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. This typographically ugly article about nothing has been abandoned since 2008, and can you blame us? Spıke¬ 00:50 12-Feb-13
Comments
Kept, 6-4, by VFD in 2008. One keeper called it an "obvious parody of a boring wikipedia article" but the 2008 nominator says he found nothing on Google or Wikipedia. Spıke¬ 00:50 12-Feb-13
I was going to quoticide and remove Listcruft as well as general QC based removal, but realised I'd be left with about one paragraph. Maybe an Undictonary item, but not enough to sustain an article. SirCPTDrPuppyOnTheRadioGUNUmPWotMNotMFPVFPVFHCMPOTMUGM12:47 12 Feb
Delete. There is nothing here but an Anon magnet--as we are seeing today. Spıke¬ 00:53 12-Feb-13
Keep. In contrast to Mecha-Pope, this one starts with a little erudition. (I can add no more of that, but Romartus certainly can.) I'll go in and clean it up. Spıke¬ 17:15 11-Feb-13
Keep. Quirky. Added a few extra lines. Not a feature but desperately bad either. --RomArtus*Imperator ITRA (Orate) ® 18:03, February 11, 2013 (UTC)
Keep. Aha.. here's the problem! Too many bad jokes! You know what they say.. all toasters... toast toast!--RockoRocks (talk) 21:04, February 11, 2013 (UTC)
Delete (0)
Delete. wacky war. withdrawn per fixing. --Mn-z 17:02, February 11, 2013 (UTC)
Comments
Comment. its better, but I still don't get it. --Mn-z 17:28, February 11, 2013 (UTC)
As I see it, an insane attempt to force together elements of the history of Catholicism with the elements of a fine breakfast (converging, of course, on the Earl of Sandwich). Spıke¬ 17:33 11-Feb-13
I have put out a call to Romartus, our scholar of the Inanities. Spıke¬ 17:36 11-Feb-13
Delete. makes Pope Fuck look good. Untouched since 2006 except for a category removal. --Mn-z 16:58, February 11, 2013 (UTC)
Delete. Serial meme-cruft for the "pedophiles/fucktards." That both these articles use nonsense year numbers is one facet of acting out against the Catholic Church rather than writing anything seriously amusing (which would involve a basis in reality). Spıke¬ 17:11 11-Feb-13
Delete. Title better than the article that followed. --RomArtus*Imperator ITRA (Orate) ® 18:04, February 11, 2013 (UTC)
Delete. I don't get it man --RockoRocks (talk) 21:04, February 11, 2013 (UTC)
Comments
It would be fun, especially now, to assemble a set of Popes, comparable to our Jesii and Preggos, but these articles are both crap. Spıke¬ 17:11 11-Feb-13
Delete. category has been mostly emptied due to VFD. It is almost, but not quite, small enough to QVFD. --Mn-z 16:34, February 9, 2013 (UTC)
Delete. Again, this arc of Uncyclopedia pages is mostly untouched in 7 years, and Wikipedia has not heard of the Folk Force nor of the several members for which I searched. Spıke¬ 16:38 9-Feb-13
Delete. an article about an enemy of the folk force. He was a botanist, then an eco-terrorist, then a catholic priest, then a eco-terrorist half-plant monster, then went to south America and was defeated by the folk force. --Mn-z 15:54, February 3, 2013 (UTC)
Delete. Oddball piece of fiction about a non-notable bad guy. Spıke¬ 02:08 5-Feb-13
German bandcruft, accumulating cruft as an open guestbook would. Am abstaining because I don't know the band; there could be some good stuff for someone who does. Spıke¬ 12:09 1-Feb-13
Delete. This article is about tobacco incarnate having a chance encounter with the Folk Force. This one is "about" something, but that something is itself randumbo. --Mn-z 16:06, January 31, 2013 (UTC)
Delete. What is amaing [sic] is that a typo in the tiny Intro has not been caught in seven years. Spıke¬ 12:15 1-Feb-13
Delete. This article is not that bad, but it has too much randumbo and forced association with the Folk Force to really be good. However, I wrote a similar article at Uncle Tom that I think says everything that was worth saying in this article, but better, with less randumbo, and with a pagename that someone might search for. --Mn-z 15:34, January 31, 2013 (UTC)
Delete. If you say it has to do with the Folk Force, then it has to do with something, although it doesn't seem to. It is a ramble by Anon from 2006. It only contains humor if mentioning stock racial stereotypes on the page is funny. Spıke¬ 15:41 31-Jan-13
Comments
Comment. there is a version early in the edit history that is "about" the folk force, but is even worse than the stock racial stereotypes. --Mn-z 15:57, January 31, 2013 (UTC)