Uncyclopedia:Votes for deletion

From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia

Revision as of 02:41, April 12, 2013 by Denza252 (talk | contribs)

Jump to: navigation, search
Shortcut:
UN:VFD
Deletion Policy
QuickVFD
Votes for deletion

Intensive Care Unit

del log

Rules and procedures:

  1. If you're too lazy to read the deletion policy, please, at least, carefully read this list of rules.
    1. But seriously, read the deletion policy.
    2. Do not put anything up for VFD that is not appropriate for VFD.
    3. Abusers of the policy will be abused by the claw end of a hammer. You have been warned.
  2. If you have an article that meets the criteria for VFD:
    1. Check the revision history of the page. It may have been vandalised, or just badly edited over a long period of time. If so, find a better version and revert the article. It may not be suitable for deletion.
    2. Add {{vfd}} to the article in question. Failure to do so will invalidate the vote.
    3. Provide an initial vote (see below) and include a comment as to why you have placed the article on VFD.
  3. If you are here to vote on the deletion/salvation of articles:
    1. Thank you.
    2. No really, thank you.
    3. Edit the section for the article you are addressing.
    4. Pick a space under the appropriate heading (Keep, Delete, Comment), add your sig/comment preceded with a #
      1. # - Creates a numbered bullet for your entry and makes sure that things are formatted correctly (do not put a space before the #).
      2. Comment - If you care to, leave a comment, even if it is as short as "The article is not at all funny". Votes without comments are less useful in analyzing the quality of an article.
      3. --~~~~ - Sign and timestamp your vote. Unsigned votes will be removed without prejudice.
  4. Do not revert edits of the administrators.
  5. If an article survives VFD, do not resubmit it for at least 1 month or you will get a bollocking.
  6. If you are neither an Administrator nor a designated Poopsmith, do not remove anything from VFD; doing so will get you banned for a very long time.

Pages for Deletion

Zombiebaronvs.Braydie

Make sure that you have read the rules (above) and the deletion policy. Please don't nominate Main Page or Votes for Deletion; that joke has been done so many times we might just beat you with a nail bat before we tear our hair out in frustration. This also applies to Featured Articles and Uncyclopedia In-Jokes.


How to quickly find VFDable articles (using special pages):


Notes for Administrators:

  • Allow at least 24 hours before closing a nomination or deleting an article.
  • Remember to delete any unused images from deleted articles and, if necessary, check what links to the article and remove any backlinks. Make sure to delete any broken redirects created as well.
  • To avoid confusion, try to remove closed nominations which cause the page to exceed to 20 articles.
  • If a nomination is kept, please add {{Oldvfd}} to the article's talk page.

To add an article, edit this section, and follow the directions in the comments.


Don't flood VFD full of articles, or at least leave a space between your nominations.

If you increase the number of articles on VFD to over 20, you will be blocked for 1 day, no exceptions. This means do not increase the number of active votes on VFD to over twenty. Inactive votes are shown with either a red link (where they have been deleted), or with the 🔒 Closed nomination H T D Oldvfd Archive tag to indicate that the article has been kept. You have been warned.

Please remember to check an article's history, in case of recent or long term vandalism, before nominating an article. Also, check the article's talk page and 'What links here' for prior nominations. If the article has been nominated before there will be a link from a VFD archive page.


George W. Bush's Hurricane Machine

Score: 3
Elapsed Time: 11376 hours
Keep (0)

No keep votes.

