Do not put anything up for VFD that is not appropriate for VFD.
Abusers of the policy will be abused by the claw end of a hammer. You have been warned.
If you have an article that meets the criteria for VFD:
Check the revision history of the page. It may have been vandalised, or just badly edited over a long period of time. If so, find a better version and revert the article. It may not be suitable for deletion.
Add {{vfd}} to the article in question. Failure to do so will invalidate the vote.
Provide an initial vote (see below) and include a comment as to why you have placed the article on VFD.
If you are here to vote on the deletion/salvation of articles:
Thank you.
No really, thank you.
Edit the section for the article you are addressing.
Pick a space under the appropriate heading (Keep, Delete, Comment), add your sig/comment preceded with a #
# - Creates a numbered bullet for your entry and makes sure that things are formatted correctly (do not put a space before the #).
Comment - If you care to, leave a comment, even if it is as short as "The article is not at all funny". Votes without comments are less useful in analyzing the quality of an article.
--~~~~ - Sign and timestamp your vote. Unsigned votes will be removed without prejudice.
Allow at least 24 hours before closing a nomination or deleting an article.
Remember to delete any unused images from deleted articles and, if necessary, check what links to the article and remove any backlinks. Make sure to delete any broken redirects created as well.
To avoid confusion, try to remove closed nominations which cause the page to exceed to 20 articles.
If a nomination is kept, please add {{Oldvfd}} to the article's talk page.
To add an article, edit this section, and follow the directions in the comments.
Don't flood VFD full of articles, or at least leave a space between your nominations.
If you increase the number of articles on VFD to over 20, you will be blocked for 1 day, no exceptions.This means do not increase the number of active votes on VFD to over twenty.Inactive votes are shown with either a red link (where they have been deleted), or with the Closed nomination tag to indicate that the article has been kept.You have been warned.
Please remember to check an article's history, in case of recent or long term vandalism, before nominating an article. Also, check the article's talk page and 'What links here' for prior nominations. If the article has been nominated before there will be a link from a VFD archive page.
Delete. Shame it's been slowly destroyed after all the years of neglect --TheDarthMoogle (talk) 11:36, May 21, 2013 (UTC)
Comments
Responding to Moogle, I have rewound this article to March 2010 and done a light copy-edit. I don't like articles where the author focuses on himself, but it might work given the thesis here--that the article's subject is inescapably boring. Would nominators please get in the habit of explaining why they want us to vote to delete someone else's work? Spıke¬ 11:59 21-May-13
Crap articles do attract crap edits and that is why I strive to gut out listcruft wherever it accumulates. The fact that a user cited this article as an excuse to create another bad one, however, says little about this article. Spıke¬ 11:47 21-May-13
WHAT? YOU FDONT LIKE IT? YOU FAGG!!!!!!!!! GAY FAG The article's concept (that its subject, someone who creates sprite comics via web service, is a moron) is all right. However, calling someone a moron, a Republican, or a GAY FAGG, must be done with innovation and cleverness--not just by being thoroughly moronic, even if it is "in the style of the thing it's about." Spıke¬ 11:47 21-May-13
Delete.Blindly following Spike's instructions Having checked out this dreadful page and the sub-genre of Sprite Comics, and considered the matter in light of the fact that gaming and anime hold all the allure of an absinthe hangover for me, I say kill it quickly. Rev. Zim_ulator (Talk)I am the dirt under your rollers 12:10, May 21, 2013 (UTC)
And voter knows whereof he speaks, at least with respect to absinthe. Spıke¬ 12:14 21-May-13
Comments
Voters are reminded (by the clock in the upper right corner) that recent rules prevent the execution of the vote (that is, the execution of the page) in less than 24 hours. Spıke¬ 12:17 21-May-13
I've asked Rev. Zim ulator, the site's most notorious creator of sprite comics (they used to overrun UnNews) to consider writing a better page by this name. Spıke¬ 11:47 21-May-13
I'm really not sure what the point of the page is, beside being a receptacle for poopies. I have taken a gander at wikipedia:Bob and George, a supposed exemplar of the sub-genre. I am not impressed. In fact, I find them kinda stupid. Rev. Zim_ulator (Talk)I am the dirt under your rollers 12:10, May 21, 2013 (UTC)
