:Romartus/sig2}} 22:02, October 17, 2014 (UTC)
  +
|keepnumber=0
  +
|keep=
  +
|comments=
  +
}}
  +
  +
== {{VFDn|Tails the Straight}} ==
  +
  +
{{VFDt|time=20:23, October 15, 2014 (UTC)
 
|delnumber=1
 
|delnumber=1
 
|delete=
 
|delete=
#Picked this one up on ICU, however it has existed since before 2009 so is too old for ICU. It is mostly made up of lists and not particularly amusing lists at that. --{{User:ChiefjusticeDS/sig}} 08:19, February 14, 2013 (UTC)
+
#{{Delete}} This isn't horrible, but it's also not funny, IMHO. The humor is too strained. It's a sort of parody of a parody of a minor character in the Sonic the Hedgehog cartoons, and from me, at least, it gets a great big "Eh what??", and the question, "Why does the world need this article?" leaps unbidden to one's mind. [[User:Snarglefoop|Snarglefoop]] ([[User talk:Snarglefoop|talk]]) 20:23, October 15, 2014 (UTC)
  +
|keepnumber=1
  +
|keep=
  +
#{{Keep}} Like [[Uncyclopedia:Votes_for_deletion/archive207#Tails_the_Straight|last time]]. {{User:SPIKE/signature}}<small>20:29 15-Oct-14</small>
 
|comments=
 
|comments=
*{{For|Kept}} via rewrite; Sv--me. {{User:SPIKE/signature}}<small>14:44 15-Feb-13</small>
+
*''/me shrugs.'' {{User:Llwy-ar-lawr/sig|20141015203118}}
 
}}
 
}}
   
== [[The Gay Team]] ==
+
== {{VFDn|The Good, the Bad and the Ugly}} ==
{{Votervfd|time=18:41, February 13, 2013 (UTC)
+
  +
{{VFDt|time=20:28, October 15, 2014 (UTC)
  +
|delnumber=4
  +
|delete=
  +
#Spotted by an IP who pointed it out on the talk page, and unfortunately now has the idea that it reflects the quality of the entire website. In fact, it does not: it is a long string of explicit gay sex 'jokes', ending in a pointless list full of nonsense numbers. There are no better versions in the history. {{User:Llwy-ar-lawr/sig|20141015202852}}
  +
#{{Delete}} Indeed there are not; the nonsense list, the dodgy humor, and even the dangling final sentence in the Intro about the theater waist-deep in cum, are from original author {{U|Strook}} in 2009. {{User:SPIKE/signature}}<small>20:32 15-Oct-14</small>
  +
#{{Delete}}. Checked the article's history. The author put this up for Pee Review! What was said there still stands. What a pile of puke!--{{User:Romartus/sig2}} 22:05, October 17, 2014 (UTC)
  +
#{{Delete}} {{User:Anton199/sig}} 16:24, October 21, 2014 (UTC)
 
|keepnumber=0
 
|keepnumber=0
 
|keep=
 
|keep=
  +
|comments=
  +
*IP sez, "Now I hate this website and it's your fault"? Not a consideration. {{User:SPIKE/signature}}<small>20:34 15-Oct-14</small>
  +
}}
  +
  +
== {{VFDn|Laptop}} ==
  +
  +
{{VFDt|time=06:34, October 19, 2014 (UTC)
 
|delnumber=2
 
|delnumber=2
 
|delete=
 
|delete=
#{{Delete}} Smallish, typographically ugly article presses two chronic Spike hot-buttons: (1) The title is a pun, and the reader has to already know the pun to enjoy the article; (2) The page is an Anon magnet, inviting grade-school humor from Anons who cannot do better than gay-bashing and puns. I have nothing against gay-bashing, if done with cleverness, but this is not it; and then again, if you were to write it, why would you misplace it here? {{User:SPIKE/signature}}<small>18:41 13-Feb-13</small>
+
#{{delete|Obnoxious teenagers who talk to their parents like shit were caused by laptops.}} This article begins with the premises that laptops are useful for viewing porn and are 'three dimensional magic box[es]', then goes on to discuss... essentially nothing. It has been almost the same since it was rewritten in 2007; [http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/Laptop?oldid=972881 prior to that], it wasn't much better (''It is project with much effort, but it not marketable and usable. Then he exploded.''). I have a replacement at [[User:Llwy-ar-lawr/Laptop]]. {{User:Llwy-ar-lawr/sig|20141019063455}}
#{{delete}} really doesn't do anything the title-pun. --{{User:Mnbvcxz/sig5}} 13:47, February 14, 2013 (UTC)
+
#{{Delete}} Intro also has a list of memes and a junk acronym; pointless Section 2 is overwhelmed by illustrations; then nothing but listcruft until the trite finale: Laptops are actually alien lifeforms. Proposed replacement is not ready.... {{User:SPIKE/signature}} 10:47, 19 October 2014
  +
|keepnumber=0
  +
|keep=
 
|comments=
 
|comments=
  +
*Detailed editing comments moved to replacement article's talk page. {{User:SPIKE/signature}}<small>17:04 19-Oct-14</small>
 
