Uncyclopedia:Votes for deletion

From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia

(Redirected from Vote for deletion)
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 Llwy-ar-lawr • Engineered by Pup (report bugs here)

Vietnamese H Archive

Score: 5 • voting closed
Elapsed Time: 143 hours
Delete (5)
  1. Symbol delete vote Delete. A bunch of pornographic content and a few sentences about how the Chinese are better than the Vietnamese. --Precious Star (talk) 17:44, November 20, 2014 (UTC)
  2. Symbol delete vote Delete. Not an "encyclopedia article" but a pictorial essay, to make the unfunny assertion that the Vietnamese are whores. Spıke ¬ 18:05 20-Nov-14
  3. Symbol delete vote Delete. Words cannot describe just how terrible this article is. So, it's pretty bad. ConCass2 (talk) 19:39, November 20, 2014 (UTC)
  4. Symbol delete vote Delete. Just when you think all the ancient junk has gone...this one pops up! --LaurelsRomArtus*Imperator ITRA (Orate) ® 22:43, November 21, 2014 (UTC)
  5. An attempt to look nice at the expense of anything remotely intelligent. -– Llwy-ar-lawr talk contribs 00:02 22 Nov 2014
Keep (0)

No keep votes.


Chav/Translations H Archive

Score: 5 • voting closed
Elapsed Time: 119 hours
Delete (5)
  1. Symbol delete vote Delete. I don't think this is particularly funny or worth keeping. Anton (talk) Uncyclopedia United 17:28, November 21, 2014 (UTC)
  2. Symbol delete vote Delete. Various editors (overwhelmingly Anons) have used this overlong list to catalog the "funny" things that chavs say rather than write original humor. Spıke ¬ 17:52 21-Nov-14
  3. Symbol delete vote Delete. The same joke repeated hundreds of times --Precious Star (talk) 19:26, November 21, 2014 (UTC)
  4. Symbol delete vote Delete. Flypaper. --LaurelsRomArtus*Imperator ITRA (Orate) ® 22:46, November 21, 2014 (UTC)
  5. Can't tell if all this stuff is even about chavs at all. In any case, it's not of much use. -– Llwy-ar-lawr talk contribs 00:06 22 Nov 2014
Keep (0)

No keep votes.


SEHS H T D Survivor

Score: 3
Elapsed Time: 91 hours
Delete (3)
  1. Symbol delete vote Delete. SEHS being "Sudden Head Exploding Syndrome," a Wacky Ailment with which to piggyback off A splode in this article from 2005, which has little to say about the ailment no one will look up except that it runs in things — and American politicians — the authors don't happen to like. Before deleting the external links, I didn't follow them, so I can't say whether this entire Syndrome was invented at an external website, as our recent "Dihydrogen monoxide" was. Spıke ¬ 21:15 22-Nov-14
  2. Unlike Dihydrogen monoxide, this doesn't deserve an article. -– Llwy-ar-lawr talk contribs 00:13 23 Nov 2014
  3. Symbol delete vote Delete. It's not terrible, but it's not good either. --Pwn head Sir Xam Ralco the Mediocre 02:22, November 23, 2014 (UTC)
Keep (0)

No keep votes.


Sudden Instant Death Syndrome H Archive

Score: 5 • voting closed
Elapsed Time: 88 hours
Delete (5)
  1. From the redundant and made-up title to the random lists of nonsensical items such as masturbating kittens, this article is about essentially nothing. -– Llwy-ar-lawr talk contribs 00:25 23 Nov 2014
  2. Symbol delete vote Delete. Dead Baby Humor has to be especially good to be funny. This article, by comparison, uses most of the trite themes in the book: Author discussing himself, author apparently with A.D.D., "nobody knows anything," listcruft, memecruft, history-of-the-future, and another list of Notable Sufferers, inviting cyberbullying and not being disappointed in the response. Spıke ¬ 01:16 23-Nov-14
  3. Symbol delete vote Delete. Stupid. --Pwn head Sir Xam Ralco the Mediocre 02:14, November 23, 2014 (UTC)
  4. Symbol delete vote Delete. HowTo:Not write an article ~Sir Frosty (Talk to me!) Icons-flag-au 06:04, November 24, 2014 (UTC)
  5. Symbol delete vote Delete. Not funny at all. Newman66 Visit my table here! Contributions My works 23:54, November 24, 2014 (UTC)
Keep (0)

No keep votes.

