Uncyclopedia:Votes for deletion

From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia

(Difference between revisions)
Jump to: navigation, search
m (Vocaloid)
m ({{VFDn|Rivethead}}: apostrophe)
 
(4,207 intermediate revisions by 67 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 "ARTICLE NAME HERE" as appropriate and please remove the arrows and stuff. It's unnecessary to keep that stuff.
 
   
== [[ARTICLE NAME HERE]] ==
+
{{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 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|Conservative Reform Alliance Party}} ==
   
<!--PUT NEW NOMINATIONS RIGHT BELOW THIS LINE, AND DON'T BE TRIPLE-SPACING BETWEEN NOMINATIONS --></div>
+
{{VFDt|time=19:08, September 20, 2014 (UTC)
+
|delnumber=4
== [[Vocaloid]] ==
 
{{Votervfd|time=17:17, September 8, 2013 (UTC)
 
|keepnumber=1
 
|keep=
 
#I know nothing about the game, but it seems very detailed and encyclopedically has sections of what I take to be the main characters and on other topics. And the point of view of writing a page, I take it, of a lover and a hater of the game (TV show? I dunno what this is) is enough to save it and for people who care to go over it for a polish or two. [[user:Aleister|Aleister]] 19:05 a very good year
 
|delnumber=2
 
 
|delete=
 
|delete=
#{{delete}} Article is an argument of a vocaloid lover and hater. It also relies too much on “the green war”. [[User:Chaoarren|Chaoarren]] ([[User talk:Chaoarren|talk]]) 17:42, September 8, 2013 (UTC)
+
#{{Delete}} An article no one is going to look up, on a party that doesn't exist. The humor strategy, see, is that the initials are C.R.A.P. After pointing this out, the article descends into listcruft. {{User:SPIKE/signature}}<small>19:08 20-Sep-14</small>
#{{Boombot}} This article is, by a little bit, poorly written. They should have done better! {{User:Newman66/sig}} 18:05, September 8, 2013 (UTC)
+
#A bunch of random stuff about anuses. Doesn't go anywhere useful. {{User:Llwy-ar-lawr/sig|20140920193801}}
|comments=
+
#{{Delete}} Bleagh. Why do people think making something so stupidly impossible that nobody could believe it for a second is funny? Like setting a Canadian political party in the second century BC. Somewhat akin to writing an article on Chuck Norris's tenure as Prime Minister of Canada (except CN as PM is actually possible, at least in principle). [[User:Snarglefoop|Snarglefoop]] ([[User talk:Snarglefoop|talk]]) 22:21, September 20, 2014 (UTC)
#Thïs entry is not recording my "Keep" vote. Please look in the edit" and you will see it there. [[user:Aleister|Aleister]] 19:10 also a very good year
+
#:I think the reason is that they haven't read (or taken to heart) [[HTBFANJS]]: Nonsense dates aren't funny by themselves. Nor acronyms. It's not clear he actually meant to "set" the topic in the second century BC only that he probably didn't mean anything. {{User:SPIKE/signature}}<small>01:36 21-Sep-14</small>
#:It now is. {{User:Anton199/sig}} 19:36, September 8, 2013 (UTC)
+
#I like the name. That's all. --[[User:Nikau|Nikau]] ([[User talk:Nikau|talk]]) 05:07, September 21, 2014 (UTC)
}}
+
|keepnumber=0
 
=={{VFDc|N.W.A.}} ==
 
{{Votervfd|time=11:08, September 7, 2013 (UTC)
 
|keepnumber=2
 
 
|keep=
 
|keep=
#{{Keep}} I cleaned it up enough to survive. Someone else please find suitable photos. {{User:SPIKE/signature}}<small>11:50 7-Sep-13</small>
 
#:Can we, please, resurrect the first photo of the article, as the reason for its deletion was that it was unused? {{User:Anton199/sig}} 20:09, September 7, 2013 (UTC)
 
#:: It is File:Nwa4px.gif. {{User:Anton199/sig}} 20:10, September 7, 2013 (UTC)
 
