| Score: 5 (7-2)
|
Nomination by T3 20:58, 8 Yoon 2009 (UTC)
|
| For:
|
- Nom 'n' For.
I know it's really really really really short but c'mon, how can you not laugh at this? --T3 20:58, 8 Yoon 2009 (UTC)
- For Made it longer. Better now. —rms talk 02:20, 9 Yoon 2009 (UTC)
- An easy for. mwow513 • My Articles! • Talk to me 19:09, 9 Yoon 2009 (UTC)
- weak for nicely surreal and hilarious concept, though the article itself didn't stand out an awful lot. I liked it enough to vote fo. Yes indeed. --THE 21:39, 9 Yoon 2009 (UTC)
- Length isn't an issue for me personally, so hell yeah I love it! -- Hindleyak Converse • ?blog • Click here! 14:11, 11 Yoon 2009 (UTC)
- Well, length was an issue. It used to be the first paragraph only, but T3 and I beefed it up a little. —rms talk 15:26, 11 Yoon 2009 (UTC)
- For. Oddly funny. CamelToe 18:04, 11 Yoon 2009 (UTC)
- For. --Silent PenguinLeave Me Alone 15:26, 12 Yoon 2009 (UTC)
- Seppy voted? Wow! —rms talk 15:29, 12 Yoon 2009 (UTC)
|
| Against:
|
- Against, here me out, the article itself is fine but i get the feeling every other article RMS or T3 do is nommed, anyway the article was good, but not to pornfessional feature standards. The likelihood is this vote will do nothing to stop it so pfft. --Testostereich • (ballsack) 18:13, 11 Yoon 2009 (UTC)
- Ha, it does seem like every other article we do is nommed, eh? Well, if this gets featured I won't take any credit. —rms talk 18:17, 11 Yoon 2009 (UTC)
- Neither will I. Because the rest of the writing isn't that great. Give the credit to AnotherPongo, he came up with it. --T3 18:20, 11 Yoon 2009 (UTC)
- Against. Not really feature-hover stuff. --Ben Blade 16:04, 12 Yoon 2009 (UTC)
|
| Comments:
|
*Abstain Yes, it was funny, but the length does kill it. If we can add some more too it, we're on to a winner. —rms talk 21:00, 8 Yoon 2009 (UTC)
|