Uncyclopedia:Votes for deletion

From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia

(Redirected from Vfd)
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.

Contents

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 VFD-padlock Closed nomination 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.

Dementia

Score: 3
Elapsed Time: 15 hours
Keep (0)

No keep votes.

Delete (3)
  1. Symbol delete vote Delete.--M floatyI floatyM floatyO floaty 20:36, May 17, 2013 (UTC)
  2. Symbol delete vote Delete. Start over. This article, if done right, should be more than an excuse to dabble in incoherency. Spıke ¬ 22:50 17-May-13
  3. Symbol delete vote Delete. It could be funny but terrible grammar (as you can see even I noticed it) and the absence of any other jokes except for memory loss spoil everything. Anton (talk) 12:31, May 18, 2013 (UTC)
Comments

It's not encyclopedic but still kind of funny. I'm abstaining. Sir ScottPat White Ensign Scotland Flag 1 Compassrose CUN VFH UnS (talk) 20:39, May 17, 2013 (UTC)

People's Glorious Republic of Uukumbamabahalarata

Score: 3
Elapsed Time: 17 hours
Keep (0)

No keep votes.

Delete (3)
  1. Symbol delete vote Delete. This article from 2005 is a receptacle for whatever unclever Randumbo you want to type. Spıke ¬ 19:14 17-May-13
  2. Symbol delete vote Delete. A completely fictional country where all the Uncyclopedia (worst) jokes are situated. In addition to this, it is impossible to pronounce the article's name. Its creator wanted to make a parody on an average African country but didn't really achieve this. Anton (talk) 19:18, May 17, 2013 (UTC)
    Yup; and the right way to do this and maintain our encyclopedia façade is to pick a country and parody it. Only, that constrains the author to parody something real, rather than go completely freestyle. Spıke ¬ 19:52 17-May-13
  3. Symbol delete vote Delete. Awful. Why don't they ever learn what encyclopedic means. Sir ScottPat White Ensign Scotland Flag 1 Compassrose CUN VFH UnS (talk) 20:23, May 17, 2013 (UTC)
Comments

Finnegans Wake

Score: 1
Elapsed Time: 44 hours
Keep (2)
  1. Symbol keep vote Keep. It's written in the same style as Finnegan's Wake is. In that respect, it's funny. -- HIPSTER T)alk C)untributions B)an 15:09, May 17, 2013 (UTC)
  2. WWJJD? -- Sir Mhaille Icons-flag-gb (talk to me)
Delete (3)
  1. Symbol delete vote Delete. Multilingual gibberish (by 2005 editors, then Matthlock), apropos of nothing. Spıke ¬ 15:36 16-May-13
  2. Symbol delete vote Delete. Just seeing that the first word has no capital letter is bad enough!!! Absolute gibberish. Sir ScottPat White Ensign Scotland Flag 1 Compassrose CUN VFH UnS (talk) 15:46, May 16, 2013 (UTC)
    This stuff is easily fixed, and a page-in-the-style-of-the-thing-it's-about is appropriate. But James Joyce's prose, though "experimental," was not gibberish. I'd vote to defend deliberate, clever gibberish as satire of real gibberish; the present article is just a sandbox. Spıke ¬ 16:43 16-May-13
    I have to admit I know nothing about the topic and simply judged by first read. Didn't realise it was a satire of someone's book. My point stands that it still is a bit random. Sir ScottPat White Ensign Scotland Flag 1 Compassrose CUN VFH UnS (talk) 17:05, May 16, 2013 (UTC)
  3. Symbol delete vote Delete. I would certainly vote for the deletion of this article if Hipster didn't put his comment which forced me to type "Finnegan's Wake" in Google. Now I understand that it is a parody on the book. However, I still vote for its deletion as this article is still "multilingual rubbish". Its concept was not realized. Article on "J.D. Sallinger" is also a parody on Sallinger's writing style but it is very interesting and funny to read. Finally, the Russian sentence did not make any grammatical sense. Maybe Uncyclopedia needs an article on Finnegan's Wake but definitely not this. Anton (talk) 12:25, May 18, 2013 (UTC)
Comments

Check If You Are The Polackophob!

Score: 1
Elapsed Time: 72 hours
Keep (0)

No keep votes.

Delete (1)
  1. Symbol delete vote Delete. Ranty stereotypes about Poles and their diaspora is disguised as a self-test to reveal the same (certainly not disguised as an encyclopedia article, in which the same stereotypes could be made funny with a little work). An early and ill-advised work of veteran Uncyclopedian Ptok-Bentoniczny. Spıke ¬ 11:39 15-May-13
  2. Symbol delete vote Delete. I can think of a many more much funnier ways of making fun of Polish people that don't involve thinking that they are all Jewish. As for lists... Sir ScottPat White Ensign Scotland Flag 1 Compassrose CUN VFH UnS (talk) 15:24, May 17, 2013 (UTC)
Comments

Worst 100 Ways of Being a Dick

Score: 3
Elapsed Time: 96 hours
Keep (0)

No keep votes.

