Uncyclopedia:Pages for deletion/archive35

• it's very heavy-handed in it's bias but it's funny in places and well written. leave. - jack mort | cun | f@h | talk - - 21:13, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

• -1; I was all set to redeem this from NRV, but sadly could not find a logical enough reason to. --DWIII OUN CUN 03:51, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
• Exactly. Destroy. ~ Ghelæ ^talk_contribs 15:23, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
• Bomb. "Bushian logic is a feeble attempt at biased politicals humor" ~Cap'n SimzorzAr, Matey! 15:30, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
• Axe it. --George VI 01:11, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

• Huffed in a puff of logic. --DW ^III 05:53, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

• I put this up for VFD a while back, and Famine nuked it. It's also been recreated earlier today. It's long, which is why I hesitate just to delort without democracy. You know... for a change. —Hinoa KUN (talk) 22:35, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
• I've asked this question before, but, '...are there any good vanity pages?' Their creater (the vaniter) must not care too much, because a vanity page always reads poorly and looks like crap, and us (as vanitees) have no reason to read them at all. Modusoperandi 22:58, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

• I have no qualms about insta-huffing such a page, and banning the user for recreating it. I also have a lump of burned kitten for a heart. Sir Famine, Gun ♣ Petition » 01:10, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Cool. —Hinoa KUN (talk) 04:04, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

• Huff? Smells like vanity, author is invited to do some splaining. --Splaka 09:01, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

• Mhaille got it. Voting closed. —Hinoa KUN (talk) 13:06, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

• Made obsolete by the stronger and fitter Unstory. And it's hardly ever edited. And nowhere links to it. • Spang • UotF | talk • 03:32, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
• —Hinoa KUN (talk) 13:07, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete or redirect. --Hindleyite | PL | CUN | Converse 13:13, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
• Just demolish. ~ Ghelæ ^talk_contribs 15:07, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Huffed by Famine, the junkie.--<<>> 22:54, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

• Stupid and useless --ZB 01:25, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
• And not funny, either. —Hinoa KUN (talk) 02:38, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and meeeeeeeeeeeeeerge. ~ Ghelæ ^talk_contribs 15:05, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

• This should be merged with Google. --Sbluen 02:54, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
• I agree. ~ Ghelæ ^talk_contribs 15:05, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
• I support the merging, as long as it's with Google_(company) --L 16:27, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
• Kept, with a merge tag. Also, Zombie, be glad Gwax is on vacation, as he would have given you a 12-year ban for listing this here without putting a VFD tag on it.--<<>> 23:04, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

• Yet another article I don't think meets the criteria for deletion. SOME people would find this funny, though I don't myself.--<<>> 14:38, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Just needs {{expansion}} ~ T. (talk) 14:42, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Good as is. I'll vote for deletion in another month or two after people ruin it. Sir Famine, Gun ♣ Petition » 13:35, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep, may deal with its crappiness someday. - Sir Sikon [formerly known as Guest] 17:24, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
• It's worth a chuckle. A bit of expanding might be in order. maidenpriest 03:09, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

• ~ŞÇ14:26, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Sbluen 14:31, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• ~ Ghelæ ^talk_contribs 15:10, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• I would have NRV'd this. —Hinoa KUN (talk) 17:19, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

• Its a funny concept, along with Wife 2.0, and Girlfriend 0.9beta. but...I could go either way. --HP talk 18:16, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Kept 9 votes, at +1, this probably isn't going anywhere. I DID add an {{expansion}}, however.--<<>> 22:56, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

• I already removed the massive quote-spamming the author did, adding "Robert Johnson Quotes" on a dozen or so pages. With those crappy quotes gone, I see little reason to keep this page around. Sir Famine, Gun ♣ Petition » 13:34, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
• Definately. ~ Ghelæ ^talk_contribs 13:41, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
• It's just stupid and not funny. --Bleachie talc 14:31, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Huffed. Potentially good topic, but random words doesn't equal funny.--<<>> 15:08, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

See, if I was an admin, I could just delete weak shit like this without having to put it here. FreeMorpheme 16:45, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

• Demolish. ~ Ghelæ ^talk_contribs 17:32, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
• Quote: "Hence, this must be all a pile of shit." Agreed. --Hindleyite | PL | CUN | Converse 17:43, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

• Removed VFD. Listen folks, don't try to get rid of stuff quickly just by voting on it here. If it's got an NRV, when I go to the page, I'm taking it off VFD. Getting rid of stuff quickly is not what VFD is for, it's for deciding on stuff that's hard to decide on.--<<>> 18:33, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

