Uncyclopedia:Votes for deletion

From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia

Revision as of 13:41, August 11, 2014 by Spike (talk | contribs)

Jump to: navigation, search
Deletion Policy
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 • Poopsmithed by Expert3222 • Engineered by Pup (report bugs here)

Owain Glyndwr's Footy Manager H Archive

Score: 3
Elapsed Time: 15302 hours
Delete (3)
  1. Symbol delete vote Delete. I wouldn't mind an article on a non-existent film, just as long as it's funny. Also, the title even misspells "Glyndŵr". Believe me, they're two completely different sounds. This isn't a good omen, and it is accurate in that. ConCass2 (talk) 15:56, August 6, 2014 (UTC)
  2. Symbol delete vote Delete. Taking nominator's word that no comparable movie exists, the page title is something no one will look up unless he exactly guesses the author's joke. (On the other hand, lack of a mark from a foreign language is not a VFD offense.) So, someone made a movie about Glyndŵr, who according to the Intro is either a person or a movement; it had a lot of slapstick that plays out best in the author's mind; and the movie "is shit." Unchanged except for tweaking of lists since Picton created it in 2009. Spıke Ѧ 17:00 6-Aug-14
  3. Symbol delete vote Delete. I withdraw my vote to keep it, it would be need a lot of re-writing and it would be easier just to write a new article on Owain Glyndŵr --Steveyt0 (talk) 20:35, August 7, 2014 (UTC)
    I would be able to help write an article on Glyndŵr if you need any help. By the way, don't delete your vote if you change your mind. Just strike it out. ConCass2 (talk) 20:39, August 7, 2014 (UTC)
Keep (0)
  • Symbol keep vote Keep. I looked up Owain Glyndŵr a few days ago, and this article appears in the search box. You don't have to guess the exact name of the article to stumble across it. I think the concept is pretty funny, however it is clearly in need of editing. I feel that it can be turned into a reasonable article with a bit of tweaking. Also I believe the article is loosely based on a movie called "Mike Bassett: England Manager". The preceding unsigned comment was added by Steveyt0 (talk • contribs)
    All right, you have shown that someone might "stumble across it" — notably, someone who was trying to stumble across it; but answer the VFD question: Is it a good article? Is it funny in the least? Is it at the best name? Spıke Ѧ 16:24 7-Aug-14
    I think the concept (of Owain Glyndŵr being transported into the 21st century to coach the Welsh national football team ) is reasonably funny, however I do not think it's a "good" article as it is, I think it would need substantial editing. There is very little funny about the article other than the concept, I would suggest that it should perhaps be completely re-written. I would move the article to "Owain Glyndŵr", he is well known inside Wales, he's the Welsh equivalent of William Wallace. I don't find it unlikely that Welsh people might search for him, I did --Steveyt0 (talk) 20:18, August 7, 2014 (UTC)

Svelvik H Archive

Score: 4
Elapsed Time: 15254 hours
Delete (4)
  1. I personally think this can go, maybe there is a joke I do not understand, maybe there isn't. All I can say is that not even the other Uncyclopedia wanted it and that's saying something. I don't know maybe I just do not understand the article. What do you guys think? HoratioMan64 (talk) 16:19, August 8, 2014 (UTC)
  2. Symbol delete vote Delete. Written to inform, not to amuse. Wikipedia says that Svelvik is in Vestfold County, Norway, not of urgent interest to our readership. Much of the humor is in Norse, and the part that is in English is not in good English. No one here will know enough about Svelvik to repair this article or even to know what jokes might be made about Svelvik. Spıke Ѧ 17:27 8-Aug-14
  3. Symbol delete vote Delete. An example (and there are many here) of articles that basically say 'this town/city/etc etc' is shit. End of story. --LaurelsRomArtus*Imperator ITRA (Orate) ® 20:50, August 8, 2014 (UTC)
  4. Symbol delete vote Delete. I don't understand it either --Steveyt0 (talk) 00:44, August 9, 2014 (UTC)
Keep (0)

No keep votes.


