Uncyclopedia:VFH

•  For. BREAD!!!!!!!!!!!!!! PantherZX0815 talk 03:28, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

•  Against. Developers! Developers! Developers! Oᑭöᔑᔑᙀᙏ (vandalize my talk page 04:03, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
•  Against. It’s literally just the word "bread" written a couple thousand times. Also it looks ugly. 08:34, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
•  Against. Dude, it's already a miracle the admins haven't QVFD'd your article... I think you should try honing your skills as an editor before trying to get your articles featured... DaniPine3 (talk) 11:24, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
•  Against. Yeah, not sure about this one, chief. Bad Motherfucker GET FUCKED! 15:46, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

Bless.  Fenris2010, Emperor, Valued Council Member, & Chess player ^{Talk to me here.} 23:05, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

1. It doesn’t stink, not one bit (see what I did there?). Oᑭöᔑᔑᙀᙏ (vandalize my talk page) 00:43, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

No against votes

 For.

No against votes

 For.  Fenris2010, Emperor, Valued Council Member, & Chess player ^{Talk to me here.} 03:35, 15 August, 2024

No against votes

 For.  Fenris2010, Emperor, Valued Council Member, & Chess player ^{Talk to me here.}

No against votes

 For. I love how the article parodies this far-right prick. – Preceding unsigned comment added by Pasmorade (talk • contribs)

 For. Fenris2010 (talk) 02:49, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

 For. The article seem quite classical but ok. TiazuGotAutism333 (talk) 07:36, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

•  For. 18:44, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

No against votes

 For. Why hasn't this been featured yet? Pasmorade (talk) 13:25, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

 For. This is ok with me to get featured, I don't think it is a good idea for sternly forcing it must be funnier than other featured articles to get highlighted. TiazuGotAutism333 (talk) 08:56, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

 Against. I think that this article has potential, but for now I don't think it should be featured. Fenris2010 (talk) 01:59, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

 For. I think it's funny.Fenris2010 (talk) 02:47, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

 For. Very funny. – Preceding unsigned comment added by Pasmorade (talk • contribs)

 Against. May be funny, but I wouldn't say featurable material. Also, the company it's making fun of isn't really known -it doesn't even have a Wikipedia article-, so the joke will probably be lost to most readers. DaniPine3 (talk) 01:36, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

• Against slightly. The point above. 18:40, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

• I'm going to be honest right now, and this is probably going to sound slightly ridiculous, but I didn't actually know that the company actually existed. I thought it was just a funny article about a non-existent thing.  Fenris2010, Emperor, Valued Council Member, & Chess player ^{Talk to me here.} 00:34, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Neither did I until I browsed a deep further on the subject. Because of how weirdly specific the subject of the article was (internet meme websites), i knrw it probably was making fun of something specific DaniPine3 (talk) 00:56, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

1.  For.I think it's pretty funny. Fenris2010 (talk) 02:41, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
2.  For. MrX blow me 14:24, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

No against votes