Why?:Qwertyuiop should be deleted?
From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia.
“Why God Why?”
~ God on this article and qwertyuiop
“In Soviet Russia, unfunny article deletes YOU!! ”
~ Soviet Russia on deleting Qwertyuiop
As we all know Uncyclopedia has many articles, some good, some bad, some infamous, yet not all articles fit into these categories. qwertyuiop is one of these articles, and so we enter the article Why Qwertyuiop should be deleted
Contents |
[edit] It's Fucking Bollocks
It's not even funny!!
[edit] The Bleeding Obvious
Like many articles with No Redeeming Value it has one of those NRV template thingies attached to the page. This means that people have to add or completely rewrite the article to make it good. Yet we know that many articles never receive this loving treatment and will end up being huffed.
[edit] Removing the Evidence
Since this page will be linked to the other one it will become necessary to delete this one. It could be because it is unoriginal, or because it is plainly not funny. But the taint of this article will be on this poor page and we will have to put it out of it's misery. It's so sad isn't it?
[edit] Funnyness rating
We may also find that Qwertyuiop will never be seen again because it, like this article, is not funny, and may be just stupid.
- The main article that defines how funny an article is can be found here.
Let us see how bad this article truly is...
Q: Is it a long and clever article?
A: No it is not, it is short and stupid.
Q: Does it contain any of the basic techniques of humour (or humor) writing?
A: We need to look at the types of humour techniques before answering this question:
- Repetition This article does not contain any repetition at all.
- Misdirection No, this article does not contain any misdirection at all, or any more refined version of repetition.
- Escalation Once again this article does not start out "normal" and go into the "absurd". It does however start out absurd and does not do anything better.
- Repetition This article does not contain any repetition at all.
- Being Self-referential Definitely not.
- Understatement None present
- Reversal Probably reversed itself.
- Repetition This article does not contain any repetition at all.
- Circularity Nope, although I do suggest that you see the next point.
- Being Circular See above
- Be silly about serious things This article is not serious
- Being serious about silly things This article is silly but not serious about it.
- The Straight Man This article was ridiculous the whole way through? I never noticed...
- Write in a Consistent Style FINALLY SOMETHING REDEEMING. Seems that User:Crazymelon, who has no userpage, pretty much wrote the entire thing except for a poor joke about the keyboard which was added by an IP.
So if we look at all the facts, qwertyuiop scored err... let's see... carry the two... aha, 1 out of a possible 14. So we see this article has NRV.
Q: Is this incoherent piece of crap consistent A: From the small amount of research, it can be concluded that it actually is. It is a stupid piece of crap that is coherent.
Q:Was time spent on this article? A: It seems so... *sigh*
Q: Does it invoke the 'The "@#$%^&*" Rule'? A: Well the first profanity is in the second line, possible scatological humour in the fourth and a rather poor gay joke in the second section, point 2.
Q: Does it contain clichés? A: The number of members in the band (27,981), might be a ridiculous number, especially when the article previously stated, and I quote:
“The band contains a full orchestra,...”
~ I on this article
And the number is clearly more then a full orchestra.
Q: Any "stagnant jokes" A: Nope.
Q: Plagiarism? A: No
Q: In-jokes? A: None, not a single mention of Euroipods, Uncyclopedia is the Worst or anything like that.
Q: Pictures? A: No pictures are on this page.
Q: Any Bias? A: No noticeable bias.
Q: Use of Sarcasm? A: Well the page is full of sarcasm...
Q: Any 'in the style of...? A: No
Q: Any Advice? A: Yeah; don't write stupid articles like this.
As we can see the article has some qualities, but anything that redeems it is minor and not useful.
[edit] Reading of things
Although we don't know we can possible conclude that the author(s) did not read the Uncyclopedia:Beginner's Guide to Being an Uncyclopedian
[edit] The Conclusion
We can clearly conclude that this article will be huffed immediately and that this article too shall be deleted.
| Why? This article is part of Uncyclopedia's Why? series. See more Why's? |
