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. A real article about a real person. Much better than the other one we used to have (see Comments), uses decent writing style, even has a comedy strategy (politely soft-pedaling genocide, and later implying that Goering himself might have edited the article). Not delete-worthy. Spıke¬ 15:04 11-Nov-12
Keep. Best line in the article: "often spelled Goering due to wartime shortages of umlauted characters" —qzekrom.net16.netclicky! 18:56, November 12, 2012 (UTC)
Page moved. The page used to be named "Hermann Goering (politician)"; the current name was a disambiguation page to here and to the other article that we deleted. Spıke¬ 15:09 11-Nov-12 PS--I changed "Hermann Goering (politician)" to a redirect but it is now deleted via QVFD. Spıke¬ 21:58 15-Nov-12
Keep. I still get a laugh when I'm having a bad day when I get on here and look at this article. Personally, I think it should just be kept for how it can brighten any day, except Oscar Wilde's. RS (talk) 22:13, November 10, 2012 (UTC)
KEEP There's just no point in deleting this. mAttlobster. (hello) 22:36, November 10, 2012 (UTC)
Delete. It's just a mostly-sexual list of crap not really about Oscar Wilde. I've already had my run in with sexually crude things not being funny and I find this to be no different. When it's not sexual, it's "Your Mom" and similar jokes of immature level. --LuMontyZ Was Here 19:21, November 10, 2012 (UTC)
I have a similar problem with gratuitous potty humor. However, Oscar Wilde is not only Uncyclopedia's Patron Meme but a gay pervert, and thus the perfect Wildeism is gratuitous potty humor that is not really about Oscar Wilde. In fact, Wildeisms that don't have some sort of double meaning ought to be eliminated. I'm holding off voting; don't remember the details, but I seem to recall that all the site's Wildeisms are cross-linked; I got VFD's approval two years ago to delete some component of this and found I had to undo my work. Spıke¬ 19:35 10-Nov-12
Don't know how nominator got this nomination to be born with an age of 5 hours (probably cut-and-pasting the timestamp) but I've set it to the timestamp of his signature. Spıke¬ 19:35 10-Nov-12
Sorry about the timestamp deal. I just copied the template like the instructions said. Thanks for fixing it. I guess my beef with this article is that because it's "The Patron meme" it's fine, but my former article that revolved around Fire Emblem, shipping, and crude jokes about the shipping was delete after vote because it was "too crude." I just want some consistency here. LuMontyZ Was Here 17:40, November 11, 2012 (UTC)
Seriously, I try to show consistency (because it makes me more persuasive and proves that a Delete vote is not personal) but it is not required. Voters on VFD are voters, not paper-graders, and are allowed to vote any way for any reason; if they have criteria, they are allowed to have as many exceptions and special cases as to seem that there are no principles at all--though, again, that is less persuasive than consistency. Voters above all are not required to have the same criteria for what should stay and what should go. You ought not nominate something on VFD as real or perceived retaliation for the deletion of an article of yours. In addition, "too crude" might not mean vulgarity or sexual references; it might mean crude typography or facile humor, such as puns on people's names. It's conventional here to include links to what you are talking about so we can see for ourselves and perhaps give you more relevant advice. Spıke¬ 01:01 12-Nov-12
I get what you mean completely. It isn't personal. In fact, if I knew that this page was the Patron Meme of this site I wouldn't have bothered. I suppose as an aspiring math teacher I've been trying to grade papers. I hope I didn't come across as petty or angry. This is the article[[1]] specifically the version before today's edit. I appreciate any feedback. LuMontyZ 04:16, November 12, 2012 (UTC)
No need to feel that you shouldn't have VFD'ed the article. Any article, no matter how hallowed, shouldn't be allowed to stick around if it is a tedious mess, like this one. Somebody should reach in there and kick just about 90% of these "quotes" out on their sorry asses, for being devoid of humor. ~ BB ~ (T) ~ Tue, Nov 13 '12 16:35 (UTC)
It was I who nominated that article of yours for deletion (see archive 265) and I have now given you a detailed review on your user page. Spıke¬ 01:05 14-Nov-12
