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. Back in 2006, some user created a copy of the sandbox in quotespace. Literally. --Mn-z 19:58, February 18, 2013 (UTC)
Delete. An alternate namespace no more needs its own Sandbox than, well, the F.C.C. needs its own judges and welfare system. Happily, this aberration we can get rid of without a union grievance. Spıke¬ 20:03 18-Feb-13
Delete. No need for this redundancy. The quotes on this page aren't even that funny. -- Simsilikesims(♀UN)Talk here. 00:01, February 19, 2013 (UTC)
Keep. I like the idea of these other "languages", and the unquotable pages are classic examples of these other faux languages. Besides, removing these pages should be a decision put off until the fate of the Unquotable namespace is decided, since they are linked to on the main page of the Unquotable namespace, and would require a change to that page. -- Simsilikesims(♀UN)Talk here. 00:36, February 19, 2013 (UTC)
Delete (3)
Delete. Argh matey. This be unquotes in piratespeak. Shiver me timbers and hoist the mizzen mast. Make this land-lubbing article walk the plank and send it to Davy Jones's locker. Avast, ye scalawags: yo-ho-ho and a bottle of rum. --Mn-z 19:37, February 18, 2013 (UTC)
Delete. Could have sworn that Groundhog Day has passed, but I keep seeing the same page over and over. Nominator counted 37 pages in this namespace: How many are prank copies of the same text? (Don't spend time researching that question....) Spıke¬ 19:41 18-Feb-13
Clarification. There about about 65 pages, 37 of which are "real articles". This type of stuff is not counted as a "real article". There are two three more repeats of the mainpage. --Mn-z 19:47, February 18, 2013 (UTC)
Yikes! We have allowed more than one article per VFD nomination, provided you specify exactly what is to be deleted when nominating, and you don't mind having the vote be all-or-nothing. Hint, hint. Spıke¬ 19:55 18-Feb-13
By consensus of the only voters so far, it is so ordered. Spıke¬ 20:09 18-Feb-13
PS--The Français page is a disambig over to our French counterpart, something we should not put ourselves in the business of doing except via the Sidebar; the Obfuscata illustrates something that should be a canon rule: The bonus points for "writing an article in the style of the thing it's about" should have a big red warning sign for the repetitive, the gratuitously confusing, and the otherwise very bad, which this one is. Spıke¬ 20:14 18-Feb-13
Delete. another unquotable reskin. This was has formatting to make it look vandalized. Largely untouched since 2006. Apparently, adding "ON WHEEELS" randomly and repeatedly was funny back in 2006. --Mn-z 19:28, February 18, 2013 (UTC)
Delete. Did the vandal author know that a VFD template was coming when he wrote his SPAN with absolute positioning to overlay it? I had a notion to hack this prank away, but I hope and expect the entire page will meet its maker soon. Spıke¬ 19:30 18-Feb-13
Delete. This page is ugly, and really doesn't add much of anything, and isn't even close to another "language", doesn't teach n00bs anything either. It can go. -- Simsilikesims(♀UN)Talk here. 00:40, February 19, 2013 (UTC)
Delete. This is a basically a reskin of Unquotable:Main_Page. And by reskin, I mean text change. This is essentially the same article as it was in 2006. --Mn-z 13:48, February 18, 2013 (UTC)
Delete. And the "text change" is to vulgar (not even original-vulgar but vulgar in the style of Dumbass). Amusing to the author (creatively named Some user, sigh), not clever for the reader. Spıke¬ 14:04 18-Feb-13
Delete. Another category by which to slap a tag on an article that you simply dislike the subject. Used in userspace and, of course, on Fox News. A clever insult is one thing; saying retards believe it is drive-by listcruft. Spıke¬ 12:16 18-Feb-13
Delete. The subcategories will survive the deletion of this category, as will, of course, the pages in the category. Apart from the un-P.C. reference to "retards," this category is an epithet with no cleverness. Spıke¬ 13:05 18-Feb-13
Delete. Yes, do exactly that. Some day a student on the debate team will write an article with serious ridicule of that experience. That will beat the crap out of this long ramble that treats debate as yet another Wacky War. Spıke¬ 14:40 17-Feb-13
Delete. per above. --Mn-z 13:38, February 18, 2013 (UTC)
Delete. per above. I lost interest in this article about halfway through the sample debate, and couldn't be bothered to read all of it, it's that bad. -- Simsilikesims(♀UN)Talk here. 00:51, February 19, 2013 (UTC)