🔒 Preteen H T D Survivor Oldvfd Archive

Score: 0 • voting closed
Elapsed Time: 15254 hours
Delete (3)
  1. Okay, last article for today I shall nominate. This isn't an article about Preteens in general, it's just an article about preteen girls. There's also too many rape jokes and..well..maybe I'm just boring, but I don't see what's so funny about this article. This needs to go. That's all I can say. There is also a picture of a young teenage girl in a bikini and rather questionable pictures of young girls, You can tell there's a problem HoratioMan64 (talk) 16:31, August 8, 2014 (UTC)
  2. It looks like a 70s pop star wrote an article. Whatever it is, it must be Symbol delete vote gone. ConCass2 (talk) 16:58, August 8, 2014 (UTC)
  3. Symbol delete vote Delete. I agree that the images are inappropriate, as is the general theme of the article, for this reason im voting delete --Steveyt0 (talk) 00:48, August 9, 2014 (UTC)
Keep (3)
  1. Symbol keep vote Keep. Not delete-worthy! It has many comedy strategies other than predation. These include: The vague and conflicting definition of the age range; manipulative marketing to children; and pre-teen girls' naive obsession with fashion and acceptance. Reference to Tolkien's Lord of the 'Tweens with an actual passage from the trilogy was clever. Any article with this title will attract prurient edits; the usual remedy is to clean up the article, not delete it entirely. I'm happy to see pre-teen sexuality de-emphasized (though Pedobear should continue to get a cameo appearance). The article points to Preteen slut, which is much worse and ready to be nominated. Spıke Ѧ 17:23 8-Aug-14
  2. Symbol keep vote Keep. Not a feature but not too bad to get dumped in my view. --LaurelsRomArtus*Imperator ITRA (Orate) ® 20:52, August 8, 2014 (UTC)
  3. PurpleDickVote Boner. Keep for the sake of keeping uncy uncy. Aleister 23:34 9=8=14
  • I see your point, Spike, but the thing is, the article, like I said earlier, is just about preteen girls, not preteens in general. No matter how many edits or cleanups may be made, It still seems rather off. I am also very concerned about the crude images being used there. Like ConCass mentioned earlier, an article with the title "Preteens" would make the reader expect an article about children showing off their "swag" and "style" and getting on the #YOLO bandwagon. Whilst it mentions the references to Twilight and the jokes about "Lord of the tweens", an awful lot of the article has references to rape and the vast majority of the article talks about sexuality. I forgot to point all this out, but then again, a vote is a vote HoratioMan64 (talk) 18:31, August 8, 2014 (UTC)
    A vote is not a vote. Granted that I haven't convinced you; but if I had, you are free to strike out your remarks and flip your vote; see the top of the page. Spıke Ѧ 18:35 8-Aug-14
    Thanks for the advice, well actually I meant "a Vote is a Vote" in regards to "You have the right to vote" not "I hate you please agree with me". Sorry If my response to your vote was rather harsh. By the way, You can also nominate that article you believed was ready for nomination, sounds awful enough.HoratioMan64 (talk) 18:39, August 8, 2014 (UTC)
    No, I didn't take it harshly, but "a vote is a vote" did and does seem to mean you can't flip your vote, whereas we do all the time. Spıke Ѧ 19:17 8-Aug-14
  • Upon further inspection I see what you mean about preteen girls as opposed to preteens in general. Normally, I'd expect an article on little kids who like to show their swag and style. This is just fucking weird. ConCass2 (talk) 17:01, August 8, 2014 (UTC)
  • Renamed from Preteens (the plural will still work). I toned down the child-molestation humor but have not actually viewed any of the illustrations. 14:53 9-Aug-14 Now I have. Yikes. Have removed one from the site entirely as suggesting child sex, incompatible with our Terms of Use, and having no inherent comedy justification; and have rearranged the others. A photo of smokestacks with a really clever caption might be funnier. Spıke Ѧ 03:44 10-Aug-14