Delete (3)
  1. Not encylopedic. Written in first person. Probably used to be a good article but I'm not sure how far to undo the changes. What started off (by the looks of the history) as a joke about GW creating a hurricane with fighter jets has been spoilt by an unregistered user who complains that Republicans are racist, has put a picture of himself on the article, commemorates famous black people and reminds you that he voted Obama a lot. I have no problem with his views but this is a humour site and he appears to be making a non-humorous political statement rant. Sir ScottPat Icons-flag-gb Scotland Flag 1 UnS CUN VFH (talk) 18:01, April 11, 2013 (UTC)
  2. Symbol delete vote Delete. Is not just written in the first person but repeatedly returns to the personal quest of the author. The only joke here is that we give A's for such papers if the pupil is black. Nominator's sudden dislike of articles that are intended as rants and only incidentally funny is welcome. Spıke ¬ 22:46 11-Apr-13
  3. Symbol delete vote Delete. If this were a woman of the street, she'd be making no money, would starve, and be mistaken for a crack addict. Aleister 00:44 12-3-'13
Comments
  • Reverted to the article to the version that was nommed on VFH. Still has racism in it; apparently that is part of the joke - the commentary that racism "is ok if done by a minority group", and the idea that minorities think that whites are all racist. The student has obvious bias against white Republicans. Unfortunately, the joke has been lost over time, given Republican hatred of Obama, who happens to be black, and the resulting generalizations that have happened. -- Simsilikesims(♀UN) Talk here. 23:44, April 11, 2013 (UTC)
    I can now see the alternate point-of-view this article uses. At least, I can when I get to the last line, the red one "after the credits roll." But sorry, my vote stands. The reader of a humor wiki should not have to slog through a spoof, which is indistinguishable from what millions of black pupils are encouraged to believe in all seriousness, to find a postscript that explains that it is all a joke. Spıke ¬ 00:19 12-Apr-13

That time I accidentally beheaded a queen during my sojourn in France

Score: 1
Elapsed Time: 11382 hours
Keep (1)
  1. A pretty good sojourn page by Hyperbole. I enlarged the pic and fixed the red links. Sojourns are a set formula, they contain those type of capitalizations and follow a pattern which is discernible after reading a few of them. They've, as a category, been featured (the only category to be featured). I think mnbvcxz created the category. I've written two of them, and you have to follow the formula pretty closely. Hyperbole is one of our best writers, and this page actually educates and puts a "face" on a historical event. Aleister 12:04 11-4-'13
    Dittos on Hyperbole's skill; but after the first couple, pages that "follow the formula" are not creative comedy writing but simply imitation. Spıke ¬ 12:25 11-Apr-13
Delete (2)
  1. Symbol delete vote Delete.. Lack of content. Incomprehensible. Apparently it has an in-joke in it but this is no excuse for poor spelling, swearing, no other humour, no capital letters at the start of each sentence. There is only one sentence in each paragraph and it is unencyclopedic. If there is something I'm missing and it should be kept then it at least needs to be changed to make it better along with the title which is random and unlikely to be typed in. Sir ScottPat Icons-flag-gb Scotland Flag 1 UnS CUN VFH (talk) 11:31, April 11, 2013 (UTC)
  2. Symbol delete vote Delete. The Category identifies it as an Uncyclopedia in-joke but I don't see the joke (except deliberate goofiness so minimally creative that anyone could type it in his sleep). Awfulness is funny, but awful Uncyclopedia pages are less funny than they are simply awful. "Poor spellin", meanwhile, nominator should simply correct rather than use VFD to look for volunteers to do so; least of all the original author, who has surely left the building. Recall also that nominator has the duty to look in the History to see if there was a better version once. Spıke ¬ 11:48 11-Apr-13
    Nominator is unable to find better history version. Nominator thinks that the title is so bad that no one could make this funny. Nominator therefore opts for it to be deleted as there is no content/subject here for nominator to work on. Nominator 11:53 11th April 2013 (UTC)
    QED. Thank you. Spıke ¬ 11:59 11-Apr-13
Comments
  • The in-joke is that this is one of many "my sojourn" articles, and the joke is set up exactly like a my sojourn article. Other than that, this article is "meh". -- Simsilikesims(♀UN) Talk here. 12:01, April 11, 2013 (UTC)