}}
 
}}
   
== [[:Category:Folk Force]] ==
+
== {{VFDn|Igpay Atinlay}} ==
{{Votervfd|time=16:34, February 9, 2013 (UTC)
+
|keepnumber=0
+
{{VFDt|time=10:38, October 19, 2014 (UTC)
  +
|delnumber=4
  +
|delete=
  +
#{{Delete|Replace.}} 1 gimmick, 0 jokes (may be more than 0 but it's too tedious to scan the article to see if there are jokes). Page title with gimmick applied to it ensures no one will search for it, or they will get exactly what they expected and will not laugh. {{User:SPIKE/signature}}<small>10:38 19-Oct-14</small>
  +
#{{Delete}} How the Hell did it not cross the author's mind that nobody can read this page? (Unless this is a prime example of the author trying to amuse himself out of confusing the readers) [[User:ConCass2|ConCass2]] ([[User talk:ConCass2|talk]]) 20:32, October 20, 2014 (UTC)
  +
#'''Replace''' with [[User:Llwy-ar-lawr/Pig Latin|non-Pig Latin version]], and probably '''move''' to [[Pig Latin]] (unless there's something there, in which case I'm not sure what we do). I am no scholar of Pig Latin and I find it about as bothersome to read as do Spike and ConCass, but I found the actual content somewhat amusing. I strongly encourage anyone whose main or sole criterion for voting '''delete''' was its unreadability to read the English version and reconsider. {{User:Llwy-ar-lawr/sig|20141020225334}}
  +
#:'''Changing above vote to Replace'''. That was a fun read. How can anyone on '''a humor wiki''' prefer a page that is merely a perfect encoding? {{User:SPIKE/signature}}<small>22:55 20-Oct-14</small>
  +
#{{Replace}} or something. The actual content is pretty good and the main problem seems that the article is hard to read. It would be good if it was replaced by Llwy's "translated" version, but the original should probably be kept as a subpage and linked to in the See also section, because there are people who will actually find reading the page in Pig Latin more amusing than reading it in English. Also, the page doesn't have to be deleted at all: the original one could be kept where it is now, and Llwy's version can be pasted at [[Pig Latin]]... {{User:Anton199/sig}} 16:19, October 21, 2014 (UTC)
  +
#:And you don't need a vote of VFD to replace a redirect that doesn't delete an Uncyclopedian's substantive work. But I won't flip my vote anyway; I don't want the gimmicky version to exist, because editors spend time polishing the codification that they could spend writing funny stuff. I recently tweaked [[HTBFANJS#Pages that look like the things they're about]] to be a little more disapproving; for instance, to cite only articles that have more than a gimmick, versus articles that pursue a gimmick unusually well. {{User:SPIKE/signature}}<small>16:31 21-Oct-14</small>
  +
#::We could also have the Pig Latin and English versions side by side in the same article, with a table or something. That seems like enough of a compromise to satisfy everyone to some extent. In any case, I hope we preserve the history instead of just deleting the thing and moving 'mine' on top, because the real authors should be given credit. (But I don't have to tell you to do that, right? Or maybe I do. I'm so reluctant about saying these things that I tend to come off as [{{fullurl:Special:Log|page=Talk:Flying+toasters}} posturing]. I shouldn't have said that either. Oh, bother. What am I going to do ''now''? How did this parenthetical get so long? Why are the trees bleeding ink?) {{User:Llwy-ar-lawr/sig|20141021224702}}
  +
|keepnumber=1
 
|keep=
 
|keep=
|delnumber=2
+
#{{Keep}} I think it's kind of cute. I got a laugh out of it. Granted, it's a little hard to read, but I think it should stay in Pig Latin -- it just seems totally appropriate. [[User:Snarglefoop|Snarglefoop]] ([[User talk:Snarglefoop|talk]]) 22:43, October 20, 2014 (UTC)
|delete=#{{delete}} category has been mostly emptied due to VFD. It is almost, but not quite, small enough to QVFD. --{{User:Mnbvcxz/sig5}} 16:34, February 9, 2013 (UTC)
 
#{{Delete}} Again, this arc of Uncyclopedia pages is mostly untouched in 7 years, and Wikipedia has not heard of the Folk Force nor of the several members for which I searched. {{User:SPIKE/signature}}<small>16:38 9-Feb-13</small>
 
 
|comments=
 
|comments=
  +
*In fact, [[Pig Latin]] redirects to [[Igpay Atinlay]], so it is entirely probable that someone would get here by searching for Pig Latin. {{User:Llwy-ar-lawr/sig|20141020225536}}
 
}}
 
}}
   
== [[The Botanist]] ==
+
== {{VFDn|That Guy You Hate}} ==
{{Votervfd|time=15:54, February 3, 2013 (UTC)
+
|keepnumber=0
+
{{VFDt|time=16:51, October 19, 2014 (UTC)
  +
|delnumber=3
  +
|delete=
  +
#{{Delete}} Gay ''humour''. {{User:Anton199/sig}} 16:51, October 19, 2014 (UTC)
  +
#{{Delete}} A non-encyclopedic chat about no one. The title plus the template ("This page...is completely worthless") plus the Intro ("let's do some quality bitching about that little fucker") should keep the reader from reading further. {{User:SPIKE/signature}}<small>17:07 19-Oct-14</small>
  +
#{{delete|I'm gonna tear off his Penis and use it as a toilet plunger.}} Yet more disgusting gay-bashing. {{User:Llwy-ar-lawr/sig|20141020184757}}
  +
|keepnumber=1
 
|keep=
 
|keep=
  +
#{{Keep}} Strangely, the profanity knocks back the humour and makes the article less funny. But the subject has potential for a good page and doesn't look like something thrown together by an anon in 5 minutes. [[User:ConCass2|ConCass2]] ([[User talk:ConCass2|talk]]) 20:36, October 19, 2014 (UTC)
  +
#:You mean it has potential for a good page, but it isn't one right now? If it's not good now, it shouldn't remain in its current state. {{User:Llwy-ar-lawr/sig|20141020184757}}
  +
#::I mean it can be redeemed with editing, without having to rewrite the whole page. I just couldn't word it right. [[User:ConCass2|ConCass2]] ([[User talk:ConCass2|talk]]) 20:29, October 20, 2014 (UTC)
  +
|comments=
  +
}}
  +
  +
== {{VFDn|Short Circuit}} ==
  +
  +
{{VFDt|time=00:21, October 20, 2014 (UTC)
 
