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. Written, and revised overnight with 2010 census numbers, overtly to boost the city of Boise, just irreverently enough to fit on a humor wiki. Spıke¬ 12:03 27-Feb-13
Abstain. A playground for I.P. Anon and other drive-by writers of one-liners isn't optimal, but it's self-contained. The template, though, is awful: "This page is under perpetual construction... It is an ever changing work...." That is in fact a better description of Uncyclopedia:Sandbox. Better to get them to finish it, to flesh out each of the 100 themes into funny paragraphs, as I now try to do on its talk page. Spıke¬ 18:11 25-Feb-13
Delete. This article is based on the assertion that Arthur C. Clarke claimed to invent everything, insults directed to other dead sci-fi authors, and poorly implemented jabs at his allegations pedophilia. There is a bit of concept here, but very little execution, and not much more potential. --Mn-z 12:30, February 24, 2013 (UTC)
Comments
I see Aleister at work here and am holding off. The original article hit the same buttons ad nauseam but did start with a perfectly fine concept. Spıke¬ 12:38 24-Feb-13
Never saw this page before, checked the history (remember the rule about looking for a better version in the history????) and found out it's a Mhaille page, and reverted to his last edit. So by being a Mhaille page I surmise it contains very good material, but don't have time to read it now. Am going other places now, and one of them has food. Aleister 12:46 24-2-'13
Point to Aleister; nominator has the duty to make a token effort to find some quality somewhere, even during a purge of a namespace. I brought categories up to date after Aleister's mega-revert. Only the section on "tingle" seems to have no basis in reality, but maybe some of you recall something about Clarke that I don't. Spıke¬ 12:56 24-Feb-13
The content is basically the same. Although it was created by an established user, it was also created in 2006. There is some content, but it could be collapsed to half a dozen quotes without losing any information. --Mn-z 13:12, February 24, 2013 (UTC)
To answer my own question, WP:Arthur C. Clarke does not contain the word "tingle" so I'll kill three of the quotes for you. Spıke¬ 13:16 24-Feb-13
Keep.. This is a very specific vote for a very specific article. Wooga for life! -- Imrealized...hmm? 20:05, February 25, 2013 (UTC)
Delete (3)
Delete. This page is, by its title, the epitome of scatter-shot. I would quote trim it, but this page has no theme. Is it trying to quote the internet cyber-terrorist group, or what? If so, the subject is too obscure. It is trying to compile every anonymous quote in the history of humanity? If so, the subject is too broad. --Mn-z 12:12, February 24, 2013 (UTC)
Delete. Starting with a nonsense year number in a preachy Intro before devolving into themelessness, this is another tribute to the namespace instead of a service to the reader. Spıke¬ 12:16 24-Feb-13
Keep. If we are going to have an Unquotable namespace--and, for the moment, we are--then why not have a page setting out a coherent plan for it? UnNews has several such, and they used to be helpful. Indeed policy should not be "spread across 5 or 6 pages" and if you can find a better spot at which to unify it, tell me where it went and I'll flip my vote. You might find this page a useful place to set down guidelines so that the cruft you have spent so much time editing doesn't creep back. Or we might flesh this out into deadpan praise of people's use of dead men's quotations to fluff up their unremarkable present-day rhetoric. We have found gassy text elsewhere and not deleted an entire page that otherwise has a purpose. Spıke¬ 10:43 23-Feb-13
Delete (1)
Delete. unhelpful "about" page. The policy pages for unquotable are spread across 5 or 6 pages for no apparent reason, besides making the project look bigger than it actually is. What is said here could be said in one sentence. This has been unedited since 2006. --Mn-z 08:55, February 23, 2013 (UTC)
Keep. It's a good example of Obfuscata, and probably should remain purely as that. Given it is Obfuscata, I don't see a huge argument for a rewrite of this to match a rewrite of the page it's a translation of. If the main page is rewritten to an extent that this is no longer relevant, then we can look at a rewrite of this at that stage. SirCPTDrPuppyOnTheRadioGUNUmPWotMNotMFPVFPVFHCMPOTMUGM02:19 24 Feb 2013
