Against. More in the style of an UnFeature than an UnNews article in my view. Also wanders off topic too much. RomArtus*Imperator ® (Orate) 09:30, October 17, 2012 (UTC)
I want to be constructive. I reckon if you shorten it (few ideas are funny for more than a few paragraphs), link it to your original inspiration (there is one right? I googled limbo UN to see if it was a pun!), and make it more coherent, it will get a more positive response. —The preceding unsigned comment was added byLeverage (talk • contribs)
The original inspiration might be over-regulation at the UN, but if so, it got totally lost in the noise for me. I want to be constructive too. Author should lower his expectations of getting his first product on the main page. And, of course, read UN:HTBFANJS. SpıkeѦ 11:44 15-Oct-12
I want to be constructive too. It's "The United Nations has", not "The United Nations have". I do MUNs. Also I'd think MEDC/LEDC would be better terms to use than first-world/second-world etc, what with the dashes and all aye nice article though. »ZhelielTalkContribsCow»12:44 October 15
Zheliel, FYI, the point of grammar is different from the US to the UK. Brits treat an organization of more than 1 person as plural. Separately, using MEDC/LEDC would have made my eyes glaze over further. I specialize in using the politically incorrect word Negro in order to portray the spokesman as out-of-touch. SpıkeѦ 12:49 15-Oct-12
The nomination was not successful.RomArtus*Imperator ® (Orate) This article did not pass VFH and was removed on 23:00, October 17, 2012 (UTC). This page is now archived; do not edit it, it will have no effect.