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 this December 22 Tradition If you don't have any idea what this is about then go look at Fourm:International Page Blanking Day 2007 This page is not like the other self reference articles and is more of a In Joke. This is also a day whichs gives us a good excuse to blank our userpage for 1 day. --—The preceding unsigned comment was added bySawblade5 (talk • contribs) 22:44, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete - As per every other self reference article on VFD, we have enough! This isn't even funny--Æ 22:25, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete, and Dexter, why wouldn't we check the history of every page that we vote on anywhere, especially VFD? -- BrigadierGeneralSirZombiebaron 22:37, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete and rewrite See my comment below. --Pentium5dot1 06:49, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Comments
Check the history before you vote. --Dexter111344 22:33, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
I did and it seems like only one user (on the day the page was created) kept blanking and than reverting it numerous times. I don't think that's a great reason to keep as it's um, lame and it doesn't contain humoristic value in any way--Æ 22:37, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
On the article's talk page, somebody admitted that they would need to use a sockpuppet to make the joke work. (A sockpuppet is needed to make the page history look like a real blanking war rather than a single crazed user.) That's why I am suggesting that we delete the page and have it restarted by somebody with a sockpuppet handy. Pentium5dot1 06:49, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
The issue with that, having a sockpuppet is against the rules. --Dexter111344 06:57, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Uncyclopedia exists for one reason, and one reason only, to take the piss out of Nintendorulez. Come on guys...get with the program. Keep. -- Sir Mhaille (talk to me)
I liked it In joke of an In joke? SirDJ~Irreverent 00:43, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Keep - This is probably the best spin-off stub ever. SirCs1987UOTM.t.c 11:16, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
GOD YES! I've been protesting this piss-poor turd of a spin-off for months! Last time I nominated it the common clain was "it's an in-joke". No it isn't. IT'S A SPIN-OFF. You know, like those Winkler pages the same people voted against? Anyway, yeah, this article is crap and only meant as a Savethemooses ego boost. --Kip > Talk•Works•• 22:42, Feb. 8, 2008
Delete I don't see In joke and it is a poor spin off of the original. --—The preceding unsigned comment was added bySawblade5 (talk • contribs) 22:46, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete yeah, this one sucks. --THE 23:32, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Ineligibleforthreereasons. I expect an admin to not do this. Regular users would get banned. --Dexter111344 22:01, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Nothing is ever ineligible for VFD. Except VFD. And the Main Page. And VFH. And VFP. And VFS. And User:Zombiebaron. Well, most of the User: namespace really. Unless the page is yours. But those should really go on QVFD or admin's talkpages. Oh, also QVFD is ineligible. But yeah. Other than that, everything is fair game, bucko. -- BrigadierGeneralSirZombiebaron 22:30, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Of course, you'll get generally hated upon if you do nominate something stupid, like anything in Category:VFH. —Hinoatalk.kun 22:48, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Kip, may I ask how this is an ego boost to STM? --Dexter111344 03:29, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
It is one of the cleverest stubs on the site IMO it works better than a full historical article ever could. SirDJ~Irreverent
Wha? Might be good if I had any idea what it is about... or might not. SirDJ~Irreverent
Delete. If anyone can explain what the hell this is on about then I may look at it again and reconsider, but as far as I can see this is daft, random crap. --SirU.U.Esq.VFH | GUN | Natter | Uh oh | Pee 10:23, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Keep. It is what it says it is. Also, it is what it says it is. Deja vu, however is superior, but I can't help but feel that I've said that before. SirModusoperandiBoinc! 19:17, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete - One of my least favourite shorties. It just isn't funny. SirCs1987UOTM.t.c 11:12, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Comments
If deleted, it probably needs to be sent to Uncyclopedia:Protected titles since any sensible recreation (as a redirect, disambig, etc.) would fail to qualify as an endless loop. --Pentium5dot1 21:05, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Keep. Point though: lots of people confuse self-reference with in-joke. It's not really an in-joke, other than the fact that it's excessively short and still exists, which seems to make articles automatically be labelled as in-jokes these days. •Spang•☃•talk• 02:29, 08 Feb 2008
Keep Oh, good heavens - stuff like this isn't harming anyone like Ethel Merman's Disco Album did when it killed off The Saint in 1988. Dame GUNPotYWotM2xPotM17xVFHVFPPooPMS•YAP• 03:02, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Keep - Deleting this would be far too ironic (in a bad way). We need at least one article that takes the piss out of people who don't like short articles. SirCs1987UOTM.t.c 11:10, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete -- We have MORE than enough self reference guys. Hell, I've written entire sentences linking each word to a different one. Can't we just keep one or two of the better ones (Sure I'll compromise) -- Village Idiot♠KUN Free Speech 02:55, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Damn, you're right. And while we're at it let's cut back to three satires, we have lots of those. And a couple of first-person style, an encyclopaedic style one, some hyperbole and understatement ones, a few puns, one or two ironic ones, some surreality and a little bit of wit. Parody is right out. Or maybe self-reference is a just humour style that fits well in a parody encyclopaedia, and you can't judge a large group of articles by the style of humour they share. •Spang•☃•talk• 03:45, 08 Feb 2008
Delete Self-reference is fine. However, this isn't funny. And yes, I understand the joke; it just isn't a funny one. --THINKER 16:44, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Keep I think it has potential, obvious parody of a boring wikipedia article. Seen much worse on VFD. SirDJ~Irreverent
Weak keep. I don't think it's bad. I like some of the reactions at the end, for instance, and there are some ideas in there. It needs reworking to be easier to read and suchlike, but I don't think it's that bad. --SirU.U.Esq.VFH | GUN | Natter | Uh oh | Pee 09:31, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Keep - There's enough funny in there. SirCs1987UOTM.t.c 11:25, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete
CruftHuff - Nothing on Google OR Wikipedia, Bad idea, poor execution --Slavemaster2 23:54, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Kerkill Quit reading about 1/4th of the way through. I refuse to read more. Just because someone put effort into it doesn't mean it should be kept. This is a humour-wiki. We should kept it if it is funny. This isn't funny. --Dexter111344 04:09, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Closed nomination tag to indicate that the article has been kept. You have been warned.
Keep this December 22 Tradition If you don't have any idea what this is about then go look at 
Delete. - with fire.--