#:::Now restored, but only used once in the article. {{User:SPIKE/signature}}<small>03:30 8-Sep-13</small>
 
#{{Keep}} Nice White artists - straight outta Hampshire --[[User:Sog1970|Sog1970]] ([[User talk:Sog1970|talk]]) 22:06, September 7, 2013 (UTC)
 
|delnumber=0
 
|delete=
 
#<s>{{Delete|Article with attitude}} It is a failed attempt of being humourously racist. Was nominated for deletion in 2006, kept but not rewritten. Thousands of red links and broken file links. {{User:Anton199/sig}} 11:08, September 7, 2013 (UTC)</s>
 
#:Niggaz Wit Attitudes was a real rap band. I have also found a better revision of the page that dates back to 2007 (the article did get rewritten, but the rewrite made it worse). {{User:Anton199/sig}} 11:13, September 7, 2013 (UTC)
 
 
|comments=
 
|comments=
*'''Vote closed'''--nomination withdrawn. {{User:SPIKE/signature}}<small>03:30 8-Sep-13</small>
 
 
}}
 
}}
   
== [[Perrin Aybara]] ==
+
== {{VFDn|Worst 100 reasons to become a Christian}} ==
{{Votervfd|time=21:23, September 5, 2013 (UTC)
+
|keepnumber=1
+
{{VFDt|time=02:35, September 21, 2014 (UTC)
|keep=Someone put in a large amount of time over several days, and then came back to edit it quite awhile later, and likely learned a lot here during this process. But I'm voting to keep the page since I don't think it's enough to huff. Maybe the author just needs a note on his talk page to go back and polish it and/or ask for assistance. [[user:Aleister in Chains|Aleister in Chains]] 19:00 in these parts
+
|delnumber=2
|delnumber=1
 
 
|delete=
 
|delete=
#{{Delete}} I am not convinced that Anon today at [[Talk:Perrin Aybara]] ("This is the best thing to ever hit internet!") is not just a random spambot, but he has found a cache of babble, Randumbo, and listcruft. {{User:SPIKE/signature}}<small>21:23 5-Sep-13</small>
+
#{{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)
|comments=
+
#{{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>
 
== [[Worst 100 Porn Stars of All Time]] ==
 
{{Votervfd|time=15:17, September 5, 2013 (UTC)
 
 
|keepnumber=0
 
|keepnumber=0
 
|keep=
 
|keep=
|delnumber=4
 
|delete=
 
#{{Delete}} Not really worth keeping, is it? {{User:Reverend P. Pennyfeather/sig}} 15:17, September 5, 2013 (UTC)
 
#{{Delete}} The current article begins with overt cyberbullying. As well as neighbors, politicians and media celebrities an editor dislikes appear on this cum-dumpster of a page solely for the drive-by slap of casting them as porn stars, along with Oscar Wilde, Mr. T, Bobby Fischer, and Your Mom. Such information as might actually relate to real pornographers seems to be contributed either by fanboys or by people whose mailed request for a signed photo was never replied to. No one wants this page badly enough to edit #50, "The dipshit that made theirs number one instead of 49th because they think theirs is so damn special." {{User:SPIKE/signature}}<small>15:49 5-Sep-13</small>
 
#{{Delete}} {{User:Anton199/sig}} 18:27, September 5, 2013 (UTC)
 
#{{Delete}} NOW! {{User:ScottPat/sig2}} 18:32, September 5, 2013 (UTC)
 
#:Would happen faster if you'd increment the vote count. {{User:SPIKE/signature}}<small>11:26 6-Sep-13</small>
 
#{{Exterminate}} I was surprised that number 50 on the list had the person's username when they view it. Anyways, it's also my least favorite Worst 100 list. {{User:Newman66/sig}} 15:38, September 8, 2013 (UTC)
 
#:I strongly disapprove of the "comedy" strategy of "surprising" (I call it pranking) the reader with {{Tl|USERNAME}}, though it may be comedy for the writer. {{User:SPIKE/signature}}<small>16:15 8-Sep-13</small>
 