Preteen slut H Archive

Score: 6 • voting closed
Elapsed Time: 15243 hours
Delete (7)
  1. Symbol delete vote Delete. I mentioned this during the balloting of Preteen. Incessant rambling obviously motivated not by the desire to amuse the reader but by an infatuation with sex with children. Spıke Ѧ 03:21 9-Aug-14
  2. Symbol delete vote Delete. Good Heavens, what is the world coming to? This can leave HoratioMan64 (talk) 06:57, August 9, 2014 (UTC)
  3. Symbol delete vote Delete. Highly inappropriate --Steveyt0 (talk) 16:45, August 9, 2014 (UTC)
  4. Symbol delete vote Delete. Just bad. --LaurelsRomArtus*Imperator ITRA (Orate) ® 17:03, August 9, 2014 (UTC)
  5. Symbol delete vote Delete. There are much worse articles out there, but this still isn't good enough to keep. ConCass2 (talk) 11:16, August 10, 2014 (UTC)
  6. Symbol delete vote Delete. (See my comment for the reasons.) Oh yes, I think we are talking about different articles. Aleister, maybe you were referring to Preteen which was written by Miley? Anton (talk) 17:23, August 10, 2014 (UTC)
  7. Symbol delete vote Delete. Compares Hollywood stardom at a young age to slutdom. Does not get much further than that, and didn't make me laugh. Useful as social commentary perhaps, but not humor. -- Simsilikesims(♀GUN) Talk here. 10:45, August 11, 2014 (UTC)
Keep (1)
  1. Sigh. Has uncy become an unthinking and unreading nanny state??? This page is a feature worthy satire about all the films in which Hollywood and other perverts made films about young girls that other perverts would like to have sex with. It's a satire on an entre genre, is well written, and makes its intended case very well. For new users, this page was written by a woman, a very talented writer named Miley Spears. If we huff this, good heavens, what is the world of uncy coming to? Aleister 23:30 9=8=14
    Hi. Horatio, I apologize about my last comments, kind of harsh. I was just blowing off steam at what I see as a cultural shift here which hurts the purpose of the wiki. I'll comment about this nommed page as the case in point. The author of the piece is a user named User:Miley Spears. Please study her page and links. She is a young woman herself, not very far removed from the pre-teen years (at least it appears so), and she wrote a wonderful satire which is a "turn it on its head" satire. The page means the opposite of what it says. She shows us that Hollywood has had a long term run of presenting young girls as sexual objects. That's a history which Miley Spears (and her name itself should give us a clue as to her awareness of society's focus on youth sexuality) - finds reprehensible. That's the theme of the page. To push what they've done into the reader's face, to shove it in there so deep, to show them, from their own disgust, just how reprehensible the practice comes across to Miley. Being a good satire writer she, through the vehicle of satire, is able to make the reader aware of this reprehensible pattern which is seldom talked about in polite society. That's what uncy is for, regarding some aspects of writing, to offer a place for authors to play in which publishes articles like this which serve exactly the purpose that they were written for. That's my personal take on it, and the author, who no longer writes here (a loss to us) may or may not agree with me. I think she would. So could you please at least read the page again from that point-of-view, and see if it at least is as valid as your present point-of-view. Thanks man, and my apologies again. Aleister 3:14 10-8-14
  • I'm afraid I'll vote against it. The author of the article is not Miley Spears but another person and her contributions to the article were not very significant, so that she doesn't even mention it on her user page. I wouldn't have noticed the Hollywood criticism aspect without Aleister's explanation, and to be honest I still don't notice it. What I notice is that the author (not Miley Spears) has a strange obsession with sex positions, which include children and that he is trying to rewrite various movie scripts to include sex with children. I don't see how this makes fun of anything. I don't understand how this is feature-worthy material. Aleister, it seems like we're talking about different articles here. Anton (talk) 17:21, August 10, 2014 (UTC)
  • I will leave this open a little longer, as I've asked Simsie for her opinion, based on her knowledge of the website's history, of popular culture, and of how to offend and how not to. Spıke Ѧ 01:26 11-Aug-14

HowTo:Write a Country Song H T D Survivor Tag article

Score: 1
Elapsed Time: 15209 hours
Delete (1)
  1. Symbol delete vote Delete. A ranty retelling of the same stereotypes of the Southern United States. It might be possible to write this with cleverness. Spıke Ѧ 12:56 10-Aug-14
Keep (0)

No keep votes.

  • The article can be redeemed, if we remove the excess insults (the first are funny, but there is far too much). ConCass2 (talk) 20:48, August 10, 2014 (UTC)

Soggy crackers H Archive

Score: 2
Elapsed Time: 15197 hours
Delete (2)
  1. Symbol delete vote Delete. A ramble about a random subject; followed by listcruft. The work of an Anon who did not even know how to code his lists correctly. I already reverted this back to 2009 (then added the recent interwiki to the Chinese); this is before someone converted it to a springboard to several YouTube videos. Spıke Ѧ 01:36 11-Aug-14
  2. Symbol delete vote Delete. I agree with the dog with the stick. The one liners aren't funny, and are glaring one liners. Not even hidden. Rocketsled (talk) 03:04, August 11, 2014 (UTC)
Keep (0)

No keep votes.


Need For Speed H T D Survivor Tag article

Score: 0
Elapsed Time: 15195 hours
Delete (1)
  1. Symbol delete vote Delete. I Like the Need for Speed series, And I found this page and thought I could save it. However, After pouring a lot of time into it, I've realized a) I have other things to do and b) Nobody else wants to help the page. It hadn't been edited in a long time. It is massively better than it was before, but I am not funny enough so it is still an unexceptional article. I also think nobody has any interest in it and nobody would actually look at it. Instead of marking for maintenance I'm voting it for deletion, because the obvious solution for funnyness, Need for Weed, Is yet another drug joke and gets old. I don't think its worthy of being saved, and is just a black mark on the glory of uncyclopedia. Rant over. Rocketsled (talk) 02:48, August 11, 2014 (UTC)
Keep (1)
  1. Symbol keep vote Keep. As I say on nominator's talk page, I feel he is halfway through his first major article repair and opened this ballot out of frustration. He has improved the article, understands exactly why the repair is not complete, and is exactly the Uncyclopedian to complete it. "Massively better than it was before" is the usual definition of a successful day at VFD. Spıke Ѧ 13:41 11-Aug-14

Personal tools