|delnumber=2
 
|delnumber=2
|delete=#{{delete}} an article about an enemy of the folk force. He was a botanist, then an eco-terrorist, then a catholic priest, then a eco-terrorist half-plant monster, then went to south America and was defeated by the folk force. --{{User:Mnbvcxz/sig5}} 15:54, February 3, 2013 (UTC)
+
|delete=
#{{Delete}} Oddball piece of fiction about a non-notable bad guy. {{User:SPIKE/signature}}<small>02:08 5-Feb-13</small>
+
#{{Delete}} No redeeming qualities. {{User:SPIKE/signature}}<small>00:21 20-Oct-14</small>
  +
#With an article like this, I can't imagine that seeing the movies would make me think any better of it. {{User:Llwy-ar-lawr/sig|20141020185527}}
  +
|keepnumber=0
  +
|keep=
 
|comments=
 
|comments=
  +
*Just wondering of you've even seen the movies, Spike? --{{User:Maniac1075/sig}} 03:45, October 20, 2014 (UTC)
  +
*:I have not. I was not evaluating the movies. The Uncyclopedia page is a start-to-finish Anal Sex Joke. {{User:SPIKE/signature}}<small>12:12 20-Oct-14</small>
  +
*Yeah, try watching them!--{{User:Maniac1075/sig}} 23:45, October 20, 2014 (UTC)
  +
*:No offence but... you are saying that the content of the movies somehow justifies the article's consisting entirely of sex jokes (and no, Spike, it's not just anal sex)? I can't really see that. Perhaps you could summarise the plot points you were parodying, for the benefit of us lazy bums who can't be bothered to watch the movies? {{User:Llwy-ar-lawr/sig|20141020235324}}
  +
*::Actually nevermind--I read {{w|Short Circuit|Wikipedia's article}}, and I really can't see either the value of turning it into one long sex joke or the attributes of the movie that inspired you to do so. Sorry. {{User:Llwy-ar-lawr/sig|20141020235837}}
  +
*I still recommend watching the movie so you know what you're reading about. I can't see any reason someone who doesn't know what an article is about would find anything funny about it if they don't get it. If that's the case, I could spend the next week adding VFD to so many articles on this site.--{{User:Maniac1075/sig}} 09:41, October 21, 2014 (UTC)
  +
*:I know perfectly well what I'm reading about, as I said above. I could guess what the movie was about from your article, actually. There is ''nothing'' that can justify turning it into what you turned it into. Nothing. Besides, the article shouldn't require intimate knowledge of the subject matter to be comprehensible; if it does, and if many readers haven't got that knowledge, it probably shouldn't exist. {{User:Llwy-ar-lawr/sig|20141021133854}}
  +
*::Yeah cause alot of people just read random articles they know nothing about. My point is, it's not funny to you few people, yet the ones I showed it to found it pretty funny indeed. I just don't agree that the small majority of voters against something is able to rule out an article as being unfunny, just because it's not the type of humor they enjoy. So what it comes down to, is if it doesn't please you couple of people who have time to vote for peoples work to be deleted because you don't personally like it, that means it should not exist for those who do. right? I dunno, maybe it's non Australians not getting Australian humor? Too bad there is no Uncylcopedia.com.au I guess.--{{User:Maniac1075/sig}} 15:33, October 21, 2014 (UTC)
 
}}
 
}}
   
=Archived VFD Discussions=
+
== {{VFDn|Owl}} ==
{{VFDarchive}}
 
   
[[Category:Articles deleted by Lyrithya at some point]]
+
{{VFDt|time=23:30, October 20, 2014 (UTC)
[[Category:Uncyclopedia deletion]]
+
|delnumber=2
[[Category:Pages repeatedly nominated on VFD]]
+
|delete=
  +
#Wow, I just... don't even know where to begin. This article is almost entirely random nonsense; it barely has a concept--that of documenting and/or parodying the O RLY meme, which probably won't go over too well with some people here, and I'm not fond of it either--and that's only after I cut out a lot of it. [http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/Owl?oldid=5831831 Prior to my edits], it really was about nothing. A much more cut-down version may be found at [[User:Llwy-ar-lawr/scratchpad]], which I'm still not too happy with (though you are welcome to say you want that as the replacement). I feel like we should have an article on owls, but I have no clue what it should consist of, and it's certainly not what we have now. {{User:Llwy-ar-lawr/sig|20141020233058}}
  +
#{{Delete}} Nominator cleaned it up a lot, but it's still a ramble. {{User:SPIKE/signature}}<small>13:27 21-Oct-14</small>
  +
|keepnumber=0
  +
|keep=
  +
|comments=
  +
}}
   
[[es:Inciclopedia:VPB]]
+
== {{VFDn|Indiana Jones}} ==
[[id:Tolololpedia:PUP]]
+
[[ko:포럼:세탁소]]
+
{{VFDt|time=17:03, October 21, 2014 (UTC)
[[pt:Desciclopédia:Eliminação de páginas]]
+
|delnumber=1
  +
|delete=
  +
#{{Delete}} The introduction is the most random one I've ever read. After that, the article doesn't improve. {{User:Anton199/sig}} 17:03, October 21, 2014 (UTC)
  +
|keepnumber=2
  +
|keep=
  +
#{{Keep}} I spruced the intro up a bit to cut out some of the randomness and cut out a chunk of the article and replaced it with something new, entitled "Indiana Jones and the Adventure that May be at Variance to this Article." I think it just needs to be edited/ spruced up, that's all. [[User:IndianaJones104|IndianaJones104]] ([[User talk:IndianaJones104|talk]]) 22:31, October 21, 2014 (UTC)
  +
#{{Keep}} The article has a theme: the absurd lengths of movie titles of the form, "Indiana Jones and the...."; also pearls of good [[CoW|Choice of Words]]. The final three sections (ineptly typed following the {{Tl|Reflist}}, which had nothing in it anyway), were short sections that did nothing but tell the same joke again; and IndianaJones104's edits of today merely added red-links, memes, and a Section 2 at odds with the rest of the article. {{User:SPIKE/signature}}<small>22:44 21-Oct-14</small>
  +
|comments=
  +
}}

Latest revision as of 23:55, October 21, 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 Lake Zurich, Illinois H T D

Score: 3
Elapsed Time: 273 hours
Delete (3)
  1. Symbol delete vote Delete. Imagine, a small Midwestern town that has two kinds of assholes, megalomaniacs, and Mexicans! Anon was just in to correct the list of elementary schools. Either that, or cyber-bully. Who knows? Who cares? Spıke ¬ 14:13 10-Oct-14
  2. What do Lake Zurich and this article have in common? They're both boring. -– Llwy-ar-lawr talk contribs 16:22 10 Oct 2014
  3. Lake what? Where?? --LaurelsRomArtus*Imperator ITRA (Orate) ® 12:55, October 15, 2014 (UTC)
Keep (0)

No keep votes.

