Uncyclopedia:VFH/Why?:You should not be a cannibal (Cajek)

VFH overview

All nominations

Feature queue

Re-feature queue

Recently featured

Recently failed

Archive

Rules

Why?:You should not be a cannibal (history, logs) (feature) (remove)

Article: Why?:You should not be a cannibal	Score: 1
Nominated by:	—Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 21:33, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
For: 7	Nom+For. Since Cajek's version has been restored I thought I'd nom it. A great article about cannibals. What more do you want? —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 21:33, 29 July 2009 (UTC) For I still wish I was that head. With all of my bodily fluids running down that girls -- What? MegaPleb • Dexter111344 • Complain here 21:36, 29 July 2009 (UTC) Ick. Just ick. Pup t 07:34, 31/07/2009 For. 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 21:53, 29 July 2009 (UTC) For. -OptyC Sucks! CUN22:51, 29 Jul For. pure gold -- Soldat Teh PWNerator (pwnt!) 02:47, 30 July 2009 (UTC) For. Cajek is gonna pass me in the hall of shame again. :( - T.L.B. WotM, UotM, FPrize, AotM, ANotM, PLS, UN:HS, GUN 03:20, Jul 30 03:20, 30 July 2009 (UTC) For. Style  Guide 04:54, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
Against: 6	Against. InMooseWeTrust 11:55, 30 July 2009 (UTC)  Against. Just didn't do it for me Sir ACROLO KUN • FPW • AOTM • FA •(SPAM) 18:08, 30 July 2009 (UTC) Against. This isn't finished. There's like, almost nothing there! This article has a golden concept, and I'd like to see some more content to go with it. • • • Necropaxx (T) {~} 20:30, Jul 30 Against. Needs more content. Sir Starnestommy (Talk • Contribs • CUN) 06:05, Jul. 31, 2009 Against. Fantastic start to a longer article, but not enough to keep the water out on it's own. Pup t 07:32, 31/07/2009 Against. i can see this article being good in the future, but right now, It's a little too short and a little to subtle. 5noname5 15:21, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
Comments	Abstain. I like the article, but I think it would be better if it had a different title. The article is subtle, since you're wondering whether the guy's talking about sex or something else, but having the title explain exactly what the joke is about sort of ruins it for me. Sir Groovester | Contributions | Talk Page 22:56, 29 July 2009 (UTC) abstain i guess, as per jim. not feeling it for a feature. SirGerrycheeversGunTalk 20:23, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

VFH

← Back to summary VFH
← Back to full VFH