Keep.. Because, because, because, because, because. I'm serious about that last one. The first four are me being silly. -- Imrealized...hmm? 20:05, February 25, 2013 (UTC)
Delete (2)
Delete. Reskin of the unquotable mainpage. And by "reskin" I mean text change. --Mn-z 08:05, February 23, 2013 (UTC)
Delete, again. This is seriously bad use of the English language. Yes, it is meant to make fun of same, but simply taking another Uncyclopedia page and making the English turgid is not heavy lifting nor as laughter-causing as focused, planned, engaging use of (perhaps with wry commentary on) bad English. Spıke¬ 10:52 23-Feb-13
Comments
Comment. I plan on a doing a reworking on the quotable mainpage. However, the main link template is intertwined with the various reskin pages. Before I work on the quote mainpage, I need to see what the community wants to keep, so I am not wasting time reworking articles that are going to be deleted anyway. --Mn-z 08:05, February 23, 2013 (UTC)
You have noted that the same text is transliterated multiple times into different "languages," but you could improve the Unquotable main page without the risk that we might compel you to apply your changes to Obfuscata in bad English, pirate-speak, etc. Spıke¬ 10:52 23-Feb-13
The coding of Unquotable:MainArticleList (which is used as template) is horrible, generating different content on different pages because there is a different section of code for each page the template appears on. --Mn-z 20:17, February 23, 2013 (UTC)
Horrible indeed! The template ("tricked out" in the ever-self-congratulatory words of Some user) special-cases itself based on who its caller is, to give each caller the "elegance" of calling the same, single template to achieve radically different effects! This is not so much a key part of our site heritage as a bomb planted especially deep! Spıke¬ 21:42 23-Feb-13
@ puppy if we need an article on Obfuscata, which would be a valid subject, it should be at Obfuscata, not as a clone of a random navigation page. This article makes about as much sense as running Newtis Newtfield through a Swedish Chef translator and calling it the Svedeesh Noot. --Mn-z 17:16, February 24, 2013 (UTC)
I agree that we should have an article at Obfuscata but the closest we have is at Obfuscation. I think this quotable page is a good example of Obfuscata, and we don't have an article at Obfuscata about the style of writing, so this should stay, at least until someone writes the Obfuscata page. You may consider this a challenge to write said page, if you like. Also, if someone ran Newtis Newtfield through a Swedish chef translator and called it the Sveedeesh Noot that would be funny. Redundant, but funny, particularly if it were linked as a see also from the main Newtis Newtfield article.-- Simsilikesims(♀UN)Talk here. 02:40, February 25, 2013 (UTC)
Keep. Imrealized knows his history. This page, which I've never seen before, give the background of the Oscar quotes, something which uncyclopedia is infamous for. It outlines the start of the meme, and how it evolved. I don't understand why people want to delete the main pages of the Oscar Wilde quotes. The quotes themselves, when they are bad and are on good to stupid articles, sure, but not the historical pages themselves. What's the problem with leaving those few pages alone, especially one like this which educates about the beginning of a tradition. I stand with Imrealized in standing with Some user, who is sitting down and won't stand for himself. Aleister 8:03 23-2-'13
Keep. I didn't want to be the only holdout, so I proposed originally to userspace this piece of Uncyc history so that it wouldn't get deleted outright. But I think that since it does mention former Uncyc admins in the story, it does deserve a place in Unquotable as Uncyc history. The UN:CM test also takes into account whether any of the admins might have heard of it, and I do remember one or two of the admins mentioned here, though they are no longer active on this site. Admittedly this story all happened before I chanced upon Uncyclopedia, but that is history for you. -- Simsilikesims(♀UN)Talk here. 02:58, February 25, 2013 (UTC)
Delete. Poorly written navelism. And as someone who actually digs into the history of this site and it's various facets, even I found this a most uninteresting chapter, as it's almost pure UN:CM stuff. SirCPTDrPuppyOnTheRadioGUNUmPWotMNotMFPVFPVFHCMPOTMUGM10:20 21 Feb 2013
