| Keep |
- Fucking keep Read this last night. --MegaPleb • Dexter111344 • Complain here 23:59, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
- Keep. Le Cejak • <0:42, 10 Jun 2008>
 Pizza. Also, sounds like TKF needs a wikibreak. Trust me dude, they're mad helpful... – Sir Skullthumper, MD (criticize • writings • SU&W) 00:43 Jun 10, 2008- Keep Giant random piece of shit, you say? Sorry, bud, but since when is it bad to let ourselves lighten up a bit?~~ Sir Ljlego, GUN [talk] 00:45, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
- When we look at the same thing when it's written by an IP and delete it in a milisecond --
 TKFUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUCK  02:57, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
- IPs normally don't format so well. --Pleb SYNDROME CUN medicate (butt poop!!!!) 13:09, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
- So I suppose it's only worth keeping because of the format now? Or are you saying that the only difference between this and an equally unfunny random mess made by an IP is the... formatting? Or both? -- TKFUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUCK 21:58, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
- More like yes. -- §. | WotM | PLS | T | C | A 00:46, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Zombiebaron. (hur hur hur) -- Hi, hey! I'M A MOTERFUCKING NIGGER BITCH LOVER 01:33, 10 June 2008 (UTC)- Weak keep It's utterly incoherent but in a good way. --Sgt. Fluffy 04:08, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
- Keep I agree with Kip that it's more fit for Illogicopedia, but, y'know, I don't care. Someone can write a well-researched and thoroughly sourced article on Illogicopedia to make up for it. --Pleb SYNDROME CUN medicate (butt poop!!!!) 13:09, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
- Keep - Just for the record
(this has already been kept, as per the rules of VFD): I wrote this article not to "rub it" in anyone's "face". I wrote this because I wanted to write an article, and this article made me laugh. Please return to VFD when you have nothing to prove and an article that is over a week old, please. -- Brigadier General Sir Zombiebaron 01:21, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
- But Seriously...keep Just doesn't deserve deletion IMO (I've never used that acronym before and never plan to ever use it again). -RAHB 08:17, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
- Keep. Bizarre, but made me laugh, and seems in an odd way to have more structure and intent than most random articles. Plus the "keeps" clearly outnumber the "deletes" so can we please get this mammoth table off the VFD page now? --SirU.U.Esq. VFH | GUN | Natter | Uh oh | Pee 08:38, Jun 11
|
| Delete |
- omg so funnie & RANDOM!! XD XD All formalities aside, this is a giant random piece of shit. I don't give a flying fuck that Zombiebaron wrote it, or if he did it to "be ironic." If you're being randomly ironic, you're being random; if you're parodying a piece of shit, you're still writing a piece of shit. This is inexcusable. -- TKFUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUCK 23:57, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
- OMG Zombiebaron wrote this! IT MEUST BE GOOOOD LOL. --¿Qua? es mi página de discusión, es lo que mi contribuiría 00:00, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
- meh I don't find it funny at all Fou-Lu Vote for Cunt of the Munth! 00:49, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry ZB, I feel like I'm missing something here... - Don Leddy the Crunch
 (Nyah, see, nyah!) 01:13, Jun 10
- Move to ?pedia - Insanely random articles are usually more funny to me when a noob or IP does it. (I know ZB is only doing this to show he can get away with it.) Aside from that, this still didn't hit my funny bone. It if were at Illogicopedia, I'd atleast go "heh". -- Kip > Talk • Works • •
   02:39, Jun. 10, 2008
- Huff Really ZB, did you have to rub it in our faces that much. --Lieutenant THEDUDEMAN Dude ... Totally UOTM KUN GotA F@H 04:15, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
- Agreed with Kip --~FAG! +chatline "if it ain't broke, break it" (CUN·VFH) 09:15, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
- Zombiebaron. (hur hur hur) -- Hi, hey! I'M A MOTERFUCKING NIGGER BITCH LOVER 17:48, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Keep I just want to be able to say I voted for featuring and for deleting the same article. -RAHB 03:10, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
|
| Comments |
- UN:DP - "Exceptions: Articles which are less then a week old. In these cases, please consider using approprite maintenance templates such as {{ICU}}. Other exceptions include articles under construction or being peer reviewed." Um? MrN
   Fork you! 00:10, Jun 10
- Comment: Move it to ?pedia, methinks. It fits perfectly there. - Don Leddy the Crunch (Nyah, see, nyah!) 00:44, Jun 10
- cough – Sir Skullthumper, MD (criticize • writings • SU&W) 00:50 Jun 10, 2008
- There is something entirely different between nonsense, in-joke and random. Nonsense/novelty takes a concept and runs with it through the entire article. In-joke is self-explanatory. This is neither, it is just random, and it isn't good. It isn't even non-sequitor. It's just bad. -- TKFUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUCK 02:38, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