Comments
  • Symbol neutral vote Abstain. Nobody's ever going to look this up but maybe for the one or two people from Lake Zurich that do, they'll find it funny. --Pwn head Sir Xam Ralco the Mediocre 17:12, October 11, 2014 (UTC)

edit Third World War H D

Score: 4
Elapsed Time: 254 hours
Delete (4)
  1. Symbol delete vote Delete. Nothing much in the article. No humour, no encyclopedic parody. Sir ScottPat (converse) White Ensign Scotland Flag 1 Compassrose VFH UnS NotM WotM WotY 09:47, October 11, 2014 (UTC)
  2. Symbol delete vote Delete. Concept is Wacky War plus history-of-the-future. Execution is stuck in lists, including the unfunny list of names of countries. Writing style is gibberish, starting with the first sentence — "...an armed conflict in The Third World, that took place during The Third World..." — not even a conundrum; ending with, "The outcome...is unclear." Spıke ¬ 15:01 11-Oct-14
  3. Symbol delete vote 123,456,789 (which is roughly over 9000). Little more than a few bad puns glued together with randomness and nonsense numbers. Includes a poke at Jews for good measure--of stupidity. -– Llwy-ar-lawr talk contribs 16:14 11 Oct 2014
  4. Symbol delete vote Delete. Boring. --Pwn head Sir Xam Ralco the Mediocre 17:16, October 11, 2014 (UTC)
Keep (0)

No keep votes.

Comments

edit The Last World War H T D Survivor

Score: 2
Elapsed Time: 254 hours
Delete (3)
  1. Symbol delete vote Delete. In depth analysis, stage-by-stage using maps, of a made-up conflict that only the author cares about. Complete with made-up statistics like "123,456" as well. Sir ScottPat (converse) White Ensign Scotland Flag 1 Compassrose VFH UnS NotM WotM WotY 09:49, October 11, 2014 (UTC)
  2. Symbol delete vote It is occasionally criticized for being slightly destructive. The intro--from which that sentence is taken--looked promising, but the descriptions of the conflict didn't do anything for me. -– Llwy-ar-lawr talk contribs 16:27 11 Oct 2014
  3. Symbol delete vote Delete. This article about nothing keeps begging for editors' time to fix it up, while never inducing anyone to take control and make it funny. See also Comments. Spıke ¬ 12:05 13-Oct-14
Keep (1)
  1. Symbol keep vote Keep. Sorry, but I found it funny, especially the maps. Anton (talk) Uncyclopedia United 12:27, October 11, 2014 (UTC)
Comments
  • I voted Symbol keep vote Keep last time based on Aleister doing work, a commitment that he says in the ballot he never made. I had been moved at the concept of the unknowability of a Last War; now I find the concept undeveloped and I think the bit about humanity going extinct and the author being a panda is dumb. Llwy is working on it, but the maps Anton199 likes suggest to me comic book, not encyclopedia; and the problem is the text, which needs a better comedy theme than "War so nutty!" Spıke ¬ 16:48 11-Oct-14
    All I did was fix some spelling and formatting, and I don't see myself doing any more; I wouldn't overestimate me. It's more readable now, but no funnier. -– Llwy-ar-lawr talk contribs 16:56 11 Oct 2014

edit Devon H T D

Score: 2
Elapsed Time: 237 hours
Delete (2)
  1. Symbol delete vote Delete. Yet another article about some small area in England which is said to be inhabited by some sort of subhuman creatures that don't really speak English. Snarglefoop (talk) 02:09, October 12, 2014 (UTC)
  2. Symbol delete vote the disease known as ‘chav’. Long string of attacks on Devon, with no humour and less concept. I believe there was a campaign to clear out such towncruft earlier in the century, but I wasn't there at the time; I was busy huffing imaginary rainbows. -– Llwy-ar-lawr talk contribs 02:13 12 Oct 2014
Keep (0)

No keep votes.

Comments
  • Here is the last version by the first author; it's nothing spectacular and it's very short, but it's better than what's there now. -– Llwy-ar-lawr talk contribs 02:20 12 Oct 2014
    Not much in the original version worth keeping, nor even worth the time to give it mark-up. I've deleted a lot of cruft from the current version; there is material inside that one could make an article out of. The content-free Intro prepares the reviewer for the worst. Unfortunately, the new author of Dudley, Mjr74 lives far away from Devon, if I read my maps aright, so we can't saddle him with this. Spıke ¬ 11:25 12-Oct-14
    I notified Mjr74 anyway; he says he has visited Devon and has stuff he could add. Spıke ¬ 01:56 14-Oct-14

edit Good Electricity and Bad Electricity H D

Score: 2
Elapsed Time: 225 hours
Delete (2)
  1. Symbol delete vote Delete. A tiny bit of pseudo-intellectualism. Might fit on Illogicopedia. Spıke ¬ 14:04 12-Oct-14
  2. Agreed. I'll stick it there right now. -– Llwy-ar-lawr talk contribs 18:36 12 Oct 2014
Keep (0)

No keep votes.