Delete. Namespace creator Some user sets down in print his personal story as persecuted artist. Spıke¬ 22:27 21-Feb-13
Delete. nobody cares. This is somewhere between vanity and cracking wise with the navigation tools, with a dose of advocacy. This uses a whole article of ranting to explain history that could be said in a paragraph. --Mn-z 13:42, February 22, 2013 (UTC)
History explained in one paragraph - today's educational system described. The best history is an eyewitness account of what occurred told by someone who was there, plus the thought process which went into the situations described. It would be nice to have as detailed an account of the creation of uncy and other aspects of the wiki as we have here about the step-by-step creation and thought processes concerning the start of the Oscar Wilde quotes. a random historian 8:25 23-2-'13
Comments
This did not seem to me to focus quite exclusively on one user, but since that user is the main focus of the article, I propose we userspace this article to Some User's userspace. —The preceding unsigned comment was added bySimsilikesims (talk • contribs)
Selfish half-keep. I've hacked, trimmed, added, hacked and polished again. Without completely changing the concept, this is significantly improved. It could be more designed as twisting scripture, but that doesn't fit with the “illiterate/didn't write it” concept, which I feel has merit, and could possibly become it's own article. SirCPTDrPuppyOnTheRadioGUNUmPWotMNotMFPVFPVFHCMPOTMUGM04:34 23 Feb 2013
"Twisting scripture" would imply that the invented quotations were actually based on something. This is the prerequisite for decent humor rather than rant--attributed to Jesus, as I say below at Hitler, not based on anything but desire for artificial melodrama. If the concept of the lists is inattention to the basis of humor, then it is not a "concept" you need to preserve. Spıke¬ 11:12 23-Feb-13
There are two ways to do a page like this that make sense. One is to try and make the quotes as near to that original as possible. The second is to take the character of the subject and create quotes that fit with a parody of the character. This is a parody of the person, rather than a parody of sayings attributed to him. SirCPTDrPuppyOnTheRadioGUNUmPWotMNotMFPVFPVFHCMPOTMUGM11:47 23 Feb 2013
Puppy barks. And will probably keep on barking. Nice page. Aleister 8:08 23-2-'13
Keep.. This vote is also specific, but in an entirely different way than the other vote. -- Imrealized...hmm? 20:05, February 25, 2013 (UTC)
Delete (1)
Jesi-cruft 60% advocacy and 40% randumbo. 100% in the wrong tone. Only a couple quotes come close to being clever, and those are in the wrong tone. --Mn-z 17:12, February 21, 2013 (UTC)
Comments
The Intro is downright good. On the rest of the article, my comments are the same as on the Hitler one. Spıke¬ 17:16 21-Feb-13
Keep.- the Unquotable section of articles work together collectively allowing for running gags, viewing each as a stand alone article is, in my view, the wrong approach to dealing with this section of articles. -- Sir Mhaille (talk to me)
Delete. Another article that is the same concept as the mainspace article, only done worse. Granted, the mainspace article execution could use work, but quotification is hardly an improvement. --Mn-z 17:17, February 19, 2013 (UTC)
Delete. Unquotable fails utterly, and especially at imitating Wikiquotes, when the person being quoted is not a celebrity but a stock stereotype. Spıke¬ 18:30 19-Feb-13
Delete. The quotes here just aren't funny anymore (especially the dated stuff about G.W. Bush), and translating them into Sveedish Chef speek does not zee make zem foooney Bork Bork Bork! Besides, the Muppet Show in which the Swedish Chef muppet starred in was in its prime when I was in about 6th or 7th grade. The celebrity claim to fame of this muppet is so old that it has been forgotten and is no longer widely remembered. -- Simsilikesims(♀UN)Talk here. 03:09, February 25, 2013 (UTC)
Keep.- the Unquotable section of articles work together collectively allowing for running gags, viewing each as a stand alone article is, in my view, the wrong approach to dealing with this section of articles. -- Sir Mhaille (talk to me)
Just read this, and some of it is pretty good. You can't have enough good Yodaisms. I'll do some work on the page later. Aleister 22:25 26-2-'13
Delete (3)
