Uncyclopedia:VFH/George Washington Carver

Vote	Score: 5.5 peanuts in a pod
Nominated by:	pillow talk 19:51, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
For: 11.5	For. Haven't laughed this hard at an article in a while. pillow talk 19:51, 15 February 2009 (UTC) Fwhore --Mnb'z 20:22, 15 February 2009 (UTC) For. Peanuts! -Sockpuppet of an unregistered user 21:36, 15 February 2009 (UTC) For. Ironically, he was allergic to peanuts. That's what killed him. That, and the tumble down the stairs. Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 23:35, 15 February 2009 (UTC) I heard that Carver wrote the first version of Uncyc's peanut article back in the 1880s but it was huffed immediately because it was so horrible and then he got banned for a century for vanity. And then another century for being black. --S0.S0S.0S.0S0 06:16, 16 February 2009 (UTC) Niggardly For. • • • Necropaxx (T) {~} 17:28, Feb 17 Salmonella. TKFUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUCK 01:32, 18 February 2009 (UTC) For. It meets the grade Asahatter (annoy) 21:47, 18 February 2009 (UTC) For. Took a little getting into, then I really enjoyed it. --UU - natter 14:13, Feb 19 For. –72.193.236.89 09:07, 22 February 2009 (UTC) For. Straight-faced bullshit. Good job. IronLung 01:23, 23 February 2009 (UTC) For. Not that funny, but well-written and good enough. Rabbi Techno kvetch Contribs FOXES 13:30, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
Against: 6	Against. Didn't find this particularly funny. Unsolicited conversation Extravagant beauty PEEING 05:02, 16 February 2009 (UTC) Against. I wrote an unfavourable review for someone on this article some time ago. As if by magic, it doesn't seem to have changed. ---kun "whisper sweet nothings into thine ear..." 12:26, 16 February 2009 (UTC) against. hm, not feeling this one. SirGerrycheeversGunTalk 16:59, 16 February 2009 (UTC) Against.--Sycamore (Talk) 10:22, 22 February 2009 (UTC) Against. —Sir SysRq (talk) 23:34, 2 March 2009 (UTC) against. --Allmightyred 10:57, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
Comments:	* Abstain.--Sycamore (Talk) 11:29, 16 February 2009 (UTC)