Delete. The execution recurs to Chuck Norris and Oscar Wilde and names specific Uncyclopedians; that is, another in-joke. And regarding the concept: After what we went through last week, this strikes me as just as unfunny as an article on assassinating a head of state. Spıke¬ 20:03 20-May-13
Keep. I know it is awful but that is because of the content and humour. The concept is fine and very good comedians can make something like this funny. It can be fixed with improvement and probably needs to be a HowTo (HowTo:Try to hard to make an acronym fit a pre-chosen work). It requires a bit of effort from a user. Unfortunately I have exams at the moment and I don't think I am good enough to make this funny (I could give it a try next week if it is still around). I vote to keep it to give inspiration to what could potentially be a great article. Sir ScottPatCUNVFHUnS (talk) 16:41, May 20, 2013 (UTC)
Occasional votes that read, "Put it in my userspace and maybe I'll work on it" are unhelpful. Your vote that, if I may paraphrase, "I know it is awful but I am voting to support good writing, only I am not going to be the one doing it, just now," is less helpful. If you agree it is awful and cannot improve it while the vote proceeds, you are free to "give it a try next week" even if it is not still around. Spıke¬ 17:15 20-May-13
I just thought maybe someone else could write it as there are many good writers and it is a fun subject to play with. It has too much potential to be deleted even though the style of humour currently is forced as you said. I am not changing my vote as I found the concept funny enough. Everyone has different humour styles. Sir ScottPatCUNVFHUnS (talk) 17:27, May 20, 2013 (UTC)
That is a better rationale. Spıke¬ 17:32 20-May-13
Delete. The title sums up one of the ways pubescent authors write crappy articles. The content is a list of examples. Anon just devised C.U.N.T. today--charming. Spıke¬ 00:21 20-May-13
Delete. My wife is currently making me a ham, egg and cheese sandwich. That sandwich, as yet unmade and nonexistent, is a better article than this miserable piece of whale dreck. It deserves an undignified death. Rev. Zim_ulator (Talk)I am the dirt under your rollers 16:49, May 20, 2013 (UTC)
Comments
The Intro tries its hand at authentic humor--but its topic, the U.S.A. P.A.T.R.I.O.T. Act (whose title was overt manipulation) is treated superficially and with humor that is just as forced as the examples that follow. Spıke¬ 00:21 20-May-13
Keep. A stubby article from 2005 was tagged "No Redeeming Value" and expanded by Neca (I never met him) in 2006. The absurdly long section heads do seem to be a recurring gag, though what this has to do with Anna Pavlova I don't know. Read the initial photo caption: This is no mere hacker. The writing uses randomness, but an erudite randomness rather than memes. All it needs is another photo, fixing the red-links, and more relevant humor from an author who actually knows something about Pavlova. Anton, ready to earn a VFD Save? Spıke¬ 13:56 19-May-13
I can try to. Anton (talk) 14:59, May 19, 2013 (UTC)
Can I move it to my user space and then try to make it better? Anton (talk) 17:15, May 20, 2013 (UTC)
You can copy the text to your userspace, like the text of any other page. Moving an established article out of mainspace requires a vote of this forum (which is not going well). You are free to install your edit over this article, or in place of it after it is deleted, but you should run it by someone else first; you are not free, for example, to install essentially the same thing if VFD should vote to delete it. Spıke¬ 17:32 20-May-13
Delete (1)
Delete. The titles of the sections are too long and too unfunny. On the contrary, the sections themselves are too short and ... unfunny. All in all, this gives us a badly written, untrue and unfunny article. Anton (talk) 13:33, May 19, 2013 (UTC)
Delete. The authors experience the joy of conducting a vulgar rant at the readers. I cannot imagine the readers laughing at all. Spıke¬ 03:08 19-May-13
Delete. This conspiracy rant had some potential in early 2012, but it has outlived its usefulness. It is obsolete now, as noted by the late awkward addition near the bottom of the page that says that the destruction of the internet as we know it will be complete by 2030. Also, it assumes that everybody uses services like DeviantArt, (which happens to be a website to showcase art including terrible fandom porno art and view art that others have posted) and so on. The internet is broad enough in scope and changing quickly enough that this article will be obsolete again in no time, and will be forever incomplete even if an update is attempted (something perhaps suggesting that the internet ended in 2012 but was restarted). -- Simsilikesims(♀UN)Talk here. 00:35, May 20, 2013 (UTC)