#::You do? And how about [[Minitrue]]? {{User:Anton199/sig}} 17:58, September 8, 2013 (UTC)
 
 
|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>
 
}}
 
}}
   
== [[Hot dog]] ==
+
== {{VFDn|Emo Prison}} ==
{{Votervfd|time=14:56, September 2, 2013 (UTC)
+
|keepnumber=0
+
{{VFDt|time=05:10, September 21, 2014 (UTC)
  +
|delnumber=5
  +
|delete=
  +
# {{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}} 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>
  +
#{{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}}
  +
|keepnumber=1
 
|keep=
 
|keep=
|delnumber=3
+
#{{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)
|delete=
 
#{{Delete}} This listy little article has only one joke: that a frankfurter is essentially a [[penis]], something it was delightful for the young author to type but won't take the reader anywhere he has not already gone in his mind. Redirecting this to [[Dogshit sandwich]] would kill two birds with one stone. {{User:SPIKE/signature}}<small>14:56 2-Sep-13</small>
 
#{{Delete}} Agreed. {{User:ScottPat/sig2}} 16:38, September 2, 2013 (UTC)
 
#{{Delete}} {{User:Anton199/sig}} 08:32, September 3, 2013 (UTC)
 
 
|comments=
 
|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. {{User:SPIKE/signature}}<small>12:50 21-Sep-14</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}}
  +
*::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}}
 
}}
 
}}
   
== [[Bearded dragon]] ==
+
== {{VFDn|The things your family doesn't know}} ==
{{Votervfd|time=15:21, September 1, 2013 (UTC)
+
|keepnumber=2
+
{{VFDt|time=20:17, September 21, 2014 (UTC)
  +
|delnumber=3
  +
|delete=
  +
#I tried to take a nap and a scene from this article haunted me. Everything's basically been said already in the [[Uncyclopedia:VFH/The things your family doesn't know|VFH nomination]]. {{User:Llwy-ar-lawr/sig|20140921201726}}
  +
#{{Delete}} Or move it to the the letters column at Hustler magazine, where it would fit in perfectly. But it's not what I would call "humor" -- the only thing "funny" about it is the surprise value of finding it on a humor website instead of a sleaze-porn site. [[User:Snarglefoop|Snarglefoop]] ([[User talk:Snarglefoop|talk]]) 20:19, September 21, 2014 (UTC)
  +
#{{Delete}} No humor detected. {{User:SPIKE/signature}}<small>22:03 21-Sep-14</small>
  +
|keepnumber=0
 
|keep=
 
|keep=
#{{Keep}} As I voted [[Uncyclopedia:Votes_for_deletion/Archive227#Bearded_dragon|in 2011]]. Newman, "No one will ever search for it" is not a magic mantra that one can utter as proof that a page should be deleted. It is a phrase I use to refer to a page title that is only notable after the reader has finished reading the page in question, comparable to, "You have to type the punch line to read the joke." It does not apply to this page, as Wikipedia tells us "bearded dragon" (''Pogona barbata'') is an Australian lizard. Now, last time, we were promised some work on this, and it still could use some; author seems to treat the bearded dragon as a concept he invented that is funny because he invented it. {{User:SPIKE/signature}}<small>15:48 1-Sep-13</small>
 
#{{Keep}} But only just. There are Bearded Dragons. There should be an article. But this one starts rather better than it ends. Someone could probably salvage this. Just not me.--[[User:Sog1970|Sog1970]] ([[User talk:Sog1970|talk]]) 20:25, September 1, 2013 (UTC)
 
#:I gave it a bit more, relating it to [[Samson]] and the [[bearded clam]]. {{User:SPIKE/signature}}<small>17:07 2-Sep-13</small>
 
|delnumber=1
 
|delete=
 
#{{Delete}} This article is so unfunny and poor that no one will ever search for it. {{User:Newman66/sig}} 15:21, September 1, 2013 (UTC)
 
 
|comments=
 
|comments=
 
}}
 
}}
   
== [[A-rod]] ==
+
== {{VFDn|Rivethead}} ==
{{Votervfd|time=21:50, August 29, 2013 (UTC)
 
|keepnumber=2
 
|keep=
 
#{{Keep}} It is odd, but certainly not against any rule, to have a second article on [[Alex Rodriguez]]--even though it is not really about A-Rod (except for repeating the A-Roid joke) but about the jock-sniffing broadcaster on YES Sports. It needs a re-titling or more work (for example, more commentary by the broadcaster suggesting that A-Rod's underperformance during that one broadcast should not have been a surprise but in fact is a chronic problem), but not deletion. {{User:SPIKE/signature}}<small>23:10 29-Aug-13</small>
 
