Uncyclopedia:VFH/3 Second Rule

VFH overview

All nominations

Feature queue

Re-feature queue

Recently featured

Recently failed

Archive

Rules

3 Second Rule (history, logs) (feature) (remove)

Article: 3 Second Rule	Score: 2 seconds
Nominated by:	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 06:36, July 9, 2010 (UTC)
For: 7	Nom + Cajek. I always thought this was quite funny, and given the rapidly falling standards of VFH, I say it should definitely have a shot now. -- 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 06:36, July 9, 2010 (UTC)  Sure. —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 06:38, 9 July 2010 For. 99.59.86.144 06:04, July 10, 2010 (UTC)  For. Made me laugh. --Some Idiot 09:26, July 10, 2010 (UTC) For. I'd eat that rock. ~ Lyrithya *shifty eyes* (words) (actions) -- 20100711 - 06:22 (UTC) On second thought, nevermind. Hyperbole's right. ~ Lyrithya *shifty eyes* (words) (actions) -- 20100716 - 04:27 (UTC) For. Little sloppy, but a genuinely funny article. Megaman126512 05:09, July 12, 2010 (UTC) For. Meh... it's OK. Rev. Zim_ulator (Talk) I am the dirt under your rollers 11:51, July 12, 2010 (UTC) For. Nice. Pretty good article. Yours Falsely, . . . . 00:48, July 15, 2010 (UTC)
Against: 5	Against. Eh. --Sir HELPME Talk (more? --> CUN ROTM NOTM Pleb USS Pees SK ) On Friday, 06:46, July 09 2010 UTC Against. Kinda sloppy. Plus I don't know where this talk about VFH's falling standards is coming from. —Unführer Guildy Ritter von Guildensternenstein 16:58, July 9, 2010 (UTC) Almost but no martini The idea is very good but the writing, imnho, needs some tweaking. The best ideas ought to have the most hours in the edit chamber to polish the thing and make it shine, and this has the potential to go that route. Aleister 20:19 9 7 Against. I like the idea and runs reasonably well but let down by random story additions (relevance of Batman and Riddler for example?) to become a feature. RomArtus*Imperator ® (Orate) 09:56, July 10, 2010 (UTC) Against. A lot of the wording is, honestly, bad. The lede appears to flat-out contradict itself. Some of the sentences are borderline ungrammatical. Needs work before it can go to feature. pillow talk 01:18, July 16, 2010 (UTC)
Comments	Re: Guildernsiteinsineinineisni: To quote someone who very recently voted on that UnNews about the camera: "It's not special, but it's featurable." About every week someone says something terribly depressing like this. If that doesn't indicate falling standards, then I don't know even what. -- 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 06:30, July 11, 2010 (UTC) It's interesting that you only hear about VFH's standards falling, isn't it? Never rising. No one ever says, "Hey, looks like them featured articles are gettin' good again." Which leads me to conclude we've been gradually sucking more since 2005. – Sir Skullthumper, MD (criticize • writings • critchat) 01:28 Jul 16, 2010 Well, yeah. -- 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 05:11, July 16, 2010 (UTC)

VFH

← Back to summary VFH
← Back to full VFH