  • It hardly discusses babies anyway. Only two paragraphs at the end. -– Llwy-ar-lawr talk contribs 01:30 23 Nov 2014

🔒 Samuel L. Vacuum H T D Survivor Oldvfd Archive

Score: 1 • voting closed
Elapsed Time: 88 hours
Delete (3)
  1. Article begins with an unimpressive sentence, explains in tedious detail why said unimpressive sentence is a comedic masterpiece, and ends with a gratuitous instance of {{USERNAME}}. Was voted onto the front page by a group of editors who are mostly no longer here. -– Llwy-ar-lawr talk contribs 00:32 23 Nov 2014
  2. Symbol delete vote Navelism. Yes, it was a feature, a VFD moved to VFH by fallen-away editors who reveled in their freedom to feature a thoroughly bad article. That was not amusing the reader but self-amusement, a prank not a joke, and that goes for the article as well. No one will look for this transformation of Samuel L. Jackson's name, no one will laugh at the emphasis on Jackson's blackness, and after that sentence, no one will enjoy author's essay about trying to write an article. Spıke ¬ 01:21 23-Nov-14
  3. Symbol delete vote Delete. Considering that there are already two save votes, this article probably won't go. But I reckon that this article would be much funnier if it were actually about Samuel L Vacuum as opposed to plain navelism along the lines of "here's why it's funny". ConCass2 (talk) 11:26, November 23, 2014 (UTC)
    It was about Samuel L. Vacuum before it was rewritten to be about how terrible that concept was; see Comments. -– Llwy-ar-lawr talk contribs 17:03 23 Nov 2014
Keep (2)
  1. Symbol keep vote A Classic. Hilarious and clever. This is not about writing an Uncyclopedia article. It's a parody of comedy writing in general and critique of the overuse of memes in place of actual jokes. This was one of the first articles I read on Uncyclopedia and one of the first to get me interested in this site, so I would think that there are others who find it amusing as well. --Pwn head Sir Xam Ralco the Mediocre 02:21, November 23, 2014 (UTC)
    Mocking bad writing by imitating it simply produces a bad page. Your apparent knowledge of the point of this pointless article is not evident by reading the article. Spıke ¬ 14:36 23-Nov-14
  2. Symbol keep vote New low. Deleting featured articles? Petty petty. I don't particularly like it but enough people voted for it to highlight the site that you can't outright delete it. --Nikau (talk) 06:28, November 23, 2014 (UTC)
    Some featured articles can be utter shite. This one isn't terrible, but if it was exactly as it is now and didn't have the "featured" at the top, it would be VFD material. ConCass2 (talk) 11:26, November 23, 2014 (UTC)
    This vote ought to be disregarded because it is based not on the quality of the article, but on an objection to the policy. -– Llwy-ar-lawr talk contribs 17:02 23 Nov 2014
    More problematic is disparaging fellow voters ("Petty petty"), a trend I thought had stopped when Shabidoo threw his Wikia pass-key down the gutter. However, you started it with the comment below, which suggests that a goal was to purge the site of a specific author. I famously enforce civility not with creative vote counting but with the ban-stick. Spıke ¬ 17:25 23-Nov-14
    I find it ironic that you would call Nikau's comment one that disparages other users and at the same time call my opinion of the article "apparent knowledge" that "is not evident by reading the article." That's a tad belittling, wouldn't you say? --Pwn head Sir Xam Ralco the Mediocre 21:17, November 23, 2014 (UTC)
    No I wouldn't, not ironic, not disparaging, and not belittling. I asserted that your statement about the point of the article is not evident from reading the article, that's all. Spıke ¬ 22:18 23-Nov-14
  • While it was created by Evilcorporatemetaljesus, it was rewritten by Mrmonkey72. Adding this because its original creator was mentioned in another discussion as having written this and other poor-quality articles. -– Llwy-ar-lawr talk contribs 00:40 23 Nov 2014
  • The current policy at Uncyclopedia is to protect featured articles. If anyone feels strongly about this then a forum can be created to discuss it there. --LaurelsRomArtus*Imperator ITRA (Orate) ® 21:36, November 23, 2014 (UTC)
  • 24 hours hasn't yet elapsed. Other articles are allowed more time; shouldn't this stay open a tad longer? -– Llwy-ar-lawr talk contribs 23:11 23 Nov 2014
FA's don't go to VFD; that is a long standing policy. This matter can be discussed in a forum if required. I would vote to keep this one regardless as evidently lots of people found it funny at one point. --ChiefjusticeGameCube 11:39, November 24, 2014 (UTC)
Personal tools