SelfNom/Aye. Haven't failed anything on VFH for a bit, and besides in-jokes, its been a bit quiet lately. --Matfen 19:53, May 3, 2010 (UTC)
For. Worst things have been featured. And technically this is not first person, it's more like "dialogue". Not all non-encyclopedic articles are first person articles. ~15:56, May 4, 2010
For. Never read the book or saw the film, but still had quite a few good laughs while reading it. Sirrah CatshirEChess the Striker2117 04:45, May 5, 2010 (UTC)
For. Funnybony 08:23, May 5 08:23, May 5, 2010 (UTC)
Against. I love the movie. The article, well, not so much. I'm really getting tired of the 1st person articles... sorry Matfen...--SirSF13(Talk)GUNWotMRotMFBotMVFHSKMaj.ΥΣΣ23:26 EST 3 May, 2010
Against. Can't quite match the tone correctly, a rambling read that isn't jarring enough to be shocking and too off-tone to be adequately satirical. The elements are there but the execution is wrong (no pun intended). TKFUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUCK 02:00, May 6, 2010 (UTC)
Against. It's a good idea but I think it's overcooked. Some editing would help too. RomArtus*Imperator ® (Orate) 14:25, May 8, 2010 (UTC)
Comments
Pee Review by his excellency, Sir Chiefjustice DS. (Changes since implemented)
The nomination was not successful. rm 18% +3~ This article did not pass VFH and was removed on 15:17, May 17, 2010 (UTC). This page is now archived; do not edit it, it will have no effect.
SelfNom/Aye. Haven't failed anything on VFH for a bit, and besides in-jokes, its been a bit quiet lately. --
