Delete |
- Delete I don't know who she is, but a large number of people seem to dislike her very much... --
(but) Untrue Whhhy?Whut?How? *Back from the dead* 09:52, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - I saw the older revisions. They was crap.
Sir Cs1987 UOTM. t. c 14:51, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. Yeah, the version here is representative of the longer-but-nastier early versions. --OEJ 19:35, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
- Short. Previous versions were drivel. Blarch --
Alksub - VFH CM WA RV {talk} 06:58, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Rogpyvbc 01:03, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
|
Comments |
- In general, Weebils, articles arrive on the Vote For Deletion page because they are 1) no longer being actively developed; 2) underdeveloped to the point of helplessness, 3) very badly written, 4) gratuitously obscene or offensive, or 5) about somebody's otherwise non-notable school, friends, enemy, webpage, forum, garage band, or whatever. As with a non-parody encyclopedia, Uncyc articles should be reasonably well-developed, take something notable or at least non-personal for their subject, and not be offensive for no particular reason. The current version of Sonia Gandhi fits the second criterion: it is so badly underdeveloped it is uninteresting. The earlier version of the article fit the third and fourth criteria: it was needlessly obscene and offensive, and very badly written to boot.
- For the past year and a half Uncyc has moved beyond an "anything goes" Wiki: the earliest articles were sometimes very short and very badly written and were not deleted, but that is no longer the case. As far as I know Uncyc is the largest and best parody encyclopedia online. We have received some notice in other media, and we try to maintain some standards. This article, and most of the others you have voted "Keep" on, do not in my opinion meet those standards.
- Have a look at Uncyclopedia:How To Be Funny And Not Just Stupid for more advice on what makes quality writing. --OEJ 02:36, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
- Later: Sorry, Weebils, I assumed you had not been around enough to know about the basic policies. I see from your contributions history that you've done quite a lot since early December. You've not done much on the VFD page, though, so perhaps you're not as familiar with it and its policies as you are with other areas of Uncyc. At any rate, I did not mean to talk down to you. Sorry if it came across that way. --OEJ 03:12, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, VFD should come with a warning: "Viewers who don't like throwing things away may find some scenes disturbing. By the way OEJ, is (1) really a criteria by itself? --
(but) Untrue Whhhy?Whut?How? *Back from the dead* 08:52, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
- No, you're right, I think #1 is not a separate criteria and I should have listed it as a kind of precondition or something. That was sloppy writing, and sloppy writing indicates sloppy thinking, and sloppy thinking indicates -- oh damn, I just spilled tomato-turnip chowder all over my shirt, pants, shoes, carpet, dog, and the state capitol -- sloppy personal habits. --OEJ 15:40, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
|