Delete. 90% of the quotes are about sex, and 9% are Russian Reversals. There might be a couple quotes here that are funny, but I can't see justifying a page on the subject. The whole joke is the Yoda voice, which is done better than the quote format could ever be at Yoda. --Mn-z 17:13, February 19, 2013 (UTC)
"Stroke my green penis, you will." Not just the Russian Reversals but everything on this page is imitative. The only authentic comedy was done by the creators of Yoda. Spıke¬ 18:28 19-Feb-13
Keep. Not a Muppet. Beyond that this is an example of what the namespace is good for. There's half a dozen decent one liners, but not enough content to call it an article of prose. Adding much more to this would potentially be overkill. Deleting this would be removing a page that has merit. Saying “It wouldn't survive in mainspace” is correct - and that's why we have other name spaces. This is better than 99% of My sojourn articles. SirCPTDrPuppyOnTheRadioGUNUmPWotMNotMFPVFPVFHCMPOTMUGM12:43 20 Feb 2013
Keep.- the Unquotable section of articles work together collectively allowing for running gags, viewing each as a stand alone article is, in my view, the wrong approach to dealing with this section of articles. -- Sir Mhaille (talk to me)
Delete. this feels like the retarded step-brother of the Good Guy Lucifer meme. This is a mixture of scattershot, advocacy, and general quotecruft. --Mn-z 15:59, February 19, 2013 (UTC)
Delete. If anyone wants to write an article in the voice of Satan, I consider that a legitimate comedy strategy. This article is that strategy reduced to exactly listcruft. If any newbie wrote this in mainspace, any experienced editor would tell him that we are looking for funny paragraphs and not quips, slaps, and one-liners. Spıke¬ 18:25 19-Feb-13
Comments
At pup the problem with this is that there may be 6 good one-liners, but there are 20 quotes on the page. --Mn-z 14:16, February 20, 2013 (UTC)
Vote closed. No consensus to delete. Spıke¬ 23:03 26-Feb-13
Entire vote per Kip. This is a historic page in uncy's history. As the source of the Oscar Wilde quotes, and the start of the in-joke, essential page. I like the plaque idea, to mark it as historic. Aleister 12:51 21-2-'13
Keep. As the origin of the in-joke, this page should be kept. I too like the idea of a plaque. -- Simsilikesims(♀UN)Talk here. 00:26, February 24, 2013 (UTC)
Keep.. I also like the idea of plaque build-up. I'd work on said plaque, but would probably have my work replaced four hours later. -- Imrealized...hmm? 20:05, February 25, 2013 (UTC)
Delete (1)
Delete. redundant with Unquotable:Oscar Wilde. I finally got around to reading through this article and moving the good quotes (all 3 of them) to the other Wilde quote page, and I recently purged it too. --Mn-z 15:47, February 19, 2013 (UTC)
Comments
I feel the need to point out that this page has historical significance as the very origin of the Oscar Wilde in-joke. If anything, it deserves a clean-up and a plaque. --Kip > Talk•Works•• 09:56, Feb. 20, 2013
@ pup & kip there is alot of overlap between this page and Unquotable:Oscar Wilde. Besides bad quotes, there is nothing of importance here that isn't at the unquotable page. I would actually prefer to move the unquotable to this name, per my crusade to delete the unquotable namespace. --Mn-z 14:20, February 20, 2013 (UTC)
I would be merging Unquotable:Oscar Wilde with this namespace, but deleting Unquotable entirely. It's a valid parody of Wikiquotes and amusing when properly managed. Then again, what you do with your own Uncyclopedia is your business. --Kip > Talk•Works•• 02:52, Feb. 21, 2013
Vote closed. Broad support to keep. Ideas on restructuring our Wildeisms are still welcome in the Forum. Spıke¬ 22:58 26-Feb-13
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
Closed nomination tag to indicate that the article has been kept. You have been warned.
Delete. Written, and revised overnight with 2010 census numbers, overtly to boost the city of Boise, just irreverently enough to fit on a humor wiki. 
Abstain. A playground for I.P. Anon and other drive-by writers of one-liners isn't optimal, but it's self-contained. The template, though, is awful: "This page is under perpetual construction... It is an ever changing work...." That is in fact a better description of 
Keep. Good enough now. 
Unquotable:Satan 
merging Unquotable:Oscar Wilde with this namespace, but 
deleting Unquotable entirely. It's a valid parody of Wikiquotes and amusing when properly managed. Then again, what you do with your own Uncyclopedia is your business. --