Comments

edit UnNews:NRA celebrates Colorado theatre shootings H D

Score: 3
Elapsed Time: 219 hours
Delete (3)
  1. First paragraph discloses to us that we are about to be treated to a more or less serious portrayal of the incident. The rest of the article tries and fails to remedy this shortcoming. -– Llwy-ar-lawr talk contribs 20:14 12 Oct 2014 It seems more like criticism than satire, even though it is over-the-top. I'm waffling though. -– Llwy-ar-lawr talk contribs 21:43 12 Oct 2014
    Errrmmmm ... Did you per chance read the linked article on Yahoo about the actual incident? More or less serious indeed.... Snarglefoop (talk) 20:56, October 12, 2014 (UTC)
    Original rationale rescinded because it was stupid. Separately, the fact that it was written by Aimsplode is certainly not a factor (though having little souvenirs of him around is not particularly pleasant). -– Llwy-ar-lawr talk contribs 21:43 12 Oct 2014
    Indeed. (I moved part of Llwy's post, above, to avoid an empty nomination.) In my opinion, you could vote Symbol delete vote Delete from sheer advocacy or from unfunniness but Snarglefoop should resist the temptation to vote according to whether he agrees with its apparent thesis. Spıke ¬ 22:52 12-Oct-14
    Heaven forbid! Humor sit omne hominis! Snarglefoop (talk) 23:26, October 12, 2014 (UTC)
  2. Symbol delete vote Delete. The author is trying to write a satire, but has very little to satirise, and fails miserably. ConCass2 (talk) 20:57, October 18, 2014 (UTC)
  3. Symbol delete vote Delete. I had hoped that opponents of the NRA/Christians would admit that this is blunt and unclever advocacy. They are silent, so I'll say it. Spıke ¬ 13:18 21-Oct-14
Keep (0)

No keep votes.

Comments
  • Nomination suggested that the UnNews was a "serious portrayal" of a massacre; it is not. I don't agree with, nor like, its thesis, that gun crimes are evidence that the NRA (also, incidentally, Christians) are laughably wrong. The Source, a Yahoo blog about a gloating tweet "associated" with the NRA, is misleading, as the NRA never endorses crimes using guns; I think the tweet was more likely planted. But I'm not sure that any of this, or the fact that it was written by a permabanned user, justify deleting it. Spıke ¬ 21:28 12-Oct-14
  • Dunno. You have to hate the NRA pretty severely to find this funny, I think, 'cuz it's so totally contrary to reality. To be funny, I think stuff generally has to fall into the "uncanny valley" where it's almost believable, but not quite, and this is totally off the mark. To find it "almost believable" to you'd need to seriously believe the NRA was a bunch of raving lunatics.
    And as to the post reported by Yahoo -- even if it was really from the NRA it was just a case of bad timing (and it was probably either auto-generated after being scheduled days before, or it was sent by someone who hadn't heard the news); it appeared to me to be entirely unrelated to the shooting incident. Snarglefoop (talk) 03:22, October 13, 2014 (UTC)
    Again, less likely to be the NRA celebrating the massacre than anti-NRA forces (I include Yahoo) trying to make hay over it. In any case, though, if the author is not already anti-NRA, he will not be laughing but will be trying to gauge what this article is advocating. Goes against my advice to authors on writing about extremists (not that that means automatic deletion). Spıke ¬ 14:32 13-Oct-14

edit Uterus or GTFO! H T D

Score: 3
Elapsed Time: 215 hours
Delete (3)
  1. Per Spike on my talk page, this article documents a meme without making it funny. It seems to exist mainly to advertise pictures of pregnant women. -– Llwy-ar-lawr talk contribs 00:38 13 Oct 2014
  2. Symbol delete vote Delete. Per me on her talk page: "A flagrant example of (1) basing an Uncyclopedia article on a meme (viz, "Tits or GTFO," that is: post pornography or I will assume it never happened) from another website and (2) extrapolating so far that the reader has to "guess the punch line to read the joke." I stated no opinion on his goals, as I would grant Mnbvcxz his little affectation if he would just quit changing diapers and return. Spıke ¬ 00:49 13-Oct-14
  3. Symbol delete vote Delete. Anton (talk) Uncyclopedia United 18:17, October 20, 2014 (UTC)
Keep (0)

No keep votes.

Comments

If anything brings back Preggo man, it will be deleting this article. --LaurelsRomArtus*Imperator ITRA (Orate) ® 12:05, October 16, 2014 (UTC)

edit Threesome H T D

Score: 3
Elapsed Time: 203 hours
Delete (4)
  1. Symbol delete vote Delete. Article, ostensibly about group sex, makes the point that Catholics whip sinners, and keeps making it and making it until it becomes totally non-encyclopedic and the goal is to see how far into the reader's head it can be driven, not to be funny. Spıke ¬ 12:11 13-Oct-14
  2. It's like the article is whipping the reader's brain for committing the sin of trying to read it. -– Llwy-ar-lawr talk contribs 16:05 13 Oct 2014
  3. Symbol delete vote Ho hum Whatever it is it doesn't seem to be funny. Snarglefoop (talk) 03:45, October 14, 2014 (UTC)
  4. Symbol delete vote Delete. Agreed. Newman66 Visit my table here! Contributions My works 01:12, October 15, 2014 (UTC)
Keep (1)
  1. Symbol keep vote Keep. It's a bit silly but I don't see why it should head for the shredder. --LaurelsRomArtus*Imperator ITRA (Orate) ® 22:01, October 17, 2014 (UTC)
Comments