• While this is INDEED ugly, several of the pictures are funny, and I really have trouble deleting an article whose first quote at the top of the page makes me laugh. It needs a good editor, not a deletion.--<<>> 15:00, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete most, but not all. ~ Ghelæ ^talk_contribs 15:10, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Needs a {{fix}} or equivalent tag. I'll let Isra the Maintainence Tag Nazi explain which one. —Hinoa KUN (talk) 17:20, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Fix, Ugly, and Rewrite would all be good choices. ---Rev. Isra (talk) 20:26, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Too much half-decent content to huff. --Hindleyite | PL | CUN | Converse 17:44, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

• Ugly, too much mediocre-quality text, and too little readily apparent humor value.--Sir Flammable KUN (Na Naaaaa...) 14:50, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

• Kept, and I'm putting all the templates Isra suggested on it, too.  ;) Maybe someone will take the hint.--<<>> 18:34, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

• Its crap, and MoneySign told me not to NRV stuff anymore even though i do it anyway. --ANIDN MENOSCWICZ 03:10, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
• Demolish, or redirect to Jebus (which is much better). ~ Ghelæ ^talk_contribs 06:14, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
• Yeah, this is random crap, alright.--<<>> 11:03, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Huffed--<<>> 11:04, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

• Ok. I, too, hate this article, HOWEVER, I think with an {{offensive}} template, this article could make SOME people laugh.--<<>> 13:27, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

• Why does this shit never go away? ~ŞÇ 12:59, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Smite. ~ T. (talk) 14:14, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• I think some other punishment like Damnation or Famine would be more appropriate... DESTROY! ~ Ghelæ ^talk_contribs 15:09, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Jesus may be all-forgiving, but I think he'll have trouble forgiving this article. —Hinoa KUN (talk) is so going to hell for this. 17:17, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

• My beef with it isn't the Jesus-fucking part. It is the fact that so many articles like this one rely on the same lude premises as the hundreds that proceeded them. Things like this make Uncyclopedia appear to be run and edited only by juveniles. ~ŞÇ14:24, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Well, I'm not saying feature it, I'm just not sure it fits the criteria for deletion (that NO ONE could find this funny, or, at the very least, very few people). The fact is, we do get a lot of juveniles here, and they might find this funny. I'll respect the vote in this matter, though.--<<>> 14:36, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• This article is dead, long live this article.--<<>> 17:49, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

• Oh, comon... this made me giggle... find ONE MORE PERSON that says delete, and I'll kill it.--<<>> 13:22, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• It's got a lot of potential as a re-write. If it's kept for 7 days, I'll do it. Then you can delete it. --Sir Hardwick Fundlebuggy (Bleat) 14:17, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

• Seriously, this sucks something horrible. I'd delete it without a trial, but I want at least the illusion of democracy. —Hinoa KUN (talk) 03:49, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete this crap and don't look back. --KATIE!! 03:54, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• see above ^ ~ŞÇ 13:05, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Phooey this hooey. ~ T. (talk) 14:31, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• I see rubbish articles... ~ Ghelæ ^talk_contribs 15:08, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

• Don't give me any ideas, Hardwick. :p--<<>> 14:21, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Huffed.--<<>> 15:17, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Back! You huffed just as I puffed. So I've thrown up the rewrite as a sub. Feel free to huff once more --Sir Hardwick Fundlebuggy (Bleat) 15:24, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Sorry, you'll have to put it back on VFD to get it huffed this time. ;)--<<>> 15:36, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete? Smells like non-notable (or semi-notable) vanity. --Splaka 08:56, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• ~ŞÇ 13:02, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• And... this makes three.--<<>> 13:23, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

• non-notable, no formatting, nothing funny. Why not just insta-huff? ~ŞÇ 13:02, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Huffed.--<<>> 13:23, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

• It's not that bad. Not great, but someone cared enough to make an OK picture. There are a million more articles that are far worse than this. FreeMorpheme 21:28, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
• I can see how someone might find this funny, though I don't claim to, myself.--<<>> 15:39, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
• It needs a lot of expansion and development but it's not exactly terrible. - jack mort | cun | f@h | talk - - 18:14, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
• Come on, people. I have seen FAR FAR FAR WORSE. This needs {{expansion}}, at worst a {{rewrite}}. It's not about whether it is funny, but whether it could be funny. --KATIE!! 17:17, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
• I agree with Keitei. It needs to grow, but it's not "kill" bad. Keeper. ~Cap'n SimzorzAr, Matey! 19:20, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

• Demolish. ~ Ghelæ ^talk_contribs 16:39, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
• Smashy. —Hinoa KUN (talk) 23:14, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
• I'd delete that on sight. Too bad y'all got this page mixed up with this voting crap...guess I'll let you have your fun "voting" for a little while longer. Sir Famine, Gun ♣ Petition » 20:30, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

