Uncyclopedia:VFH/UnNews:Gazelle struggles to overcome gambolling addiction

Article: UnNews:Gazelle struggles to overcome gambolling addiction	Score: 4 gnuledgeable Uncyclopedians
Nominated by:	Rev. Zim_ulator (Talk) I am the dirt under your rollers 03:02, September 2, 2010 (UTC)
For: 12	For. The title alone makes me nominate it. Reading it confirmed my suspicions. Rev. Zim_ulator (Talk) I am the dirt under your rollers 03:02, September 2, 2010 (UTC) Self for -- unpleased Ape (acidify) (Riot Porn) 03:11, September 2, 2010 (UTC) For - Not particularly sincere, Sir ColinA Y B CUNVFHWhoringMore Whoring at 03:13, Thursday 02 September 2010 - Carefree Frolicking For Promises what it delivers. Or the other way around. Does what it says on the tin. --KUN VFH POTM VFP(IMAGES⇔TALK) 03:51, September 2, 2010 (UTC) Another For. Almost nominated this one myself, I did TKFU U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U UU U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U CK 05:02, September 2, 2010 (UTC) For. Cap'n Sir Ben GUN WotM VFH VFP 05:58, September 2, 2010 (UTC) For. Cute Funny bony 09:36, Sep 2 09:36, September 2, 2010 (UTC) For. Run with the wind. A hurricane cometh. Aleister 11:50 2 9 For. —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 12:03, 2 September 2010 Some fag posted this article on his Facebook the other day and then I read it. Then I go on recent changes today and I see it is apparently on VFH, so I decided to vote for it. MegaPleb • Dexter111344 • Complain here 17:08, September 2, 2010 (UTC) For great justice Ragnarok 20:37, September 2, 2010 (UTC) For. • • • Necropaxx (T) {~} Friday, 03:08, Sep 3 2010
Against: 8	Against. penis lol -- Soldat Teh PWNerator (pwnt!) 06:10, Sep 2 Against.....short one gag UnNews article.....sorry... -- Sir Mhaille (talk to me) Against. The joke's in the title, the article doesn't really add anything to that. Like the title, though. --UU - natter 11:56, Sep 2 Against. Gomphog 12:41, September 2, 2010 (UTC) Against. its funny but not feature page quality Dr. Fenwick 17:06, September 2, 2010 (UTC) Against. Featuring a single pun? Really? pillow talk 17:52, September 2, 2010 (UTC) I don't think its just a single pun, to be fair. -- unpleased Ape (acidify) (Riot Porn) 20:21, September 2, 2010 (UTC) Against. per UU. Wilytank 16:24, September 3, 2010 (UTC) Against I could have sworn I already voted on this, and I could have sworn it was against... something about what UU said. Or something. ~ shifty eyes (talk) (stalk) -- 20100911 - 22:38 (UTC)
Comments	Comment. Timeless. *RomArtusImperator ® (Orate) 17:43, September 2, 2010 (UTC) Abstain. I really like it, but at the same time it probably isn't feature worthy. —Unführer Guildy Ritter von Guildensternenstein 20:19, September 2, 2010 (UTC) Comment*. I challenge the assertion that an Unnews article is too short for feature. While true that most Uncyclopedia main space articles are somewhat lengthy , UnNews stories are frequently shorter than an average mainspace article. Some of this is the fleeting nature of the news business, and the need to keep things rolling along. Many UnNews writers do an article every day for extended periods of time to help ensure content for a new day every day. Likewise, if I nommed a Haiku-styled poem for front page, we would not expect it to be a long article. My two ducats. Rev. Zim_ulator* (Talk) I am the dirt under your rollers 22:21, September 2, 2010 (UTC) For. When did it start being about conforming to standards, as opposed to what people find funny? - Not particularly sincere, Sir ColinA Y B CUNVFHWhoringMore Whoring at 22:33, Thursday 02 September 2010 - I just find it weird that the people who thought Suddenly, Raccoons (which contains exactly one joke) was like the best thing evar are now going "Too short. One gag." -- unpleased Ape (acidify) (Riot Porn) 09:22, September 3, 2010 (UTC) I voted against Suddenly, Raccoons for the exact same reason. -- Sir Mhaille (talk to me) Not sure if you did, but you didn't vote For either, so I'll believe it. -- TKFU U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U UU U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U CK 13:16, September 3, 2010 (UTC) Technically, I thought there was more than one joke in Suddenly... I also enjoyed the absurdity of that one, including the tone of the prose. It made me chuckle. Whereas this has a neat title that raised one of those "oh - cute" smiles, but not a laugh or a giggle, and then I felt the article beyond that was quite staid, and didn't really go anywhere with it. It didn't, in other words, make me laugh - which is why I voted the way I did. Y'know, that whole "subjectivity" thing. I'm not worried if it's long enough, just if it makes me feel good. So to speak. Seeing as you ask. --UU - natter 14:00, Sep 3 As the writer of Suddenly, Raccoons, I actually thought my description of Michael Jordan's picture was about twice as funny as the raccoons themselves. I fell down a little on page 3, though, and failed even harder post-Rivkin. pillow talk 23:08, September 3, 2010 (UTC) Actually you are correct, although I DID mean to vote against it, looks like I didn't get around to it. -- Sir Mhaille (talk to me)