edit Miranda Cosgrove's Uterus H D

Score: 2
Elapsed Time: 202 hours
Delete (4)
  1. Yuk Delete I confess I only read the first paragraph. (If anyone wants to tell me I'm an irresponsible jerk for nomming it without first reading the whole thing, go right ahead ... but please read the whole thing yourself before you do that.) Snarglefoop (talk) 13:15, October 13, 2014 (UTC)
    Yeah, I'll step up to that task; the reason VFD is here is to ensure authors that their stuff won't be deleted without discussion, vote, and 24-hour notice; and authors should get the additional safeguard of knowing that any nominator will evaluate the whole thing. (Even the history, as the rules require, and perhaps the talk page.) If all you know is that it has a crappy Intro, repair might not require deleting the entire page. If you had gotten to the end, you would have seen a hint that this is one of the articles fleshing out Mnbvcxz's pregnancy infatuation. Some voters may view this as an inherent part of the history of Uncyclopedia. On the nomination itself, I'm abstaining. Cosgrove is a celebrity but there is no real comedy point to us speculating about her innards. We have deleted knock-offs of this meme. Spıke ¬ 14:23 13-Oct-14
    Wait ... did you say this is a meme? Like, claiming weird stuff about Miranda Cosgrove's organs is a standing joke on the Internet? I don't understand the world. That is clear. Snarglefoop (talk) 14:55, October 13, 2014 (UTC)
    I meant only an Uncyclopedia meme or in-joke, though this is not in any official list; not that it goes wider than Uncyclopedia. Spıke ¬ 15:03 13-Oct-14
  2. I, on the other hand, did read the whole thing, and I came to the same conclusion. Indeed, uterine newts (and sometimes eels) and Miranda Cosgrove (who played Carly Shay in iCarly, which may have originated the newt-pregnancy meme) are injokes here, perpetuated by Mnbvcxz--and I don't find the newt pregnancy stuff to be funny, which is to be expected from something that is merely an expression of someone's fetish. On this tine of the fork, arousal does not equal amusement. I will also echo the importance of reading the whole article, as Chess, which has a sucky intro but a perfectly good middle, was deleted on the fork in Forest Fire Week, IIRC after being tagged by someone who often does not read past the intro and has thus destroyed several perfectly good articles. This anecdote is here not to shoehorn in goings-on at another random website for no reason, but to provide an example of what we shouldn't do here. -– Llwy-ar-lawr talk contribs 15:48 13 Oct 2014
    This is still a ballot, not a diary. Citing other websites and specific personalities at other websites is not a valid argument, in my opinion — either as examples or counterexamples. Spıke ¬ 16:09 13-Oct-14
    Well, you see, I think of it as citing Uncyclopedia to prove a point about Uncyclopedia. Clearly you don't see it that way, and your opinion is no less valid than mine so I suppose I'll just keep my mouth shut. -– Llwy-ar-lawr talk contribs 16:26 13 Oct 2014
  3. Symbol delete vote Delete. Straight to userspace. Unless I get to write an article about my disgusting fetishes. 19 year old Colombian boys and girls covered in honey and tied up lightly coming to the main page soon. --Nikau (talk) 17:50, October 13, 2014 (UTC)
  4. Symbol delete vote Delete. Pointless article, most likely something not many people will look for. ConCass2 (talk) 20:35, October 20, 2014 (UTC)
    No--but they may well look for Miranda Cosgrove and instead find themselves directed to the article on her uterus. Is this a good or bad thing? What was I trying to say? -– Llwy-ar-lawr talk contribs 23:42 20 Oct 2014
Keep (2)
  1. Symbol keep vote "Her doctor...pronounced her Fallopian tubes "Thin as Paper" at a Veterinarian's office in L.A. called Healthy Hounds." I too have now given it a complete read — for the first time, in fact — and I enjoyed the ride. Spıke ¬ 16:24 13-Oct-14
  2. Symbol keep vote Keep. I wanted to vote delete, but laughed several times while reading the page. Anton (talk) Uncyclopedia United 18:37, October 20, 2014 (UTC)
Comments
  • Yuk Yuk. So after being double-barked at over wimping out after the first paragraph, I went back and read the whole thing. It is a fantasy piece of the sort dreamed up by 12 year old boys, which gave the author the chance to write "uterus" many times and even use such exciting terms as "cervix" and "reproductive system" in a few places. Unfortunately most of it is too far away from reality to be taken as anything except nonsense, and none of it is funny. Furthermore, down at the end, it mutates briefly into a Wacky War article, which doesn't really improve things.
    On the plus side, the grammar and spelling are both very clean. And that'll get you a free ride on the MBTA (at least, it will if you've also got two dollars along, to put in the little 'contributions' box at the front of the bus). Snarglefoop (talk) 16:12, October 13, 2014 (UTC)

edit Arsene Wenger H D

Score: 2
Elapsed Time: 178 hours
Delete (2)
  1. Symbol delete vote Delete. I am nominating this to try to achieve improvements to, not deletion of, this article on the football manager by some editor Over There. I am not even sure whether getting thrown out of a cinema relates to anything. As it stands, the initial and recurring theme is Pedo/Anal/Rape/SexWithBlackMen Humor. Spıke ¬ 13:17 14-Oct-14
  2. Can't we just delete this? I don't see anyone stepping forward to help. -– Llwy-ar-lawr talk contribs 21:32 18 Oct 2014
    We can and will, if we prevail in the vote. Spıke ¬ 01:27 19-Oct-14
Keep (0)

No keep votes.

Comments
  • I'm not sure what's supposed to happen here, but you might be interested in this slightly more sanitary version. -– Llwy-ar-lawr talk contribs 17:36 14 Oct 2014
    It is much cleaner, but it is also from 2007, and presumably omits comedy based on news in the last seven years — I assume there is some. Is there a Brit in the house who would like to do a merge? Spıke ¬ 18:11 14-Oct-14

edit HP Costa Rica Today H D

Score: 3
Elapsed Time: 147 hours
Delete (3)
  1. Symbol delete vote Delete. 2007 Uncyclopedian Hpsucks believes this offshore affiliate of Hewlett-Packard is gay. Spıke ¬ 20:17 15-Oct-14
  2. Boring. -– Llwy-ar-lawr talk contribs 20:41 15 Oct 2014
  3. Symbol delete vote Delete.Even the article's title is a turn off. --LaurelsRomArtus*Imperator ITRA (Orate) ® 22:02, October 17, 2014 (UTC)
Keep (0)

No keep votes.