Finnish Profanity

Score: 0
Elapsed Time: 11397 hours
Keep (1)
  1. Symbol keep vote Keep. Articles written in English regarding other languages and cultures help English readers of a multi-cultural background, or readers curious about the humour of another given culture experience some of it. I can recognize many of these words, and those I can are in fact correct. If someone has doubts about the validity of what they read on Uncyclopedia (which they should) a quick google is only a step away. A good article should blur the line between truth and falsehood, shouldn't it? This is after all, a mock-encyclopedia. Therefore, if a reader is amused, is it really a bad thing if they DO in fact learn something? Hannes1813 (talk) 22:32, April 10, 2013 (UTC)
    In other words: You are Finnish, and you get it. Your vote confirms to me that the goal of this article is not humor. Unfortunately, this is a humor wiki. Spıke ¬ 11:53 11-Apr-13
Delete (1)
  1. Symbol delete vote Delete. We probably don't need an article on Finnish, and we certainly don't need one on its swears, as the typical reader of English doesn't know whether anything is true or deliberately false. The overwhelming attempt here is to teach (and to amuse the author by swearing to strangers), not to amuse the reader. Spıke ¬ 21:18 10-Apr-13
  2. Symbol delete vote Delete. Confused as to whether these words don't actually mean what the article says they do or that they actually do mean what the article says they do. Would be slightly funny if they didn't mean those definitions but not obvious to reader. A better way of doing this article would be to call it Finnish greetings and then write a swearword in Finnish and give it a pleasant definition. Another way to do this article would be to call it English greetings then write English swearwords which everyone will understand (even the Americans!) and give a definition in English of a pleasant word as though you were teaching a foreigner who doesn't know much English. Sir ScottPat Icons-flag-gb Scotland Flag 1 UnS CUN VFH (talk) 12:55, April 11, 2013 (UTC)
    This exact "comedy" technique--pranking the reader by teaching him to swear when he doesn't intend to--is pursued with listcruft in many of our language articles. Your proposed English "lesson," at least readers of English would recognize as humor. Spıke ¬ 13:02 11-Apr-13
Comments

You

Score: -2
Elapsed Time: 11433 hours
Keep (3)
  1. Symbol keep vote Keep. Even though this article and I have had dissagreements in the past, (see history), we still care deeply for each other, and I know deep in my heart, that he is a honest, hardworking, and HILARIOUS article, one of the few that is well written. Let him stay, and let us rekindle our love. (Chronic F*ck around syndrome) --The Indian Otaku 05:49, April 10, 2013 (UTC)
  2. Symbol keep vote Keep. This article is plenty funny. In case we owe it to nominator to explain to him every case where Uncyclopedia mocks Brits: In this case, it is because the article was obviously written by a Brit. Nominator did edit that out, replacing it not just with a slap at Americans but polemic against Bush and a mini-rant against Wikia that has nothing to do with the theme of the article; I reverted him. Spıke ¬ 12:23 9-Apr-13
  3. Symbol keep vote Keep. What he said. This article was WRITTEN by a Brit, after all. - HIPSTER T)alk C)untributions B)an 20:53, April 10, 2013 (UTC)
Delete (1)
  1. Symbol delete vote Delete. This should be deleted for two reasons: (1) It used to mock British people at the start of the article. While I have no problem with this usually, this has no explanation for why British people are mocked. (2) It now mocks American people at the start of the article. I do not have a problem with this as it is justified by the above sentence. (3) It is offensive, rude, non-encyclopedic and claims that I (otherwise known as you) have never written an article which is false. It is not encyclopedic and is not funny please vote to delete. Sir ScottPat Icons-flag-gb Scotland Flag 1 UnS CUN VFH (talk) 11:53, April 9, 2013 (UTC)
Comments
  1. Yikes! You deleted my comment. A good place for a comment on this stuff then. You seems sensitive that what's said here in a playful manner is actually some kind of attack on you, which is far from the truth. When I said "You should be deleted for two reasons hahahahahahahaha" I was playing, which is what we do all over the place here. It's what makes this place unique among place with threads and comments, you can play lots and not offend anybody by doing so. So by being here you will develop a thick skin over time but it will be a good skin, like a baby's thumb, and when that happens you may actually find this article pretty good! Al today is the first....etc.
I didn't delete your comment it was SPIKE. Sir ScottPat Icons-flag-gb Scotland Flag 1 UnS CUN VFH (talk) 13:35, April 9, 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, Al; what I meant to delete is Scott's incorrect lecture to you not to type your comment in the Delete section. That is tolerated; so is "unencyclopedic" when it is done really well, as in this article. Spıke ¬ 14:26 9-Apr-13

George Dubya Bush

Score: 3
Elapsed Time: 11470 hours
Keep (0)

No keep votes.