#{{Keep}} Based upon what Spike says however needs re-titling as I gather by this discussion that the title refers to a name however I do not understand this reference so is not comprehensive to all. {{User:ScottPat/sig2}} 15:36, August 30, 2013 (UTC)
 
#:A-Rod is such a common nickname that it does not need clarification; the only problem is that one doesn't look up baseball stars in an encyclopedia by their nickname. Some New York Yankees fan needs to retitle this page so it precisely refers to the person it refers to. {{User:SPIKE/signature}}<small>17:37 30-Aug-13</small>
 
#::I have never heard of the nickname "A-rod" in my life. It is certainly not common use where I live. {{User:ScottPat/sig2}} 19:15, August 30, 2013 (UTC)
 
#:Few of your townspeople would have heard of him by the name Alex Rodriguez either. That's not a disqualifier, as the audience for this page will be American. We have plenty of pages on MLB and on teams of the Premier League. (The largely factual [[UnNews:A-Rod plunking spurs debate over baseball protocol]] will tell you what the big deal is.) {{User:SPIKE/signature}}<small>21:46 30-Aug-13</small>
 
#::I agree not a disqualifier if widely known in the country which he lives in. {{User:ScottPat/sig2}} 21:48, August 30, 2013 (UTC)
 
|delnumber=1
 
|delete=
 
#{{Delete}} Someone's own article about Alex Rodriguez making success in baseball from a long time ago. {{User:Newman66/sig}} 21:50, August 29, 2013 (UTC)
 
|comments=
 
}}
 
   
== [[Furcadia]] ==
+
{{VFDt|time=20:45, September 21, 2014 (UTC)
{{Votervfd|time=12:48, August 24, 2013 (UTC)
 
|keepnumber=2
 
|keep=
 
#{{Keep}} '''I''' took and added the photo, and I'm pretty sure the article's lead editor [[User:Kotra|kotra]] wasn't the subject of it. [[User:GreenReaper|GreenReaper]] ([[User talk:GreenReaper|talk]]) 16:39, August 24, 2013 (UTC)
 
#:I apologize for the incorrect assumption in my nomination. Apart from that, though, it is still true that vanity overwhelms humor in this article. {{User:SPIKE/signature}}<small>19:41 24-Aug-13</small>
 
#{{Pacman}} The article may need some improvement, but it's otherwise okay. {{User:Newman66/sig}} 22:39, August 28, 2013 (UTC)
 
 
|delnumber=3
 
|delnumber=3
 
|delete=
 
|delete=
#{{Delete}} A fantasy bio complete with author's photo. Remove the vanity and there is no point left. {{User:SPIKE/signature}}<small>12:48 24-Aug-13</small>
+
#{{delete}} If there's something funny here I missed it. [[User:Snarglefoop|Snarglefoop]] ([[User talk:Snarglefoop|talk]]) 20:45, September 21, 2014 (UTC)
#{{Delete}} Awful subtitle names. Made-up place I think. Not actually very funny. Intro had no jokes and the only joke I could find in the next paragraph is that some secret government organisations kill animals for fun in the name of science, which has unoriginality stamped all over it. {{User:ScottPat/sig2}} 15:48, August 30, 2013 (UTC)
+
#A random ramble involving Nazis and kitten huffing; {{u|Evilcorporatemetaljesus}}' other contribution. {{User:Llwy-ar-lawr/sig|20140921204901}}
#{{Delete}} What did you find there? {{User:Anton199/sig}} 15:37, September 8, 2013 (UTC)
+
#{{Delete}} Template tells me how to read the article. Quotes from Wilde and Jesus are author's own rage put into the mouths of Wilde and Jesus. First sentence is a rant. Second sentence begins, "It is a well-known fact...." I would have never gotten to the Table of Contents if this were not VFD. Summary: Author dislikes Goths, and when he realizes he has written several paragraphs and will be expected to write something funny, trots out Cthulhu, Germans, and Jews. Finally links off-site to someone's blog. Was it all just an advertisement? {{User:SPIKE/signature}}<small>22:08 21-Sep-14</small>
  +
|keepnumber=0
  +
|keep=
 
