If your article doesn't make it to the front page, don't despair. It may be eligible to be Quasi-featured so long as it meets certain criteria.
Any and all violators of policy will be
Self-nomination regulation: self-nominated articles (i.e. you write an article and then decide to nominate it yourself) no longer require a pee review. Pee Review is still highly recommended for newer users. Do not clog up VFH with poor quality self-nominated articles... or else.
VFH is not a discussion page. If you'd like constructive criticism for your article, please submit it to Uncyclopedia:Pee Review.
Against. Even before degenerating into unfunny lists, the only humor in this article was done by others, when anti-names were chosen by the musical acts The Who and The Guess Who. SpıkeѦ 11:14 10-Jan-15
Against. From my vote last time, when it was named HowTo:Be absurdly funny and not just a content freak: "The target audience is readers of HTBFANJS — in other words, we insiders — not chance passers-by to our main page, on whom a lot is going to be lost." I do not think that the website needs a satire version of How To Be Funny And Not Just Stupid (our Style Guide) at all, especially one with pretenses of being a competing Style Guide of its own. SpıkeѦ 21:32 4-Jan-15
Against. I know a round of golf has 18 holes, but an article with 18 nondescript episodes is a bit much — especially when Hole 1 revolves around cow feces and a club fashioned from random items: randomness with no particular link to the game of golf. I am not ready for 17 more, and I bet our main-page visitor isn't either. If he is, he will get episode after episode of slapstick, with no unifying point. SpıkeѦ 03:12 9-Jan-15
Against. Author Sequence in 2009 structured this not as an encyclopedia article but as a sales pitch (indeed, apparently with a black insurance salesman: "We be living in a very dangerous time"). Despite prepending an encyclopedia-like Intro (which helpfully? discloses that this is an article about a fraud), the result is stand-up or a stage play. SpıkeѦ 12:18 1-Jan-15
Against. I agree with SPIKE. Shifting from one format to another is confusing and detracts from the article. --SirXamRalcothe Mediocre 04:51, January 9, 2015 (UTC)
For. Nice job. I was actually hesitating about my vote before the part about "black syrupy substance", though. A bit more subtlety will help! Anton(talk) Uncyclopedia United 19:22, December 9, 2014 (UTC)
For. It's funny and accurate. 126.96.36.199 02:24, December 16, 2014 (UTC)
Against. I found it funny at places, but not funny enough to deserve VFH Sir TheWikiMan026 CUN,UmP,(Chatter) 21:28, December 20, 2014 (UTC)
Against. It may simply be something about entering the sixth year of Racial Healing with race riots and cop-killings breaking out everywhere as Obama closets with Sharpton, but an article that starts with America the male-only and slaveholding doesn't amuse me. Take shots at the US, but be more playful. SpıkeѦ 12:30 1-Jan-15