Delete (3)
  1. Symbol delete vote Delete. This article is mixture of advocacy and randumbo. The article references an in-universe that only exists in the writer's mind, and throws random insults at George W. Bush. You can't make fun of Bush Jr. for being a gay Eskimo, but this article tries. If we need an attack article against George W. Bush, this isn't it. --Mn-z 19:45, April 7, 2013 (UTC)
  2. Symbol delete vote Delete.There is no such negative here as "advocacy". Randumbo, yes, there you've got this page by its tail. About a hateful man, and I didn't need to look at it much to vote to sink that ship. Aleister 22:06 7-4-'13
  3. Symbol delete vote Delete.There is already a page on Bush that depicts him (satirically) as a great President so delete this one as it is over the top fantasy and not encyclopedic. Sir ScottPat Icons-flag-gb Scotland Flag 1 UnS CUN VFH (talk) 11:45, April 11, 2013 (UTC)
Comments
  • Aleister defends "advocacy" against it being grounds for deletion, because advocacy is his business, from his hatchet-job on Ann Coulter (She is so hideous that anything said about her is funny?) to his recent photo collage to show that the US Air Force is engaged in murder. In fact, an article written to convince rather than amuse should be written somewhere else (as Aleister does anyway). I tirelessly argue against the Omnipotent State--but not here. My problem with this nomination is that, for both Bush and Obama, we have tolerated multiple articles with multiple, incompatible approaches. The Dubya article is definitely more churlish than Bush's "official" page here, but we have tolerated that for the simple reason that it keeps the churls away from the real one. Spıke ¬ 14:33 9-Apr-13
    Sticks and stones may break my bones (depending on the size, velocity, and fragility of the sticks, and the size and velocity of the stones in connection to where they hit me on the body - some bones are bigger than others and less likely to break from casual contact with sticks and stones.) but words will never hurt me (unless that one time in band camp where I was dressed down for wearing my marcher's hat backwards). Aleister 12:17 First day of The Masters '13
    p.s. Upon rereading the David Coulter article, it's not a hatchet job as much as an honoring of a great comedian and character actor. "Ann" (David's character) has a habit of writing hatchet jobs on what she terms "liberals" or "progressives" with book titles such as Demons, Baby Killers, Walking Cow Dung, and Havoc, Haters, and Satanic Holidays. He is very funny.
  • Well, the page is linked to extensively by other pages, and some articles just stagnate. --The Infinite Otaku Emperor 02:41, April 12, 2013 (UTC) (I can't figure out how to link my sig to my crappy page!)

Counter-Strike: Text-based version

Score: 2
Elapsed Time: 11501 hours
Keep (1)
  1. Symbol keep vote Keep.<<Stammer>> <<ENABLE>> W-well, I th-think that its allright, an-an-and its also a bi-bit funny (Sorry, but I have to Chronically F*ck around, or I DIE) --The Indian Otaku 05:40, April 10, 2013 (UTC)
Delete (3)
  1. Symbol delete vote Delete. Someone is mistaking jibba-jabba for creative comedy writing. Spıke ¬ 12:57 6-Apr-13
  2. Symbol delete vote Delete. per above. --Mn-z 19:33, April 7, 2013 (UTC)
  3. Symbol delete vote Delete.Sir ScottPat Icons-flag-gb Scotland Flag 1 UnS CUN VFH (talk) 11:47, April 11, 2013 (UTC)
Comments

Christianism

Score: 3
Elapsed Time: 11522 hours
Keep (0)

No keep votes.

Delete (3)
  1. Symbol delete vote Delete. A very bad combination of advocacy and randumbo. --Mn-z 16:07, April 5, 2013 (UTC)
  2. Symbol delete vote Delete. Indeed. To the good, the Intro sums up exactly the comedy technique: "The afflicted lose all ability to think rationally, use common sense, and in extreme cases, half their IQ." Unfortunately, "X is for stupid people" is insult not comedy. The rest of the article is listcruft. Substantially unchanged since 2005 except for the addition of Section 1, a minimally funny criticism of the basis of Christianity. Spıke ¬ 16:31 5-Apr-13
  3. Symbol delete vote Delete. Lists. Jesus is a zombie. Not funny. However the concept of Christianity (or religion for that matter) being a disease is a great idea and would have potential. I would encourage others to salvage a good subject matter and make it funny. Sir ScottPat Icons-flag-gb Scotland Flag 1 UnS CUN VFH (talk) 11:50, April 11, 2013 (UTC)
Comments

Great Time Travel War of 1871

Score: 2
Elapsed Time: 11522 hours
Keep (0)

No keep votes.

