From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
| Article: Physics doesn't exist, its all about Gnomes
|
Score: 15.5
|
| Nominated by:
|
• Spang • ☃ • talk • 02:16, 03 Dec 2008
|
For: 17.5
|
- Amusing article. Also happened to get us over 30,000 extra visits today alone (so far) today through being linked on StumbleUpon. Can't argue with democracy! • Spang • ☃ • talk • 02:16, 03 Dec 2008
- Sure, though I think it could use another pic or 2... - P.M., WotM, & GUN, Sir Led Balloon
 (Tick Tock) (Contribs) 02:33, Dec 3
- Yep I added some, but the underpant gnomes may not approve. Still needs more pics. MrN
 02:41, Dec 3
- For. 72.201.43.108 03:39, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
- For. 24.205.183.135 05:58, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
- For. 124.171.225.143 06:19, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
- For. Why not? --UU - natter
 14:17, Dec 3
- For. 75.51.148.206 15:00, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
- For per UU —
 talk 15:02, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
- Weak For. • • • Necropaxx (T) {~} 16:11, Dec 3
- For. 216.235.148.194 17:51, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
- For. Gnomes explain all :P 72.136.117.212 19:44, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
- For. 38.118.55.132 23:22, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
- For. 24.215.89.239 00:07, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
- For. It just looks like something from here. 76.17.62.169 03:15, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
- For. 69.144.87.120 03:27, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
- For. 206.197.182.88 22:45, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
- For so long as Codeine isn't right. RabbiTechno 17:13, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
- For. aweesome 75.146.54.162 17:13, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
- For. 82.9.234.51 22:29, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
- For. This is a good picture of how the loony think. Ryuinfinity 14:20, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
- For. EXCELLENT!! *air guitars* Sanareth 08:55, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
- For. My mom always told me i was losing my underwear, now i know it was those freaking underpants gnomes now 129.21.121.65 18:26, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
- For. Makes sense. 88.253.46.205 18:33, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
- For. In the old days, we used to feature anything that garnered positive outside attention, especially if it didn't suck. This doesn't suck.--<<
 >> 02:07, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
|
Against: 2
|
 Against.. Good concept, but too bitty for me. Asahatter (annoy) 08:19, 4 December 2008 (UTC)- Against. - I'm a little mixed about those articles, I'm even more mixed about all those IP's that have come out of the woodwork.--Sycamore (Talk) 17:20, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
- The IPs are becuse of the 80,000 extra people coming to that page from SU, mixed with the handy vote box right at the bottom of the page. • Spang • ☃ • talk • 22:14, 04 Dec 2008
|
| Comments
|
I hate being the mean party pooping bastard, but I'm not sure this is an Uncyc original. There's a Facebook group of the same name, and the earliest link on the discussion board there dates from 28th March 2007, which predates the creation date of this article, 17th June 2007. It's still funny, and it's great that it garnered so may hits for us, but it might not be eligible for VFH in that case. Sorry. -- Sir Codeine K·H·P·B·M·N·C·U·Bu. · (Harangue) 23:49, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
- Is it not possible that this may have been written by the group? Can it be featured then? I think this evolved from that board and, looking at the dates, in conjunction with it. --Sir DJ ~ Irreverent
     13:43, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
- Yea, if we assume this was written by the guys who put it here that makes it OK right? Also, it's been edited a fair bit since... MrN 20:46, Dec 8
- Remember that this is a wiki that anyone can edit. We have no choice but to assume that this was written by them unless we can prove otherwise. I think "eligible until proven guilty" applies here, given that we are open source. Unless, of course, it was written by gnomes. I think we have a "no articles written by gnomes" clause lying around here somewhere. sir
 sysrq @ 23:04 Dec 8
To refute Codeine's points, I present this, which was far more blatantly unoriginal when featured, and was featured for nearly the same reason as this article. We've featured Uncyclopedian takes on memes before. It should not be a bar to the feature queue.--<<>> 02:42, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
|
VFH
← Back to summary VFH
← Back to full VFH
Always check the feature queue first.
Note: the queue slot won't be properly filled until the {{FA}} code (with correct date) is on the article.
Just follow the instructions if you're unsure.
Against.. Good concept, but too bitty for me. 
