Uncyclopedia:VFH/Fish in a bucket

Article: Fish in a bucket	Score: 6 buckets fulla fish, brother
Nominated by:	– Sir Skullthumper, MD (criticize • writings • critchat) 19:20 Mar 26, 2008
For: 14	Nom & For. Judging by the article's history, this probably isn't the smartest thing I've ever done. But it made me laugh. Aloud, even. So I figured, what was the harm? – Sir Skullthumper, MD (criticize • writings • critchat) 19:20 Mar 26, 2008 This ain't stupid, it's fish in a bucket.--Sir Shandon (Talk) (Trophy Room) 19:22, 26 March 2008 (UTC) Basically a For. Le Cejak • <-> Mar 26 (22:44) NRV -- TKFU 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 23:49, 26 March 2008 (UTC) Fish in a bucket. - P.M., WotM, & GUN, Sir Led Balloon (Tick Tock) (Contribs) 01:44, Mar 27 For in a bucket. -RA HB 06:21, 27 March 2008 (UTC) What the hell. On second thought, why not? It made me laugh, I'm sure it'll make others laugh as well. That's the important thing right? Right? --OptyC Sucks! CUN 00:31, 28 March 2008 (UTC) Against as per Optimuschris. Ж Kalir, Crazy Indie Gamer _{(missile ponies for everyone!)} 07:35, 28 March 2008 (UTC) For. A thing of beauty. -- 15Mickey20 (talk to Mickey) 13:05, 28 March 2008 (UTC) Oh ma GAWD. That was dayum nice. I dun got a good cupple yuks raht thurr. – Preceding unsigned comment added by SysRq (talk • contribs) What a purty sight! ~ 08:59, 30 March 2008 (UTC) All most as purty as a pecan pie!' Robertodole For. --*Sir* Starnestommy (Talk • Contribs • CUN) 00:32, Apr. 3, 2008 Heh That was strange. Perhaps we should re-add the NRV tag on the day it's featured if it does get featured. --THE 01:16, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Against: 8	Against Don't get me wrong, it's silly and absurd and I absolutely loved it, I just don't think it belongs on the main page. --OptyC Sucks! CUN 19:08, 27 March 2008 (UTC) Against. Don't get me wrong either: it's OK-ish, I suppose. But not feature. Nosiree. --SirU.U.Esq. VFH \| GUN \| Natter \| Uh oh \| Pee 08:56, Mar 30 Nein It's funny-ish. It definitely didn't deserve the ICU it got (oh, Zombles...). But it just seems stale to me, like it's forcing itself to be funny. Maybe I'm a loon, but I'm just not feeling it. – Preceding unsigned comment added by Ljlego (talk • contribs) Against. It's OK, almost good, but I agree with both UU and Ljlego's views here. –—Hv (talk) 30/03 20:04 Against. It's so-so. Not bad, but mediocre. Par sat, or, A Whole Bunch of Mischief 02:54, 2 April 2008 (UTC) Against. Not really sure what is funny here. - UnIdiot \| \| Talk \| Contribs - 20:50, Apr 3 Um Either that went way over my head... --Sir DJ ~ Irreverent 14:03, 5 April 2008 (UTC) Against Its chief virtue was its concision, but that's also its weakness me thinks. Needs to be made more substantial, and I think the concept is a bit thin. --Knucmo2 14:08, 6 April 2008 (UTC) Against per above. --THINKER 18:11, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Comments	If this gets featured, would it be the first article ever to go from NRV/ICU to featuredom without revision? (My Long walks on the beach was also ICU'd, but I fixed it up a bit before it made the front page.) --So So 03:39, 28 March 2008 (UTC) Oh there have been others, I'm sure. -RA HB 04:34, 1 April 2008 (UTC) Na ah. I'm taking my toys and going home. --Sir DJ ~ Irreverent 14:03, 5 April 2008 (UTC) To Knucmo2: It's not a thin concept; it's fish in a bucket. --So So 00:34, 7 April 2008 (UTC)