Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Uncyclopedia

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy keep - per WP:IAR. FCYTravis 22:58, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Uncyclopedia

This page is about a subject that is not notable, it does not reference any media reports or any other proof that the Uncycopedia is notable and that this page is anything more than advertising JK the unwise 17:51, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment: This is the sort of nomination that is ill-considered enough to attract averse attention from the other parts of Wikipedia (and indeed Wikimedia) to AFD. Those who don't want AFD dealt with by parts of Wikipedia outside AFD need to solve nominations this bad being possible - David Gerard 22:53, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep, notable. I don't in any way find this article advertising. As for media reports, here's one, from New York Times: [1]. Is that sufficient? - Sikon 17:56, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep: It's an important piece of Wikipedia culture, where Wikipedians make fun of themselves. smurrayinchester(User), (Talk) 17:58, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Unless Wikipedia is going to delete the article on Encyclopedia Dramatica. --Lugiatm (talk • contribs) 18:02, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, as per above. Jono 18:02, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Librarystuff reference. Blog reference. Law librarian blog. Answers.com article. IBM-eye article. Tech Republic discussion thread. OK, enough. You can Google as well as I. The point: Uncyclopedia has been noticed in Internet circles and is not, factually speaking, non-notable. --67.42.193.187 18:13, 24 January 2006 (UTC) (One-eyed Jack)
    • Down goes the answers.com article, it's a Wikipedia mirror. - Sikon 18:28, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Obvious keep for above reasons. Stifle 18:16, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong keep Per above ComputerJoe 18:16, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per reasons above. PJM 18:21, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong keep I occasionally try to redirect Wikipedia pranksters there. OhnoitsJamieTalk 18:22, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Usually funnier than Wikipedia, although not always.Herostratus 18:25, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. There are numerous articles throughout Wikipedia on topics far less notable than this. EpicFantasyStory 18:33, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - this calls for a what the fuck? 86.134.119.187 18:35, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, google ads site. How many of those voting for keep edit Uncyclopedia?? --DelftUser 18:36, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Since when does it matter as long as they are active contributors on WP as well, not a bunch of guys who registered solely to vote? Besides, Uncyclopedia is the only Wikia-hosted project that doesn't run Google ads. - Sikon 18:44, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
      • Just wondering, no need to bite my head off. --DelftUser 19:09, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
        What are you talking about, Sikon, Uncyclopedia DOES run google ads. --DelftUser 19:57, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep, I don't ;-) Kim Bruning 18:37, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong keep as per all above. DES (talk) 18:45, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and extensively advertise on Wikipedia as a relief valve....a place for people to go who want to be wikisilly. We should have all of the Wikipedia vandalism templates include a link to Uncyclopedia. --JWSchmidt 18:49, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
As an Uncyclopedia admin, I'm opposed to that latter idea. It may be a comedy site, but I'd rather not have every one of Wikipedia's vandals made aware of it, for hopefully obvious reasons. Codeine 19:10, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, is anyone here opposed to an early close then? Kim Bruning 18:37, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

  • I am, --DelftUser 18:40, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
    Roger, and lightining fast too! I just clicked to clarify "except for..." and you had already had answered. Can you clarify your opposition? Note that uncyclopedia is not a wikipedia mirror, and is well known to many wikipedians. I keep having to ask folks not to go vandalize there! Kim Bruning 18:50, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
    You want me to clarify why I am for delete or why I am opposing an early close? I've looked at the article and at uncyclopedia and I am familair with wiki mirros (example) and wiki forks and the like (exmaple), so be assured that my vote is an educated one. --DelftUser 19:08, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep because of obvious reasons. -- That Guy, From That Show! (talk) 18:53, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Uncyclopedia is as much a wiki institution as Wikipedia itself, and I love them both. Can't we all just get along? :-) Codeine 19:05, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep As a high quality and quantity parody, they actually highlight the notability and the achievments of wikipedia itself. Deleting it would be against wikipedia's own interests. Plus, it's very notable, much more notable than many other small Internet phenomenoms covered here. They are wikipedia's alter-ego. You need more reasons and u happen to read spanish? then read this: [2]--Rataube 19:17, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
I knew you were going to say that. Try to check the same user name in the spanish and hebrew versions of wikipedia and u'll get different results. Happy?--Rataube 19:25, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Go write a personal message to me on your other pages, then come back and give me direct links to then and if your combined edits are more than my total edits, then I'll be happy. --DelftUser 19:29, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
According to this your combined edits on both wiki's is 30 edits, is that correct? --DelftUser 19:33, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
That might be correct. It's also correct that i started contributing wikipedia long before this vote, and i started contributing wikipedia before uncy (same user name if u wanna check). And my last edit here was just a few days ago, so u can see I'm still active here. Not considering my vote would go against your policies. I thought policies did matter over here.--Rataube 19:39, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Is this your way of saying you have almost a 1000 edits on Uncyclopedia? --DelftUser 19:57, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
So what? I'm active at wikipeia aswell, my arguement still stands. Nevermind, It wont get deleted anyway, take a look around...--Rataube 20:03, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep although the article could use a good clean-up, since there is a lot of content that there that is not encyclopedic. Peyna 19:44, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete unless made funnier. --maru (talk) Contribs 19:49, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep This website is where the articles we delete all go. Ruby 19:53, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • strong keep notable enough, good article. Brighterorange 20:13, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge Has articles on many of the same topics. Suggest it be merged with Wikipedia. Jimaginator 20:25, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. ~ For the reasons given by prior voters. --Todd Lyons 20:53, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. per nearly everyone. Englishrose 20:56, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, because if you were to delete Uncyclopedia based on the charges of "not notable" and "nothing more than advertising", you'd have to get rid of Memory Alpha and any other non-trivial future spinoff of Wikicities. Did Uncyclopedia kick your kid, or something? --Robertb-dc 20:58, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Fine. Oh, and don't delete. Wikka-what? Uncyc is far more notable. --68.160.40.66 21:16, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per... everybody above. --Vizcarra 21:27, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep: Come on - it's funny! Laugh. It may be a parody, but the articles are hilariously funny and show some exceptional creative comic talent. --Ma11achy 21:36, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.