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.
Keep. The existence of several inconsistent articles on the same topic is explicitly permitted. This one's Intro is a bit funnier than the other one. Also, nominator forgot to tag the article. Spıke¬ 01:10 26-May-13
Delete (1)
Delete. There's already an article on Pluto and the other one's funnier so I guess there's no reason for this one to exist -- 21:27, May 25, 2013 (UTC)
Comments
An effort to merge the best of both articles, and remove the gradual vandalism, would be a great service. Spıke¬ 01:10 26-May-13
Keep. I acknowledge the logic of arguments for deletion, and will not address them. Instead I will appeal with my fondness for certain bad scifi movies. I consider Plan 9 From Outer Space, along with the story of it's production, a primo example of medicinal-grade schlock. I think this article is funny because it conveys a sense of what makes Plan 9 so funny. There is humor there, if you have the eye to see. Rev. Zim (Talk)Get saved! 18:26, May 24, 2013 (UTC)
Would it flip your vote to discover that we already have an article on Plan 9 from Outer Space, which nominator has just fixed up a little? Spıke¬ 20:07 24-May-13
Already saw that. No, I feel that the title of the actual film begs the question, "what about the other plans?" This piece of nonsense answers that question. Rev. Zim (Talk)Get saved! 20:19, May 24, 2013 (UTC)
Delete (3)
I find it hard to come up with a simple reason for the deletion of ths article. As far as I can see, it's flawed from conception to publication. NRV. SirCPTDrPuppyOnTheRadioGUNUmPWotMNotMFPVFPVFHCMPOTMUGM10:21 24 May 2013
Delete. A "Plan B" will inspire Anon that there are 25 remaining slots in the alphabet for his own unfunny Plan, and I see that nominator has found a couple of these. A list of what is left of this story arc from 2005 is contained in the article. There is no humorous content in this article aside from the fact that author has tried to create a funny article. Spıke¬ 11:47 24-May-13
Delete. What is the point of this text? Anton (talk) 17:51, May 24, 2013 (UTC)
Comments
I can't vote either way on this one. It's in dire need of a cleanup, fo' sure. And it needs a lot more funny. I just don't have the heart to put it out of it's misery --TheDarthMoogle (talk) 20:36, May 24, 2013 (UTC)
Abstain. I respect parody articles and seeing as I have never heard of Plan 9 from Outer Space I don't know how good or bad it is. Sir ScottPatCUNVFHUnSNotM(talk) 06:24, May 25, 2013 (UTC)
Delete. Shame it's been slowly destroyed after all the years of neglect --TheDarthMoogle (talk) 11:36, May 21, 2013 (UTC)
Delete. Reading this gave me the mehs. It's like an awful scifi film that doesn't know it's awful. Rev. Zim (Talk)Get saved! 04:23, May 24, 2013 (UTC)
Delete. I understand why this article may be funny but it completely destroys the concept of Uncyclopedia and, in addition to this, offends the reader. I was not searching for boxes! Anton (talk) 17:49, May 24, 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
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
Delete. This is the above "humor" with step-by-step instructions. If 2% of readers laugh (and I think that's charitable) and another 2% take it as a mandate, the result is still unacceptable. Spıke¬ 11:43 23-May-13
Delete. It is funny in some parts and is true in several others. I would really appreciate those points if the article was talking about something else. Anton (talk) 15:21, May 23, 2013 (UTC)
Delete. Per SPIKE's comments above. Just not funny enough, plus a few may decide to actually go for it, which is undesirable. -- Simsilikesims(♀UN)Talk here. 21:14, May 24, 2013 (UTC)
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 ScottPatCUNVFHUnSNotM(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 ScottPatCUNVFHUnSNotM(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 (Talk)Get saved! 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)
Keep. It's a proper article in need of some love. Rev. Zim (Talk)Get saved! 16:58, May 20, 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)
Comments
Vote closed. No groundswell to delete after five days. Spıke¬ 18:22 24-May-13
Closed nomination tag to indicate that the article has been kept. You have been warned.
Keep. The existence of several inconsistent articles on the same topic is explicitly permitted. This one's Intro is a bit funnier than the other one. Also, nominator forgot to tag the article. 
Delete. There's already an article on 
Abstain. I respect parody articles and seeing as I have never heard of Plan 9 from Outer Space I don't know how good or bad it is. 
Anna Pavlova
