1. 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)

1. 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. Sir CPT Dr PuppyOnTheRadio GUN UmP WotM NotM FP VFP VFH CM POTM UGM 10:21 24 May 2013
2. 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
3. Delete. What is the point of this text? Anton (talk) 17:51, May 24, 2013 (UTC)

• 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)

No keep votes.

1. Delete. -- 11:17, May 21, 2013 (UTC)
2. Delete. Shame it's been slowly destroyed after all the years of neglect --TheDarthMoogle (talk) 11:36, May 21, 2013 (UTC)
3. 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)
4. 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)

• 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

No keep votes.

1. 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
2. Delete. I agree. Sir ScottPat CUN VFH UnS NotM(talk) 20:15, May 20, 2013 (UTC)
3. Delete. I agree. It is not that funny. Anton (talk) 05:44, May 21, 2013 (UTC)
4. Delete. Dreadful stuff. Rev. Zim (Talk) Get saved! 11:22, May 23, 2013 (UTC)
5. Delete. Wacky wars plus vandalism = fail. -- Simsilikesims(♀UN) Talk here. 21:11, May 24, 2013 (UTC)

• HowTo:Vandalize Wikipedia (which has step-by-step instructions) would be up next. Spıke ¬ 

20:03 20-May-13

• By all means, feel free to kill this embarrassment before it spreads. Rev. Zim (Talk) Get saved! 11:22, May 23, 2013 (UTC)

No keep votes.

1. 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
2. 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)
3. Delete. This article eats babies. Rev. Zim (Talk) Get saved! 04:15, May 24, 2013 (UTC)
4. 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)

1. 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 ScottPat CUN VFH UnS NotM(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 ScottPat CUN VFH UnS NotM(talk) 17:27, May 20, 2013 (UTC)

   That is a better rationale. Spıke ¬ 17:32 20-May-13

   Sorry I struggle to write clearly sometimes. Sir ScottPat CUN VFH UnS NotM(talk) 17:35, May 20, 2013 (UTC)

1. 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
2. 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)

• 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

1. 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)

2. 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

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)

• Vote closed. No groundswell to delete after five days. Spıke ¬ 18:22 24-May-13

No keep votes.

1. 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
2. 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)
3. Delete. Let's add in some jokes about George Bush. And maybe something about the Falklands war. And the Chinese building a wall against the Monguls. Timely humour needs to be both timely and humour. Fails on both counts. Sir CPT Dr PuppyOnTheRadio GUN UmP WotM NotM FP VFP VFH CM POTM UGM 04:48 20 May 2013
4. Delete. Apparently there is a much better treatment on the subject here. This one is awful and delete-worthy. Rev. Zim (Talk) Get saved! 17:27, May 20, 2013 (UTC)

   Yup, Hipster (writing as Hypster) on the talk page praised the "original" article by Funnybony over this rendition by Mr-ex777--which, by the way, saves all but one of the illustrations. The article under vote here was actually begun earlier. Spıke ¬ 18:20 24-May-13

5. Delete. I am tired of voting against. Anton (talk) 17:42, May 24, 2013 (UTC)

   As Jesus once said about ministering to sinners. Few saintly articles, however, come before this tribunal. Spıke ¬ 18:20 24-May-13

• 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 ScottPat CUN VFH UnS NotM(talk) 19:44, May 19, 2013 (UTC)

No keep votes.

1. Delete.-- 20:36, May 17, 2013 (UTC)
2. Delete. Start over. This article, if done right, should be more than an excuse to dabble in incoherency. Spıke ¬ 22:50 17-May-13
3. 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)
4. 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. Sir CPT Dr PuppyOnTheRadio GUN UmP WotM NotM FP VFP VFH CM POTM UGM 04:45 20 May 2013
5. Delete. *yawn* Rev. Zim (Talk) Get saved! 04:12, May 24, 2013 (UTC)

It's not encyclopedic but still kind of funny. I'm abstaining. Sir ScottPat CUN VFH UnS NotM(talk) 20:39, May 17, 2013 (UTC)

No keep votes.

1. Delete. This article from 2005 is a receptacle for whatever unclever Randumbo you want to type. Spıke ¬ 19:14 17-May-13
2. 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

3. Delete. Awful. Why don't they ever learn what encyclopedic means. Sir ScottPat CUN VFH UnS NotM(talk) 20:23, May 17, 2013 (UTC)
4. Delete. Bleargh! Sir CPT Dr PuppyOnTheRadio GUN UmP WotM NotM FP VFP VFH CM POTM UGM 04:37 20 May 2013
5. Delete. Kill it before it opens a portal to a hell dimension, whereupon unspeakable beasts will chomp upon our entrails. Rev. Zim (Talk) Get saved! 04:09, May 24, 2013 (UTC)

1. 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

1. 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
2. Delete. Concur. --RomArtus*Imperator ITRA (Orate) ® 13:48, May 9, 2013 (UTC)
3. 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 ScottPat CUN VFH UnS NotM(talk) 05:49, May 10, 2013 (UTC)
4. Delete. Shame someone wasted so much time on it. Sir Reverend P. Pennyfeather (fancy a chat?) CUN VFH 16:14, May 13, 2013 (UTC)
5. 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. Sir CPT Dr PuppyOnTheRadio GUN UmP WotM NotM FP VFP VFH CM POTM UGM 04:30 20 May 2013
6. Delete. It is one of the most boring articles I have ever read. Anton (talk) 17:39, May 24, 2013 (UTC)