• My vote: Meh. I plead no contest. What do you think? Alksub 16:36, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
• I'm stuck in the middle; I don't care about Smashmouth enough to care about whether a page about them stays or goes. I'm actually surprised that someone cared enough about them to both make a page and retouch a photo. I'm even more surprised that someone cared enough about Smashmouth to gather them together and take a picture of them, and I'm stupidly surpised that Smashmouth cared enough about Smashmouth to gather themselves together for a photo. But I digress, my vote Meh Modusoperandi 17:01, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
• Worse stuff has popped up here. As Linus would put it, "it's not that bad. All it needs is a little love." ~Cap'n SimzorzAr, Matey! 19:20, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
• Kept. 8 votes, +2. It'll take five more straight votes to delete. Besides, Famine's just going to kill it as soon as I take the VFD off, anyway.--<<>> 22:24, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

• keep it, but make-bigger it, but still also keep it. - jack mort | cun | f@h | talk - - 18:20, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

• Too weak for such a hot subject. Delete or redirect to [[Taboo(Game)]].--{{User:Suresh/sig}} 12:27, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• See ^ ~ Ghelæ ^talk_contribs 16:07, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Sorry, but I'm gonna say kill. It's all formula, nothing really original or brilliant. ~Cap'n SimzorzAr, Matey! 19:08, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
• A careful application of Oscar is always funny. This is not such a thing. FreeMorpheme 21:35, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

• If ever there were an article that needs a helping hand and a complete rewrite, its this one. Dame GUN WotM PotM VFH VFP Poo PMS •YAP• 12:29, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
  • As a board game it really needs a picture/diagram of some sort. Modusoperandi 17:26, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

*If no one rewrites this, I may delete after two delete votes.--<<>> 15:32, 10 May 2006 (UTC)Eh, I'll just wait for the next, inevitable Delete vote...--<<>> 15:54, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

• Hehe...unless the next delete vote is an uncast one by another admin who just deletes the article in question. He who hesitates does not delete. Sir Famine, Gun ♣ Petition » 21:46, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
• Damn you Famine! Now I'll have to find another destructive outlet...--<<>> 22:20, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

• Rewrite.--Jtaylor1 12:18, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
• It'll rewrite itself over time, sports freaks love to mock teams every now and then.--<<>> 15:18, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

• I think this either needs to go or needs a major overhaul, as it is just a homophobic rant. -- jsonitsac talk to me crimes against humanity15:03, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
• Demolish. Really. ~ Ghelæ ^talk_contribs 16:15, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
• Make it not be there :| - jack mort | cun | f@h | talk - - 18:16, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
• O....M......G. I didn't think that it was possible to fit that many homosexual and penis jokes in that short of space. That is just a horrid article. ~Cap'n SimzorzAr, Matey! 19:14, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
• It is a shit article. FreeMorpheme 21:30, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Huffed--<<>> 21:32, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep - not a bad article, considering its the authors first, it looks encyclopedic, and even if its not your cup of tea its a lot better than some of the garbage we get posted here. -- Sir Mhaille  (talk to me) 08:06, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
• While this is not great, it's not horrible either, and being horrible is a prerequisite for deletion.--<<>> 09:45, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
• Agree with all above. Pies are good. --Hindleyite Talk 11:51, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
• Don't bite the newbies. --KATIE!! 17:10, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
• As soon as i saw the title and opened the article i wanted to kill-vote. The topic is retarded but it's saved because of passable writing. Not all that terrible; keep. - jack mort | cun | f@h | talk - - 17:13, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Gibberish with nonsensical references to.. everything.--Sir Flammable KUN (Na Naaaaa...) 19:01, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
• What the fuck... —Hinoa KUN (talk) 04:01, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. ~ T. (talk) 06:58, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
• I'm a deletionist, so I vote delete. ~ Ghelæ ^talk_contribs 15:13, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
• Booooring. --L

• 10 votes, no decision. Kept, for now, anyway.--<<>> 18:19, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

• If nothing else, some of the pictures made me laugh, and that's pretty good for a vanity page.--<<>> 09:44, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

• —Hinoa KUN (talk) 04:00, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
• I say delete all vanity, although the bottom pic with the caption is good. ~ Ghelæ ^talk_contribs 15:13, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

• This needs to be brought into compliance with Uncyclopedia:Vanity Policies. Even then, I feel it's a low quality page that needs a lot of help from someone other than the two "authors".--Sir Flammable KUN (Na Naaaaa...) 20:50, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Dear God, I've been linking to the Vanity policies so much lately that it's practically preprogrammed into my brain now. —Hinoa KUN (talk) 04:00, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
• Huffed by Flammable for being a non-compliant vanity page.--<<>> 18:11, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