Delete. Let's add in some jokes about George Bush. And maybe something about the Falkland's war. And the Chinese building a wall against the Monguls. Timely humour needs to be both timely and humour. Fails on both counts. SirCPTDrPuppyOnTheRadioGUNUmPWotMNotMFPVFPVFHCMPOTMUGM04:48 20 May 2013
Abstain. Great concept however a bit old now...outdated I mean (so 2012). Very unencyclopedic. I would say that it just needs improving but then the apocalypse is over so what's the point? Sir ScottPatCUNVFHUnS (talk) 19:44, May 19, 2013 (UTC)
Delete. Start over. This article, if done right, should be more than an excuse to dabble in incoherency. Spıke¬ 22:50 17-May-13
Delete. It could be funny but terrible grammar (as you can see even I noticed it) and the absence of any other jokes except for memory loss spoil everything. Anton (talk) 12:31, May 18, 2013 (UTC)
Adele-te Ignoring the ignoring of framework, first person articles can sometimes work. Dementia would work better as an encyclopaedic style with repitition to the effect that the author has forgotten what is being said. To quote Kryten “Kryten personal black box recording. Time: unknown. Location: unknown. Cause of accident: unknown. Should someone find this recording, perhaps it will shed light as to what happened here. My short-term memory has been erased. This, I ascribe to the proximity of the magnetic coils from Starbug's rear engine. Secondly, due to the proximity of the magnetic coils, my short term memory appears to have been erased. This, combined with the erasure of my short-term memory, has left me a little disoriented, disoriented, disoriented.” Given that this topic has the potential of a strong article, a lukewarm one in it's place seems a shame. Bulldoze, and make way for something better. Without meme driven humor. SirCPTDrPuppyOnTheRadioGUNUmPWotMNotMFPVFPVFHCMPOTMUGM04:45 20 May 2013
Comments
It's not encyclopedic but still kind of funny. I'm abstaining. Sir ScottPatCUNVFHUnS (talk) 20:39, May 17, 2013 (UTC)
Delete. This article from 2005 is a receptacle for whatever unclever Randumbo you want to type. Spıke¬ 19:14 17-May-13
Delete. A completely fictional country where all the Uncyclopedia (worst) jokes are situated. In addition to this, it is impossible to pronounce the article's name. Its creator wanted to make a parody on an average African country but didn't really achieve this. Anton (talk) 19:18, May 17, 2013 (UTC)
Yup; and the right way to do this and maintain our encyclopedia façade is to pick a country and parody it. Only, that constrains the author to parody something real, rather than go completely freestyle. Spıke¬ 19:52 17-May-13
Delete. Awful. Why don't they ever learn what encyclopedic means. Sir ScottPatCUNVFHUnS (talk) 20:23, May 17, 2013 (UTC)
Keep. This article is okay, yet needs tidying in the quotes dept. later on and a few minor changes to get readers to go 'aha, this is a bunch of bollocks!'. I don't see this as a vanity article as, well, the company clearly doesn't exist. --TheDarthMoogle (talk) 08:52, May 9, 2013 (UTC)
The fact that the company doesn't exist is the very proof that authors are not writing about anything but themselves, that is, vanity. Spıke¬ 11:31 9-May-13
Delete (5)
Delete. This article is not poorly written; but Google has only two exact matches for this alleged consultancy: We are the first, and the second is a stub article at a business locator that "located" this business through Uncyclopedia. Codeine's Mum never worked there. It's a vanity project of a small clique. Spıke¬ 23:56 7-May-13
Delete. I agree with Spike as I saw Codeine's Mum the other day and she said she hadn't heard of it. Also why are the staff members the KKK? Random and pointless.Sir ScottPatCUNVFHUnS (talk) 05:49, May 10, 2013 (UTC)
Delete. I'm not convinced on the vanity angle - reads more like a fakey topic than personal glorification to me. But it is randumbo of the highest magnitude. SirCPTDrPuppyOnTheRadioGUNUmPWotMNotMFPVFPVFHCMPOTMUGM04:30 20 May 2013
Closed nomination tag to indicate that the article has been kept. You have been warned.
Delete. --
Keep. I know it is awful but that is because of the content and humour. The concept is fine and very good comedians can make something like this funny. It can be fixed with improvement and probably needs to be a HowTo (HowTo:Try to hard to make an acronym fit a pre-chosen work). It requires a bit of effort from a user. Unfortunately I have exams at the moment and I don't think I am good enough to make this funny (I could give it a try next week if it is still around). I vote to keep it to give inspiration to what could potentially be a great article. 
Abstain. Great concept however a bit old now...outdated I mean (so 2012). Very unencyclopedic. I would say that it just needs improving but then the apocalypse is over so what's the point? 