Delete promptly. No one will ever look for this article (except Anon, overnight) and no one cares about author's random history-of-the-future (set in 1984 only because 1984 is a meme). Spıke¬ 14:19 17-Feb-13
Delete. per above. --Mn-z 13:38, February 18, 2013 (UTC)
Delete. yet another Wacky War with an old meme thrown in. -- Simsilikesims(♀UN)Talk here. 00:57, February 19, 2013 (UTC)
Delete. I'm throwing this out to see if we want to trim back the UnQuotable project. I support its deletion, because scattershot lists of quotes are not funny. --Mn-z 10:59, February 17, 2013 (UTC)
Comments
Unquotable is a parody of Wikiquote. This means that it's essentially a scattershot of lists of quotes. Some of these are okay, given that it's a very limited frame. Most of them are terrible. And Unquotable:Steven Wright[1] has recently been recreated, and as with previous incarnations is pretty woeful. While I'd agree with a massive trim on these pages (which I went through and trimmed out a lot of these a year ago, but VFD'd few of them), the namespace has it's place. SirCPTDrPuppyOnTheRadioGUNUmPWotMNotMFPVFPVFHCMPOTMUGM11:04 17 Feb
Just because Wikipedia does something doesn't mean we should copy it. An example is the fork's recent "UnVoyage" which is likely to turn into Ultra-Towncruft, if it isn't forgotten in a few months. While the unquotable format does parody an actual thing, it is not particularly conducive to writing good material. There is no good reason why there should be a quote page by Charles Darwin, and not one by, say Preggobear. I could create a quote page for Preggobear, but anything I can say there can be , and probably is, said better in paragraph format in the mainspace article. --Mn-z 11:18, February 17, 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, but if we tried to do a Captain Oblivious article it... well, you can see what I ended up doing with it. I've trimmed this particular page down now to remove some of the worst quotes. (Although I agree - I see no value in UnVoyage. It'll go much the same way as UnBestiary in the end.) SirCPTDrPuppyOnTheRadioGUNUmPWotMNotMFPVFPVFHCMPOTMUGM12:17 17 Feb
My issue is that you are saving weak articles by moving them out of mainspace into a "crapspace" for lack of a better term. Articles like Captain Oblivious should stand or fall on their own merits, not hide their flaws behind a namespace. It would like moving Robotic ghost pirates to UnLegacyRandumbo:Robotic ghost pirates instead of taking it to VFD. --Mn-z 13:13, February 17, 2013 (UTC)
Except that I didn't think it was VFD worthy. I felt it had merit, but not in the “frame” of mainspace. Otherwise we should delete UnDictionary because all the articles are stubs. Under that “frame”, this article works. SirCPTDrPuppyOnTheRadioGUNUmPWotMNotMFPVFPVFHCMPOTMUGM01:42 17 Feb
↑Now deleted, independent of the issues discussed here; a cut-and-paste from an external humor website. -Spike
Delete. Article consists of immaturely insulting the subject and grues. It is also unlinked from mainspace, besides a couple redirects. --Mn-z 08:49, February 17, 2013 (UTC)
Part-time penis. And I do hate it when grues are insulted. Spıke¬ 14:21 17-Feb-13
Delete. random for the sake of random. This has been kept twice, but it has been 3 years since it has been taken to VFD. It has only 1 mainspace link, so I am guessing no-one really cares about it. --Mn-z 08:43, February 17, 2013 (UTC)
Delete. I can't add to my argument in its last VFD; but in the one before that, before I arrived, it had overwhelming support: Don't delete until Romartus has had a say. Spıke¬ 14:45 17-Feb-13
Delete. red-link laden randumbo from 2006 that survived this long mainly due to mentioning kitten huffing. Although it has been edited a few times since 2006, it is still the same article. --Mn-z 08:38, February 17, 2013 (UTC)
Delete. Pick a topic. Pick a meme. Shuffle. The result is filler. Spıke¬ 14:49 17-Feb-13
Delete. a wacky war from the 31st century between Coke and Pepsi involving Harrison Ford, Tome Cruise, and Chuck Norris. --Mn-z 08:30, February 17, 2013 (UTC)
Delete. Per above. There used to be World War articles on every number between III and about XV, and we got rid of all; did this one survive merely from our fatigue? Spıke¬ 14:47 17-Feb-13
Delete. Randumbo with a hint of advocacy. It has largely been untouched since 2006, except for a wannabe-maintenance template. I think it might be a parody of Jehovah's Witnesses, since it seems that JC-bashers are Christians. (JC = Jesus Christ, I assume). Or maybe JC-bashers are bible thumpers. Whatever this article is supposed to be about, I assume we probably have (or should have) a better version somewhere. --Mn-z 11:59, February 16, 2013 (UTC)