• Smells like vanity, reads like vanity, some notable people with that name, but I doubt the subject of this article is. But, I could be wrong, so VFDing. --Splaka 07:19, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
• Smells like vanity to me, as well.--<<>> 09:44, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
• Vanity. Reference to Chuck Norris. Huff. --Hindleyite Talk 11:53, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
• "Noble" peace prize, chuck norris, urine, cloning and nazis all in the same paragraph? Madness! Modusoperandi 12:13, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

• Murdered.--<<>> 14:02, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Utter swedish random bullshit vanity group shite. One submitter during one day. No links to it, extensive red links from it, anachronic war history context , bragging about his unknown friends, and no Userpage. Basically it is just an advertisment for this roleplay/wargame groups homepage. Just Exterminate. Or vanity tag it before we put it in deep quarentine.--{{User:Suresh/sig}} 19:57, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

• Meh. I really don't care, but I'm a deletionist so I say DEMOLISH! ~ Ghelæ ^talk_contribs 15:03, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
• Made my Firefox crash by following the external link. I HATE THAT!--<<>> 16:33, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

After stopping the hyperventilation I realized I might have overreacted. It's not so much the vanity that disturbs me as the random (lack of) humor pompous history. I'd like a guidance about the borderline between vanity and VFD here.--{{User:Suresh/sig}} 20:26, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

After reading vanity-policy thoroughly I find this vanity page guilty of spilling over through external linking.--{{User:Suresh/sig}} 08:21, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

• Murdered.--<<>> 16:33, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete again. Then CVP. ~ T. (talk) 15:29, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
• AAAAAAAAA! DEMOLISH IT! ~ Ghelæ the Excessive^talk_contribs 16:16, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
• Dejavu! Modusoperandi 16:24, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

• Please see Uncyclopedia:Pages_for_deletion/archive27#Kittyslasher for previous voting on this issue. --DWIII OUN CUN 15:25, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
• How many times did this article get recreated?--Jtaylor1 12:16, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
• Dead--<<>> 15:36, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

• Prol'ly vanity, but I can't be sure. Sucks something awful, though. —Hinoa KUN (talk) 23:16, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

• Voting ended early...vanity, links to external sites, broken page-width due to assinine wiki formatting...and it wasn't funny. Sir Famine, Gun ♣ Petition » 23:49, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

• What is this? Just uninspired fluff referencing a dead Internet feud that nobody cares about anymore. --L 14:06, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Demolish. ~ Ghelæ ^talk_contribs 16:07, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Too random. Modusoperandi 17:26, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• DIEDIEDIE. —Hinoa KUN (talk) 23:13, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

• Dead.--<<>> 15:34, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

• ... --EvilZak 07:25, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• --Sir Hardwick Fundlebuggy (Bleat) 07:53, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• It's true. Junky, junky, junky, junky, junk. --KATIE!! 10:21, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Bloopy 10:49, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• HATE HATE HAT! I mean, um, keep. --Hindleyite Talk 10:59, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• It needs to be kept as a warning to anyone who might try to read uncyclopedia. • Spang • UotF | talk • 12:13, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Well, that was obvious from me typing in the section but... 16:06, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Let the boy have his rant. It's better than him twisting the heads off of his little sister's dolls. Modusoperandi 17:23, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Or breaking open kaleidoscopes to huff the contents. --Kalir, Savant of Utter Foolishness! (yell at me) 17:31, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• We can make fun of the author. —Hinoa KUN (talk) 23:06, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

*I'm normally not one for cencorship, but... ~Cap'n SimzorzAr, Matey! 06:22, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Vote recinded. I'm a jackass, sorry. ~ Simulacrum Caputosis 03:01, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

• This is satire, no? And rather good satire, I reckon. Or am I missing something here? --Sir Hardwick Fundlebuggy (Bleat) 07:53, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it's supposed to be satirical. See here. --Hindleyite Talk 10:59, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

• Redirect it to The worst article in and on Uncyclopedia--{{User:Suresh/sig}} 12:20, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Kept--<<>> 15:52, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

• ~Cap'n SimzorzAr, Matey! 05:58, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Yeah... this is just... sad... --KATIE!! 10:24, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Why not?--{{User:Suresh/sig}} 10:43, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Just... delete. ~ Ghelæ ^talk_contribs 16:05, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Um...we delete at -4, right? Destroy it either way... —Hinoa KUN (talk) 23:12, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• MURDER!--<<>> 15:28, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

• I don't have tolerance for this kind of stuff anymore. ~