I'm glad someone agrees! I'm not sorry, it's just the feeling when you find out how, to use your word BizzeeBeever, hallowed something is. Then comes the feeling that says it's untouchable. Lu 00:15, November 14, 2012 (UTC)
We get it. <Your_city_here/> is a horrible, horrible nightmare of a place, filled with chavs, drunken chavs, drunken chavs having sex, drunken chavs having drunken gay sex, several traffic circles, and (for a bit of variety) ...some chavs. If you don't like your town/city/state/province/country, please feel free to die or move away. Just take your shitty article with you. ~ BB ~ (T) ~ Sun, Nov 4 '12 16:36 (UTC)
Delete as Vanity. Besides, why is this located at "Basingstoke" and not "Basingrad"? —qzekrom.net16.netclicky! 18:52, November 4, 2012 (UTC)
Because Basingstoke is the name of a city and thus a valid name for an encyclopedia article; whereas Basingrad is the punch line of a joke (a trite joke, styling a place after the Soviet Union), which no one is going to type. Spıke¬ 19:32 4-Nov-12
Comments
Abstain. All of the humor is trite and none of it is clever. But I would not see, in our campaign against chavcruft, a new, large hole open up at Basingstoke, a few miles away from the gaping hole at Reading, where we have no article (not even for that other Reading in that other Berkshire that is pronounced the way it's written) and people mentioning snooker tournaments have to use a link to book-Reading. We are laying waste to the English countryside. Spıke¬ 17:31 4-Nov-12
I have been to Basingstoke so I will have to abstain in case that visit left me biased in either direction. --RomArtus*Imperator ® (Orate) 22:09, November 11, 2012 (UTC)
Then you ought not just abstain but repair. I was driven through Basingstoke once on my way to work in Reading. It had an ICL plant and a cinema. Slough, now that (phew!) deserves a replacement article. Spıke¬ 01:06 12-Nov-12
The quintessence of a horrible, horrible Uncyclopedia article. Randomness, bad language, and pointless lists searching for a concept which floats somewhere, out there, just over the horizon, and permanently out of reach. ~ BB ~ (T) ~ Sun, Nov 4 '12 15:25 (UTC)
Delete. And don't forget: Make gay sex the principal theme. Spıke¬ 15:42 4-Nov-12
Delete. Can't stand reading it all!--Sir SinnerSandbox (¿?) 23:05, November 10, 2012 (UTC)
Delete. Listing very badly, shipping bilge water by the ton. --RomArtus*Imperator ® (Orate) 22:12, November 11, 2012 (UTC)
Keep. not bad enough. same problem as Eurg.--fcukmanLOOS3R! 09:33, November 5, 2012 (UTC)
Delete (2)
Please God make the Grue shit stop. ~ BB ~ (T) ~ Sun, Nov 4 '12 15:25 (UTC)
Delete. Some author thinks that the Grue is so delightful and fundamental that writing anything to do with it will let him fit in, and that reversing the letters to bloviate about the Eurg is just another base he must touch. Spıke¬ 15:46 4-Nov-12
Delete. Shit jokes and Nigger jokes. I feel the author went on from this unfunny character assassination to author several of the year's political campaigns around here. Spıke¬ 15:49 4-Nov-12
Keep. A real article about a real British film reviewer, based on real things. Unfortunately, it's primarily based on one real thing--the subject's speech impediment--until author titles the fifth section: OK, so this whole 'R' joke is getting a bit shit now. Overuses quotes, memes, gay humor, and the one real joke. Spıke¬ 15:59 4-Nov-12
Keep. It didn't make me laugh out loud but it was funny. As Spike said it overuses one joke and that's just fine. Lu 18:18, November 12, 2012 (UTC)13:17 12-Nov-12
Delete (1)
Hello! I bwought this hewe because I don't know if it's any good, ow if it's any bad, and also because I don't know who "Jonathan Woss" is. It weads like Elmuh-Fudd-style gibbewish to me. ~ BB ~ (T) ~ Sun, Nov 4 '12 13:12 (UTC)
Comments
I exchanged the contents so that Jonathan Ross is the article and Wossy, which no one will ever type, is the redirect. Spıke¬ 15:59 4-Nov-12
Closed nomination tag to indicate that the article has been kept. You have been warned.
Keep. A real article about a real person. Much better than the other one we used to have (see Comments), uses decent writing style, even has a comedy strategy (politely soft-pedaling genocide, and later implying that Goering himself might have edited the article). Not delete-worthy. 
Delete. Not funny at all...--
Making up Oscar Wilde Quotes 
Abstain. All of the humor is trite and none of it is clever. But I would not see, in our campaign against chavcruft, a new, large hole open up at Basingstoke, a few miles away from the gaping hole at Reading, where we have no article (not even for that 