Comments

edit Tails the Straight H T D Survivor

Score: 0
Elapsed Time: 147 hours
Delete (1)
  1. Symbol delete vote Delete. This isn't horrible, but it's also not funny, IMHO. The humor is too strained. It's a sort of parody of a parody of a minor character in the Sonic the Hedgehog cartoons, and from me, at least, it gets a great big "Eh what??", and the question, "Why does the world need this article?" leaps unbidden to one's mind. Snarglefoop (talk) 20:23, October 15, 2014 (UTC)
Keep (1)
  1. Symbol keep vote Keep. Like last time. Spıke ¬ 20:29 15-Oct-14
Comments

edit The Good, the Bad and the Ugly H T D

Score: 4
Elapsed Time: 147 hours
Delete (4)
  1. Spotted by an IP who pointed it out on the talk page, and unfortunately now has the idea that it reflects the quality of the entire website. In fact, it does not: it is a long string of explicit gay sex 'jokes', ending in a pointless list full of nonsense numbers. There are no better versions in the history. -– Llwy-ar-lawr talk contribs 20:28 15 Oct 2014
  2. Symbol delete vote Delete. Indeed there are not; the nonsense list, the dodgy humor, and even the dangling final sentence in the Intro about the theater waist-deep in cum, are from original author Strook in 2009. Spıke ¬ 20:32 15-Oct-14
  3. Symbol delete vote Delete.. Checked the article's history. The author put this up for Pee Review! What was said there still stands. What a pile of puke!--LaurelsRomArtus*Imperator ITRA (Orate) ® 22:05, October 17, 2014 (UTC)
  4. Symbol delete vote Delete. Anton (talk) Uncyclopedia United 16:24, October 21, 2014 (UTC)
Keep (0)

No keep votes.

Comments
  • IP sez, "Now I hate this website and it's your fault"? Not a consideration. Spıke ¬ 20:34 15-Oct-14

edit Laptop H T D

Score: 2
Elapsed Time: 65 hours
Delete (2)
  1. Symbol delete vote Obnoxious teenagers who talk to their parents like shit were caused by laptops. This article begins with the premises that laptops are useful for viewing porn and are 'three dimensional magic box[es]', then goes on to discuss... essentially nothing. It has been almost the same since it was rewritten in 2007; prior to that, it wasn't much better (It is project with much effort, but it not marketable and usable. Then he exploded.). I have a replacement at User:Llwy-ar-lawr/Laptop. -– Llwy-ar-lawr talk contribs 06:34 19 Oct 2014
  2. Symbol delete vote Delete. Intro also has a list of memes and a junk acronym; pointless Section 2 is overwhelmed by illustrations; then nothing but listcruft until the trite finale: Laptops are actually alien lifeforms. Proposed replacement is not ready.... Spıke ¬  10:47, 19 October 2014
Keep (0)

No keep votes.

Comments
  • Detailed editing comments moved to replacement article's talk page. Spıke ¬ 17:04 19-Oct-14

edit Igpay Atinlay H T D

Score: 3
Elapsed Time: 61 hours
Delete (4)
  1. Symbol delete vote Replace. 1 gimmick, 0 jokes (may be more than 0 but it's too tedious to scan the article to see if there are jokes). Page title with gimmick applied to it ensures no one will search for it, or they will get exactly what they expected and will not laugh. Spıke ¬ 10:38 19-Oct-14
  2. Symbol delete vote Delete. How the Hell did it not cross the author's mind that nobody can read this page? (Unless this is a prime example of the author trying to amuse himself out of confusing the readers) ConCass2 (talk) 20:32, October 20, 2014 (UTC)
  3. Replace with non-Pig Latin version, and probably move to Pig Latin (unless there's something there, in which case I'm not sure what we do). I am no scholar of Pig Latin and I find it about as bothersome to read as do Spike and ConCass, but I found the actual content somewhat amusing. I strongly encourage anyone whose main or sole criterion for voting delete was its unreadability to read the English version and reconsider. -– Llwy-ar-lawr talk contribs 22:53 20 Oct 2014
    Changing above vote to Replace. That was a fun read. How can anyone on a humor wiki prefer a page that is merely a perfect encoding? Spıke ¬ 22:55 20-Oct-14
  4. Replace b Replace. or something. The actual content is pretty good and the main problem seems that the article is hard to read. It would be good if it was replaced by Llwy's "translated" version, but the original should probably be kept as a subpage and linked to in the See also section, because there are people who will actually find reading the page in Pig Latin more amusing than reading it in English. Also, the page doesn't have to be deleted at all: the original one could be kept where it is now, and Llwy's version can be pasted at Pig Latin... Anton (talk) Uncyclopedia United 16:19, October 21, 2014 (UTC)
    And you don't need a vote of VFD to replace a redirect that doesn't delete an Uncyclopedian's substantive work. But I won't flip my vote anyway; I don't want the gimmicky version to exist, because editors spend time polishing the codification that they could spend writing funny stuff. I recently tweaked HTBFANJS#Pages that look like the things they're about to be a little more disapproving; for instance, to cite only articles that have more than a gimmick, versus articles that pursue a gimmick unusually well. Spıke ¬ 16:31 21-Oct-14
    We could also have the Pig Latin and English versions side by side in the same article, with a table or something. That seems like enough of a compromise to satisfy everyone to some extent. In any case, I hope we preserve the history instead of just deleting the thing and moving 'mine' on top, because the real authors should be given credit. (But I don't have to tell you to do that, right? Or maybe I do. I'm so reluctant about saying these things that I tend to come off as posturing. I shouldn't have said that either. Oh, bother. What am I going to do now? How did this parenthetical get so long? Why are the trees bleeding ink?) -– Llwy-ar-lawr talk contribs 22:47 21 Oct 2014
Keep (1)
  1. Symbol keep vote Keep. I think it's kind of cute. I got a laugh out of it. Granted, it's a little hard to read, but I think it should stay in Pig Latin -- it just seems totally appropriate. Snarglefoop (talk) 22:43, October 20, 2014 (UTC)
Comments