Delete (3)
  1. Symbol delete vote Delete. This page can amuse in two ways: (1) Let Anon name a playground pal who is a dick, and (2) let Anon name an opposition politician who is a dick. Amusing to the hack editor and of no benefit to the reader; this is why we strive against listcruft in general. Spıke ¬ 11:37 14-May-13
  2. Symbol delete vote Delete. The list is too long to be read carefully, in addition to this it is not funny at all. Anton (talk) 15:15, May 14, 2013 (UTC)
    I endorse this comment on Anton's talk page but note that it is hardly unique to this article. Spıke ¬ 16:43 16-May-13
  3. Symbol delete vote Delete.If there was a vote for execution then this so-called article would be number one on my list and number one of the list of my new article: 100 ways of writing dickish articles, which I made up just now after seeing this. I'm surprised that the article itself wasn't on the list. It's mutilated head should be displayed on the main page as a warning to any IP vandals popping by. Sir ScottPat White Ensign Scotland Flag 1 Compassrose CUN VFH UnS (talk) 15:21, May 14, 2013 (UTC)
Comments

Agent 47

Score: 6
Elapsed Time: 135 hours
Keep (0)
  • Keep It is a good article for showing new users what not to do with an article and how not to create an article. It's got a gay attack, it's got really long, useless lists, the agent is an idiot and he is the reader (insults), the agent has auper powers, it's completely off topic and no one would type in Agent 47. The only thing it doesn't have is swearing (didn't see any) but some edits could take care of that. Just move the article to a more appropriate name like, "Article that wants to be deleted" or "Agent 47's vandal attack on an Uncyclopedia article" and you have a good parody. I laughed lots because it was so bad I had to accept that it was a parody of a bad article (which it wasn't (I don't think)).
    If you also agree that it should be a parody of an appaling Uncyclopedia article just tell me and I'll give it some minor editing to finish it. Sir ScottPat White Ensign Scotland Flag 1 Compassrose CUN VFH UnS (talk) 17:54, May 13, 2013 (UTC)
    You had me going back to the page history (as nominator is supposed to do!) to ensure that this isn't a deliberate creation of one of the Old Ones that parodied bad writing so well as to prank Rocko. It is not. Please don't spend much time doing deliberately bad writing. There is enough of this already on the site, much of it referred to at Uncyclopedia:In-jokes. Spıke ¬ 21:20 13-May-13
    In that case I shall change my vote. Sir ScottPat White Ensign Scotland Flag 1 Compassrose CUN VFH UnS (talk) 14:21, May 14, 2013 (UTC)
Delete (6)
  1. Symbol delete vote Delete. Crimes against humor —The preceding unsigned comment was added by RockoRocks (talk • contribs)
  2. Symbol delete vote Delete. A tour-de-force of everything people do who can't write humor: Article about nothing, serial listing of memes, pranking the reader with {{USERNAME}} (though author mistakenly uses {{USERLINK}}), mentioning gayness and gore for instant laughs, then interminable lists on needless topics such as "people he murdered." Spıke ¬ 21:16 12-May-13
  3. Symbol delete vote Delete. Eye-gougingly bad. Sir Reverend P. Pennyfeather (fancy a chat?) CUN VFH 16:14, May 13, 2013 (UTC)
  4. Symbol delete vote Delete. There are already numerous examples of what not to do with an article on carlb's mirror, and this belongs in that archive along with numerous VFD non-survivors already there. ---- Simsilikesims(♀UN) Talk here. 01:44, May 14, 2013 (UTC)
  5. Symbol delete vote Delete.. Sir ScottPat White Ensign Scotland Flag 1 Compassrose CUN VFH UnS (talk) 14:21, May 14, 2013 (UTC)
  6. Symbol delete vote Delete. This is the article which no one will read until the end simply because it talks about everything at the same time (which means that it talks about nothing in particular). No idea why it was named Agent 47. Not well written. Anton (talk) 15:11, May 14, 2013 (UTC)
Comments

Feroze & Suleiman

Score: 3
Elapsed Time: 252 hours
Keep (1)
  1. Symbol keep vote Keep. This article is okay, yet needs tidying in the quotes dept. later on and a few minor changes to get readers to go 'aha, this is a bunch of bollocks!'. I don't see this as a vanity article as, well, the company clearly doesn't exist. --TheDarthMoogle (talk) 08:52, May 9, 2013 (UTC)
    The fact that the company doesn't exist is the very proof that authors are not writing about anything but themselves, that is, vanity. Spıke ¬ 11:31 9-May-13
Delete (4)
  1. Symbol delete vote Delete. This article is not poorly written; but Google has only two exact matches for this alleged consultancy: We are the first, and the second is a stub article at a business locator that "located" this business through Uncyclopedia. Codeine's Mum never worked there. It's a vanity project of a small clique. Spıke ¬ 23:56 7-May-13
  2. Symbol delete vote Delete. Concur. --LaurelsRomArtus*Imperator ITRA (Orate) ® 13:48, May 9, 2013 (UTC)
  3. Symbol delete vote Delete. I agree with Spike as I saw Codeine's Mum the other day and she said she hadn't heard of it. Also why are the staff members the KKK? Random and pointless.Sir ScottPat White Ensign Scotland Flag 1 Compassrose CUN VFH UnS (talk) 05:49, May 10, 2013 (UTC)
  4. Symbol delete vote Delete. Shame someone wasted so much time on it. Sir Reverend P. Pennyfeather (fancy a chat?) CUN VFH 16:14, May 13, 2013 (UTC)
Comments

Archived VFD Discussions

Recently Archived Votes: v - e

261 - 262 - 263 - 264 - 265 - 266 - 267 - 268
269 - 270 - 271 - 272 - 273

Retrieved from "http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/Uncyclopedia:Votes_for_deletion?oldid=5692859"
Personal tools
projects
Stillwaters chronarion.org