Uncyclopedia:VFH/Sania Mirza: A Riposte

VFH overview

All nominations

Feature queue

Re-feature queue

Recently featured

Recently failed

Archive

Rules

Sania Mirza: A Riposte (history, logs) (feature) (remove)

Article: Sania Mirza: A Riposte	Score: 6 mullahs who masturbate to pictures of her
Nominated by:	—Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 15:04, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
For: 11	Nom+For. Because I absolutely love this! —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 15:04, 30 July 2009 (UTC) For an endless cycle of Sania Mirza rebuttal articles T​K​F​​U​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 00:13, 31 July 2009 (UTC) Weak for. It's funny, but could use a little more work. Sir Starnestommy (Talk • Contribs • CUN) 06:11, Jul. 31, 2009 For. InMooseWeTrust 11:04, 31 July 2009 (UTC) For MegaPleb • Dexter111344 • Complain here 14:23, 31 July 2009 (UTC) Self-for, although half the credit should probably go to 80.78.22.6. -- 15Mickey20 (talk to Mickey)  17:57, 1 August 2009 (UTC) lulz. • • • Necropaxx (T) {~} 21:21, Aug 1 For. Yay for me. -- nude Ape (cramp) (Riot Porn) 17:31, 2 August 2009 (UTC) for. sure; well done. SirGerrycheeversGunTalk 14:31, 3 August 2009 (UTC) Obvious For Though I still really like the Sania Mirza talkpage... Woody On Fire! Talking Woody Stalking Woody 17:01, 3 August 2009 (UTC) sure,Why not its all good--Dinosinatra 22:48, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
Against: 5	Strong Against. It's way too injokey, the whole idea of a "rebuttal article" is extremely tired, and I honestly just didn't find it funny. —Unführer Guildy Ritter von Guildensternenstein 00:59, 2 August 2009 (UTC) Why is it extremely tired? We haven't featured one in ages (by which I mean quite a lot of months). Besides that, I think this article is rather self-explanatory. —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 07:56, 2 August 2009 (UTC) Socky, I hate to break it to you, but not everyone finds retrospective articles about articles that were shit automatically funny. And yes, I did read the article, I always do before voting. —Unführer Guildy Ritter von Guildensternenstein 12:14, 4 August 2009 (UTC) I wasn't saying you didn't. Also, I find this one quite different from other retrospective articles, partially because of its origins. The article was based on a comment at Talk:Sania Mirza. Also also, I really wouldn't call Sania Mirza a shit article. Also also also, you're not breaking anything to me, I already knew that. And finally also, I made that previous comment because it seemed you were voting against this just because this was a "rebuttal article", I wasn't implying you didn't read it. But whatever, vote whichever way pleases you most. —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 12:36, 4 August 2009 (UTC) Well, you did say I probably didn't read this article on the VFH page of the other stupid retrospective article that's on here. —Unführer Guildy Ritter von Guildensternenstein 12:39, 4 August 2009 (UTC) Why would that comment have anything to do with this one? And what does that nomination have to do with this one? They're not even nommed by the same people. —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 12:42, 4 August 2009 (UTC) Against.--Sycamore (Talk) 09:55, 2 August 2009 (UTC)  Against. . It's an overused style that requires fresh legs. --RomArtus*Imperator ® (Orate). 15:58, 2 August 2009 (UTC) Against. I found it funny but not funny enough to feature. -- El Sid, the lazy one • parlez-vous franglais? 16:35, 2 August 2009 (UTC) Against. –Flashfreez 20:59, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

VFH

← Back to summary VFH
← Back to full VFH