edit That Guy You Hate H D

Score: 2
Elapsed Time: 55 hours
Delete (3)
  1. Symbol delete vote Delete. Gay humour. Anton (talk) Uncyclopedia United 16:51, October 19, 2014 (UTC)
  2. Symbol delete vote Delete. A non-encyclopedic chat about no one. The title plus the template ("This page...is completely worthless") plus the Intro ("let's do some quality bitching about that little fucker") should keep the reader from reading further. Spıke ¬ 17:07 19-Oct-14
  3. Symbol delete vote I'm gonna tear off his Penis and use it as a toilet plunger. Yet more disgusting gay-bashing. -– Llwy-ar-lawr talk contribs 18:47 20 Oct 2014
Keep (1)
  1. Symbol keep vote Keep. Strangely, the profanity knocks back the humour and makes the article less funny. But the subject has potential for a good page and doesn't look like something thrown together by an anon in 5 minutes. ConCass2 (talk) 20:36, October 19, 2014 (UTC)
    You mean it has potential for a good page, but it isn't one right now? If it's not good now, it shouldn't remain in its current state. -– Llwy-ar-lawr talk contribs 18:47 20 Oct 2014
    I mean it can be redeemed with editing, without having to rewrite the whole page. I just couldn't word it right. ConCass2 (talk) 20:29, October 20, 2014 (UTC)
Comments

edit Short Circuit H D

Score: 2
Elapsed Time: 47 hours
Delete (2)
  1. Symbol delete vote Delete. No redeeming qualities. Spıke ¬ 00:21 20-Oct-14
  2. With an article like this, I can't imagine that seeing the movies would make me think any better of it. -– Llwy-ar-lawr talk contribs 18:55 20 Oct 2014
Keep (0)

No keep votes.

Comments
  • Just wondering of you've even seen the movies, Spike? --ManiacJaSg-Maniac1075Complain Here 03:45, October 20, 2014 (UTC)
    I have not. I was not evaluating the movies. The Uncyclopedia page is a start-to-finish Anal Sex Joke. Spıke ¬ 12:12 20-Oct-14
  • Yeah, try watching them!--ManiacJaSg-Maniac1075Complain Here 23:45, October 20, 2014 (UTC)
    No offence but... you are saying that the content of the movies somehow justifies the article's consisting entirely of sex jokes (and no, Spike, it's not just anal sex)? I can't really see that. Perhaps you could summarise the plot points you were parodying, for the benefit of us lazy bums who can't be bothered to watch the movies? -– Llwy-ar-lawr talk contribs 23:53 20 Oct 2014
    Actually nevermind--I read Wikipedia's article, and I really can't see either the value of turning it into one long sex joke or the attributes of the movie that inspired you to do so. Sorry. -– Llwy-ar-lawr talk contribs 23:58 20 Oct 2014
  • I still recommend watching the movie so you know what you're reading about. I can't see any reason someone who doesn't know what an article is about would find anything funny about it if they don't get it. If that's the case, I could spend the next week adding VFD to so many articles on this site.--ManiacJaSg-Maniac1075Complain Here 09:41, October 21, 2014 (UTC)
    I know perfectly well what I'm reading about, as I said above. I could guess what the movie was about from your article, actually. There is nothing that can justify turning it into what you turned it into. Nothing. Besides, the article shouldn't require intimate knowledge of the subject matter to be comprehensible; if it does, and if many readers haven't got that knowledge, it probably shouldn't exist. -– Llwy-ar-lawr talk contribs 13:38 21 Oct 2014
    Yeah cause alot of people just read random articles they know nothing about. My point is, it's not funny to you few people, yet the ones I showed it to found it pretty funny indeed. I just don't agree that the small majority of voters against something is able to rule out an article as being unfunny, just because it's not the type of humor they enjoy. So what it comes down to, is if it doesn't please you couple of people who have time to vote for peoples work to be deleted because you don't personally like it, that means it should not exist for those who do. right? I dunno, maybe it's non Australians not getting Australian humor? Too bad there is no Uncylcopedia.com.au I guess.--ManiacJaSg-Maniac1075Complain Here 15:33, October 21, 2014 (UTC)

edit Owl H T D

Score: 2
Elapsed Time: 24 hours
Delete (2)
  1. Wow, I just... don't even know where to begin. This article is almost entirely random nonsense; it barely has a concept--that of documenting and/or parodying the O RLY meme, which probably won't go over too well with some people here, and I'm not fond of it either--and that's only after I cut out a lot of it. Prior to my edits, it really was about nothing. A much more cut-down version may be found at User:Llwy-ar-lawr/scratchpad, which I'm still not too happy with (though you are welcome to say you want that as the replacement). I feel like we should have an article on owls, but I have no clue what it should consist of, and it's certainly not what we have now. -– Llwy-ar-lawr talk contribs 23:30 20 Oct 2014
  2. Symbol delete vote Delete. Nominator cleaned it up a lot, but it's still a ramble. Spıke ¬ 13:27 21-Oct-14
Keep (0)

No keep votes.

Comments

edit Indiana Jones H T D

Score: -1
Elapsed Time: 6 hours
Delete (1)
  1. Symbol delete vote Delete. The introduction is the most random one I've ever read. After that, the article doesn't improve. Anton (talk) Uncyclopedia United 17:03, October 21, 2014 (UTC)
Keep (2)
  1. Symbol keep vote Keep. I spruced the intro up a bit to cut out some of the randomness and cut out a chunk of the article and replaced it with something new, entitled "Indiana Jones and the Adventure that May be at Variance to this Article." I think it just needs to be edited/ spruced up, that's all. IndianaJones104 (talk) 22:31, October 21, 2014 (UTC)
  2. Symbol keep vote Keep. The article has a theme: the absurd lengths of movie titles of the form, "Indiana Jones and the...."; also pearls of good Choice of Words. The final three sections (ineptly typed following the {{Reflist}}, which had nothing in it anyway), were short sections that did nothing but tell the same joke again; and IndianaJones104's edits of today merely added red-links, memes, and a Section 2 at odds with the rest of the article. Spıke ¬ 22:44 21-Oct-14
Comments
Personal tools
projects