Uncyclopedia:VFH/Fish in a bucket

Score: 6 buckets fulla fish, brother

1. 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 • bloggings) Quote of the Day 19:20 Mar 26, 2008
2. This ain't stupid, it's fish in a bucket.--Sir Shandon (Talk) (Trophy Room) 19:22, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
3. Basically a For.   CAKE J! <-> Mar 26 (22:44)
4. NRV --Grand General Wizard Etc x2 and Senator G/K/O/CUNT.K.F. WHORE! ZOTM MAFE VANDL UOTM WOTM TOP10 FP PMOTM UWotM 23:49, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
5. Fish in a bucket. - P.M., WotM, & GUN, Sir Led Balloon (Tick Tock) (Contribs) 01:44, Mar 27
6. For in a bucket. -RAHB 06:21, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
7. 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)
8. Against as per Optimuschris. Ж Kalir _{with all the grace of a tin can} 07:35, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
9. For. A thing of beauty. -- 15Mickey20 (talk to Mickey)  13:05, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
10. Oh ma GAWD. That was dayum nice. I dun got a good cupple yuks raht thurr. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by SysRq (talk • contribs)
11. What a purty sight! ~ 08:59, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
12. All most as purty as a pecan pie!' Robertodole
13. For. --Sir Starnestommy (Talk • Contribs • CUN) 00:32, Apr. 3, 2008
14. 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 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)

1. Against. Don't get me wrong either: it's OK-ish, I suppose. But not feature. Nosiree. --SirU.U.Esq. VFH | KUN | Natter | Lt? | Pee 08:56, Mar 30
2. 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. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ljlego (talk • contribs)
3. Against. It's OK, almost good, but I agree with both UU and Ljlego's views here. –—Hv (talk) 30/03 20:04
4. Against. It's so-so. Not bad, but mediocre. Parsat, or, A Whole Bunch of Mischief 02:54, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
5. Against. Not really sure what is funny here. - UnIdiot | | Talk | Contribs - 20:50, Apr 3
6. Um Either that went way over my head... --Sir DJ ~ Irreverent 14:03, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
7. 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)
8. Against per above. --THINKER 18:11, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

• 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. -RAHB 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)