Delete (2)
  1. Symbol delete vote Delete. This is a wacky-war about nothing and everything if I ever saw one. --Mn-z 15:59, April 5, 2013 (UTC)
  2. Symbol delete vote Delete. In the boldface-heavy Intro, author reserves the right to write about everything that "was ever or ever shall be"--and ensures that virtually all readers click to somewhere else. (By the way, Oh, What a Lovely War was a provocative anti-war movie; but, after using it in a Wildeism, author drops it in favor of no theme at all.) Spıke ¬ 16:36 5-Apr-13
Comments

I haven't read much of it but it seems to be a satirical take on a Sci-Fi movie type war blown out of potential. I can see that the author has chosen Nazis in his subject (as always) however I think with some changes it could be improved. Sir ScottPat Icons-flag-gb Scotland Flag 1 UnS CUN VFH (talk) 11:58, April 11, 2013 (UTC)

The Great Ninjapiratezombierobot War

Score: 3
Elapsed Time: 11522 hours
Keep (0)

No keep votes.

Delete (3)
  1. Symbol delete vote Delete. this article takes the form of wars written as a Warcraft in-game conversation. This one is particularly bad, as it references a cliche imaginary war, and is more a communal sandbox than an article. --Mn-z 15:53, April 5, 2013 (UTC)
  2. Symbol delete vote "You a**hole!" This article neither amuses nor communicates anything. Spıke ¬ 16:40 5-Apr-13
  3. Symbol delete vote Delete. Absolute random rubbish. Nothing in it. Sir ScottPat Icons-flag-gb Scotland Flag 1 UnS CUN VFH (talk) 11:59, April 11, 2013 (UTC)
Comments

HowTo:Annoy your Teacher

Score: 0
Elapsed Time: 11621 hours
Keep (2)
  1. Symbol keep vote Keep. Eh, let it stay, I think if I can remember to edit it up, then it can be a good article, just someone remind me on my talk if it stays. --The Indian Otaku 05:52, April 10, 2013 (UTC)
  2. Puppy, I mean, Brother Indian Otaku, wants to work on it so bad that he's foaming at the mouth. Let the foam work its magic(kk). Aleister 00:47 12-3-'13
Delete (2)
  1. Symbol delete vote Delete. Choice of subject matter, plus never-ending list with pranks even for the list-item numbers, invites never-ending cruft from Anons. No serious work from registered users in 6 years. Spıke ¬ 13:06 1-Apr-13
  2. Symbol delete vote Delete. per above. --Mn-z 15:45, April 5, 2013 (UTC)
Comments
  • The start is surprisingly not too bad. The list is pretty horrendous. Unfortunately the subject matter means it will be an IP magnet and that will create an ever expanding list of bollocks. But that intro would fit well in an article on something like HowTo: Survive school. I think there are elements of this that have potential, but not enough to vote to keep.                               Puppy's talk page01:31 01 Apr 2013
  • I agree with Puppy it can be saved. Although there are huge factual inaccuracies like claiming that state schools were set up in 1977 when state schools have been with us since the Late Victorian/Edwardian Times. Sir ScottPat Icons-flag-gb Scotland Flag 1 UnS CUN VFH (talk) 12:26, April 11, 2013 (UTC)