|comments=
 
|comments=
 
}}
 
}}
 
=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 22:10, September 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 HowTo:Play chess H D

Score: 4
Elapsed Time: 50 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 Conservative Reform Alliance Party H D

Score: 4
Elapsed Time: 27 hours
Delete (4)
  1. Symbol delete vote Delete. An article no one is going to look up, on a party that doesn't exist. The humor strategy, see, is that the initials are C.R.A.P. After pointing this out, the article descends into listcruft. Spıke ¬ 19:08 20-Sep-14
  2. A bunch of random stuff about anuses. Doesn't go anywhere useful. -– Llwy-ar-lawr (talkcontribs) 19:38 20 Sep 2014
  3. Symbol delete vote Delete. Bleagh. Why do people think making something so stupidly impossible that nobody could believe it for a second is funny? Like setting a Canadian political party in the second century BC. Somewhat akin to writing an article on Chuck Norris's tenure as Prime Minister of Canada (except CN as PM is actually possible, at least in principle). Snarglefoop (talk) 22:21, September 20, 2014 (UTC)
    I think the reason is that they haven't read (or taken to heart) HTBFANJS: Nonsense dates aren't funny by themselves. Nor acronyms. It's not clear he actually meant to "set" the topic in the second century BC — only that he probably didn't mean anything. Spıke ¬ 01:36 21-Sep-14
  4. I like the name. That's all. --Nikau (talk) 05:07, September 21, 2014 (UTC)
Keep (0)

No keep votes.

Comments

edit Worst 100 reasons to become a Christian H T D

Score: 2
Elapsed Time: 19 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 (0)

No keep votes.

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

edit Emo Prison H D

Score: 4
Elapsed Time: 17 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 (1)
  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)
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 things your family doesn't know H D

Score: 3
Elapsed Time: 1 hours
Delete (3)
  1. I tried to take a nap and a scene from this article haunted me. Everything's basically been said already in the VFH nomination. -– Llwy-ar-lawr (talkcontribs) 20:17 21 Sep 2014
  2. Symbol delete vote Delete. Or move it to the the letters column at Hustler magazine, where it would fit in perfectly. But it's not what I would call "humor" -- the only thing "funny" about it is the surprise value of finding it on a humor website instead of a sleaze-porn site. Snarglefoop (talk) 20:19, September 21, 2014 (UTC)
  3. Symbol delete vote Delete. No humor detected. Spıke ¬ 22:03 21-Sep-14
Keep (0)

No keep votes.

Comments

edit Rivethead H T D

Score: 3
Elapsed Time: 1 hours
Delete (3)
  1. Symbol delete vote Delete. If there's something funny here I missed it. Snarglefoop (talk) 20:45, September 21, 2014 (UTC)
  2. A random ramble involving Nazis and kitten huffing; Evilcorporatemetaljesus' other contribution. -– Llwy-ar-lawr (talkcontribs) 20:49 21 Sep 2014
  3. Symbol delete vote Delete. Template tells me how to read the article. Quotes from Wilde and Jesus are author's own rage put into the mouths of Wilde and Jesus. First sentence is a rant. Second sentence begins, "It is a well-known fact...." I would have never gotten to the Table of Contents if this were not VFD. Summary: Author dislikes Goths, and when he realizes he has written several paragraphs and will be expected to write something funny, trots out Cthulhu, Germans, and Jews. Finally links off-site to someone's blog. Was it all just an advertisement? Spıke ¬ 22:08 21-Sep-14
Keep (0)

No keep votes.

Comments
Personal tools
projects