Uncyclopedia:VFH/Leporiphobia

Article: Leporiphobia	Score: 7
Nominated by:	• • • Necropaxx (T) {~} 21:00, Jan 3
For: 12	Nom & For - What can I say? This is an old one, yes, but it's by Bradaphraser, so there. • • • Necropaxx (T) {~} 21:00, Jan 3 For. They scare the hell out of me. Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 23:50, 3 January 2009 (UTC) For Although, I did replace the namedrop spam with a see also section. --Mnbvcxz 00:21, 4 January 2009 (UTC) For, due to voting regulations that state I must vote for my own articles.--<<>> 02:00, 4 January 2009 (UTC) For. due to voting regulations that state I must vote for Brad's articles. Admiral Enzo Aquarius-Dial the Gate 02:01, 4 January 2009 (UTC) For. Shudder. --UU - natter 10:29, Jan 4 For. -Sockpuppet of an unregistered user 10:35, 4 January 2009 (UTC) For --Cap'n Sir Ben GUN WotM VFH VFP 01:05, 5 January 2009 (UTC) For. Rabbi Techno kvetch Contribs FOXES 11:09, 5 January 2009 (UTC) Fur, due to voting regulations that state I must vote for any articles that allow me to use puns in my vote. —Sir SysRq (talk) 23:21, 5 January 2009 (UTC) weak for. rather short, but still good. SirGerrycheeversGunTalk 16:51, 6 January 2009 (UTC) For Vintage Uncyclopedia. Colin ALL YOUR BASEHeaney! Casa Bey Superfly Portfolio 03:28, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
Against: 5	Psh. This was already featured on the front page for Easter, remember? Let some other articles have a chance. 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 21:13, 4 January 2009 (UTC) No real surprises here. Doesn't seem to be feature quality to me. --S0.S0S.0S.0S0 06:37, 9 January 2009 (UTC) Meh Per So So. Not enough funny to justify its length, imo. -RA HB 11:25, 23 January 2009 (UTC) Against. Had me at the start, lost me at "albino pygmy leprechauns". Unsolicited conversation Extravagant beauty PEEING 03:17, 26 January 2009 (UTC) Against. IronLung 08:34, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
Comments	This did spend a day on the front page on Easter 2006. However, it was determined not to give it featured status because it wasn't voted to the front page and was only featured for the holiday. I would like to get that status for this article, if the voters think it's good enough. The other couple of times this has been on VFH, the argument against always seems to be "it's already been featured." Well, if that's the case, just bump it up to featured status and it'll stop being nommed to VFH. According to Uncyclopedia records, though, it's NOT been officially featured, and thus is not part of Uncyclopedia:Best of.--<<>> 21:47, 4 January 2009 (UTC) I could support it's being featured without going to the front page again. With the current queue system in place, though, it seems like it'd be a mess to do. -- 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 21:49, 4 January 2009 (UTC) And I'm ok with it being featured without going to the front page, as well. I want to see what others have to say about this.--<<>> 21:52, 4 January 2009 (UTC) Making it a non-featured feature sort of ruins the point of voting. Its been a while since the last feature (2 3/4 years), I don't have a problem with double featuring. Anyway, we used to leave articles up for two days in a row.--Mnbvcxz 05:58, 6 January 2009 (UTC)