Delete. Yes, exactly "randumbo with a hint of advocacy." If you are going to take on strident advocates/opponents of a sect (includes Glenn Beck), be playful and not extreme-sounding yourself--and above all, don't write crap. Spıke¬ 12:12 16-Feb-13
Delete. Just not funny enough, looks like it was written by an 11 year old, except for the legal department link. That part was funny. -- Simsilikesims(♀UN)Talk here. 23:51, February 18, 2013 (UTC)
A vital page to keep Glenn Beck's honored name among the people who care most. Aleister 14:20 15-2-'13
Delete (2)
Delete. and redirect to Glenn Beck. This is a combination of "I don't like this guy's politics" and a database of Youtube videos. We already have a much better article on the subject. --Mn-z 14:19, February 15, 2013 (UTC)
Delete. It's a redundancy, and not a good one. SPIKE has improved it, but I don't see a point on having a "passable" article on a topic where we have a "featured" article. SirCPTDrPuppyOnTheRadioGUNUmPWotMNotMFPVFPVFHCMPOTMUGM11:43 16 Feb
Comments
As "Uncyclopedia is not a catalog to things found elsewhere on the Net," I've deleted three sections that had no function but to send readers to YouTube. Pieces of this article intended to serve up true utterances of Beck by which to discredit him are advocacy, not humor, even if you think he is ridiculously funny. Some funny stuff remains and I would like to see it merged into Glenn Beck, as "Asshat" in the title is likewise too busy being advocacy to help the reader reach the article. I assume Aleister's vote is more advocacy rather than a vote. Spıke¬ 14:31 15-Feb-13
Advocacy? Are we wikipedia now? All the Fred Phelps pages are advocacy, the Hitler pages are too, I guess, and anti-Hitler pages are too, and on and on...Aleister minutes later. I remember when we moved this page to here when Glenn Beck was replaced with the other page, and there was discussion about what to call it, and Asshat won.
I reply by boldfacing a sentence of my earlier reply. Multiple wrongs don't make a right. The Hitler pages have value added by Uncyclopedians. If you intend to reassemble the YouTube collection that I deleted, please take it to a more suitable website. Spıke¬ 14:41 15-Feb-13
I strike part of my earlier reply. Glenn Beck was a FA and should not receive any orphaned pieces of this article, especially if that is not an improvement. Spıke¬ 16:06 15-Feb-13
I recall when Glenn Beck was written there was some discussion about if it should replace this article, which was an established page by that time. We decided sure, as long as this page was kept around, and the discussion of what to name it was heated and laster for about a year (no it didn't, but it was discussed). I don't like the Glenn Beck page itself, it's more of an UnBooks because it's a transcript of Beck's show. This page is more encyclopedic, and I think should have remained the Beck article. And why can't we put the videos back on the talk page????? This seems a suitable place to put them, and to enjoy them at our leisure. Videos work, and many pages use them. Do we have a limit on vids (three sounds reasonable if presented well, with captions and they are appropriate to the page. The vid at UnPoetia:Well-oil birds worked so perfectly you'd think it was designed for the page) and if so, let's put a couple of them back at least. Glenn, we hardly knew ye! Aleister 12:45 16-2-'13
Do we have a limit? My personal limit is 1; as when yesterday I cut out a section of Bear wrestler with no original comedy, designed only to share a TV show with other Uncyclopedians. Which is as close as you come to comedy in the deleted sections. We appreciate the work of cops but not enough to allow roughing up detainees; and we benefit from your skill but not when you use the website to catalog the rants of a commentator you disagree with. Spıke¬ 14:27 17-Feb-13
On a related note, I found Unquotable:Glenn Beck which is similarly themed, although it is written like a bad uncyclopedia rather than a bad liberaladvocacypedia article. --Mn-z 10:50, February 17, 2013 (UTC)
Closed nomination tag to indicate that the article has been kept. You have been warned.
Delete. Back in 2006, 
Keep. I like the idea of these other "languages", and the unquotable pages are classic examples of these other faux languages. Besides, removing these pages should be a decision put off until the fate of the Unquotable namespace is decided, since they are linked to on the main page of the Unquotable namespace, and would require a change to that page. -- 