- I disagree on it being random. It's reminiscent of formal thought disorder (a mix of circumstantiality and derailment for the most part). It has meaning to the author and intent of expressing something, the reader just doesn't know what. --Sgt. Fluffy 18:48, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
- Your smart person words make a convincing argument. -- Kip > Talk • Works • • 19:00, Jun. 10, 2008
- So you're saying it isn't just a random mesh of verbs and nouns strung together into phrases and sentences, but in fact a cipher for some splendorous concept that transcends normal human thought? I'm sorry, I thought Uncyclopedia was a place for humor and satire, not the freakin' Voynich Manuscript. By your argument, this would just become another "AAAAAAAA! clone," even though it isn't nearly similar to those either. What is this? It is absolutely nothing, and has no place on this wiki. -- TKFUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUCK 20:34, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
- It's rather humorous if one understands what a formal thought disorder is (schizophrenia for a weak example). It's not so much a cipher as the inability to express ones self. This is closer to what should be "bat fuck insane" then our current article when taken in the context of the real world. I am willing to make concessions in that it is, perhaps, only funny if one has studied psychopathology. If someone would be so kind as to archive it under my userspace (with the picture) I would be willing to change my vote to "weak keep" --Sgt. Fluffy 21:12, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
- Archived under your userspace. Please consider changing your vote, if we suddenly decided to create all of our articles in a different psychopathic medium, we'd be worse than ED. We've already got more than our fair share of "bat fuck insane" (read: random) articles, we don't need another one. -- TKFUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUCK 21:58, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Abstaining It has been brought to my attention that there are perhaps better places for this article and that it may be seen as nothing short of gibberish by some readers. While I personally find it funny it is hard for me to tell if enough people will to warrant it being kept. --Sgt. Fluffy 23:53, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
- Go with what you want. Screw other people. And there would be enough support if you would go back to a keep. --MegaPleb • Dexter111344 • Complain here 00:29, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
- Part of what makes a good article is it's ability to be enjoyed by the majority of people who read it. I did however only promise to change to a weak keep so I suppose I can do that in good conscience. --Sgt. Fluffy 00:56, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Kept -- Brigadier General Sir Zombiebaron 01:17, 11 June 2008 (UTC)- Let's not wikilawyer on a site that only has two rules. So it's under 7 days old. I don't think you're going to improve the article further, so a VFD now is the same as one later. This just saves time. Who knows, maybe it'll help you appreciate VFD and maintenance tagging from the other side? • Spang • ☃ • talk • 03:01, 11 Jun 2008
- I am willing to improve the article based on whatever constructive criticisms it receives. "It is random" is neither constructive nor criticism. -- Brigadier General Sir Zombiebaron 03:12, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
- Well, I think it's technically criticism... Whether or not it's constructive is definitely open to interpretation, though. - Don Leddy the Crunch (Nyah, see, nyah!) 03:20, Jun 11
- Who says it's criticism? Robot Chicken depends on randomness for much of the show. I'm sure most of us(who have heard of it, at least) will agree it is a good show, but tends to be random. And if you say that's at all constructive, then, in my opinion good sir, you are wrong. --MegaPleb • Dexter111344 • Complain here 03:26, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
- Whether it is criticism is really up to personal interpretation. Constructive criticism, however, in this case would be advice on how to make the article "better" (in the eyes of the adviser); simply saying "Make it not random" is both impractical and imprecise. -- Brigadier General Sir Zombiebaron 03:34, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
|
| Other |
 Ban the Internet, thus forcing people to find their senses of humor again. – Sir Skullthumper, MD (criticize • writings • SU&W) 03:37 Jun 11, 2008- What the hell is other?! Madness! • Spang • ☃ • talk • 03:42, 11 Jun 2008
- AAAAAAGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!! Plus, this one vote is now half of the page... Or at least a third of the page... --MegaPleb • Dexter111344 • Complain here 03:44, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
- Bollocks Based on previous VFD votes this now has more than enough keep votes to save it. I don't care either way about this being deleted or not, but I don't think it should be on the front page news list. MrN Fork you! 10:58, Jun 11
Yep, let's end this. Kept. Voting closed. ~ 11:01, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
|
Amy Acker 
For Huffing Random and short --