World War II:This Time it's Personal

Score: 0
Elapsed Time: 11784 hours
Keep (2)
  1. Symbol keep vote Keep. Its fine. It parodies and mocks action-war type movies. It needs a bit of editing but that's about it. I found it funny. I'm not sure what SPIKE means by duplicate war but I think that the humour isn't as complicated as that, it just makes you laugh a bit about how Spielberg likes making war films on WW2. Sir ScottPat Icons-flag-gb Scotland Flag 1 UnS CUN VFH (talk) 12:29, April 11, 2013 (UTC)
  2. Per Brother ScottPat, he changed my unchangable mind. And I have used it once in awhile as a link, and will be forced to fix red links all the live long day if this were removed. Aleister 12:41 11-4-'13
Delete (2)
  1. Symbol delete vote Delete. apparently, we have 3 versions of this article for some reason. --Mn-z 17:41, March 25, 2013 (UTC)
  2. Symbol delete vote Delete. Okay, so the joke is, since World War II was a "duplicate war" (of World War I) (only it wasn't except in the eyes of a grade-schooler who has two more years before taking a course on World History) (or was it a duplicate Stephen Spielberg movie?) create an Uncyclopedia article "in the style of the thing it's about" by creating an arbitrary number of copies. One copy for everything the reader might search for, and then some; a brilliant alternative to the Redirect. Spıke ¬ 18:19 25-Mar-13

#War leaves a bad taste in my mouth. Someone else's intestines! Let God Sort Them Out 23:30 25-3-'13

Comments

The Second World War II

Score: 3
Elapsed Time: 11784 hours
Keep (0)

No keep votes.

Delete (3)
  1. Symbol delete vote Delete. a new clone of a the article below, this one seems a bit worse. --Mn-z 17:37, March 25, 2013 (UTC)
  2. Symbol delete vote Delete. "Uncyclopedia is a place for original comedy creations." This article even has a template ({{Merge}}), for Chrissakes, to advise the reader that it isn't one. Spıke ¬ 18:22 25-Mar-13
  3. War is unhealthy for children and other cannon fodder. General Deletion 23:27 25-3-'13
  4. Symbol delete vote Delete. Delete this one. Keep the one above. Sir ScottPat Icons-flag-gb Scotland Flag 1 UnS CUN VFH (talk) 12:31, April 11, 2013 (UTC)
Comments
  • Shall we leave the best one of these in mainspace and move it to World War II (movie)? Spıke ¬ 18:22 25-Mar-13
  • Symbol for vote For. This. You pick, but I think you already did with your voting pattern. Aleister the same as my time above

The Second World War

Score: 2
Elapsed Time: 11784 hours
Keep (0)

No keep votes.

Delete (2)
  1. Symbol delete vote Delete. more warcruft. This one is about WWII as a movie, and reads like it was written by a 10 year old. --Mn-z 17:35, March 25, 2013 (UTC)
  2. Symbol delete vote Delete. I'm sure we've already voted to delete one of these clones. NRV. (And the same delete vote on the above.)                               Puppy's talk page01:27 26 Mar 2013
  3. Symbol delete vote Delete.Exact copy of one above. Delete. Sir ScottPat Icons-flag-gb Scotland Flag 1 UnS CUN VFH (talk) 12:35, April 11, 2013 (UTC)
Comments

World War VI

Score: 2
Elapsed Time: 11785 hours
Keep (0)

No keep votes.

Delete (2)
  1. Symbol delete vote Delete. another wacky war article. This is prone to using capslock for no apparent reason. --Mn-z 17:26, March 25, 2013 (UTC)
  2. Symbol delete vote Delete. Notable as amateur fiction but certainly not as humor. The World Wars template reflects the fact that, at some point in our past, writing a new article about World War whatever was a cinch for permanence by meme (imitation). Spıke ¬ 18:11 25-Mar-13
  3. Symbol delete vote Delete. The only good bit is the Iwo Jima McDonalds flag raising picture which would be actually very funny in article on globalisation and companies gaining more power. Sir ScottPat Icons-flag-gb Scotland Flag 1 UnS CUN VFH (talk) 12:37, April 11, 2013 (UTC)
Comments
  • The others you list (as of now) are blah wars, not even worth fighting. This article seems like it had some thought into it, has lots of words and detail, its own maps apparently which follow the fighting, and might have redeeming value. I haven't read much of it, so maybe it's all jibberish under a candy covering, so for now I'll restrict this to a comment. The other ones, if you want to count my vote as a delete, please do so. Aleister 17:56 25-3-'13
    For the record, when counting, I am not going to hallucinate Aleister Delete votes onto a ballot based on discussion that occurs on some other ballot. Spıke ¬ 18:11 25-Mar-13

Archived VFD Discussions

Template:VFDarchive

Personal tools
projects