From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
| Vote
|
Score: 10.5 Marathon Mellotron-laden Musical Masterpieces
|
| Nominated by:
|
~~ Sir Ljlego, GUN [talk] 22:02, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
|
For: 14.5
|
- NF Harmless, light, witty fun at the expense of the British Invasion.~~ Sir Ljlego, GUN [talk] 22:02, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
- Prog Rock will NEVER die! -- Sir Mhaille
 (talk to me)
- For - Because most people are too philistine to understand it. Also, because it has got 4 delete votes on VFD. And counting.
 Sir Cs1987 UOTM. t. c 04:52, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
- ForFou-Lu 00:58, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
- Dig I hope the words "I should reference Camel because I know it'll make THINKER vote for it" did not go through the minds of any of you fixer-uperers. Yes, it is a true statement, but still, not cool. Always like to see VFDs make it to a level of quality also. This makes the grade. --THINKER 05:18, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
- I was tempted to cast my vote immediately when I read the whole Buckley/Radiohead line. But I persevered. -RAHB 07:36, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
- Fooooooooooooooooooooooooor (a progressive rock version of the word "for").--THE 20:03, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
- For the sake of 20 minute songs, crimson kings, and giant armadillo tanks.--74.75.42.251 22:49, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
- For, a well put together, thoughtful and immaculately presented article. Top stuff. -- Sir Codeine K·H·P·B·M·N·C·U·Bu. · (Harangue) 10:40, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
- For. --Sir Starnestommy
 (Talk • Contribs • CUN) 22:13, Jun. 12, 2008
- For I didn't think I was going to like this but was pleasantly surprised. -OptyC Sucks! CUN17:12, 13 Jun
- For Looks like the article has evolved into a scriptwriters' collection bucket for ideas on second-tier British prog-rock, but we shouldn't necessarily complain if Uncyclopedia sees the concept before it becomes something else. Thegn 04:25, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 For.-I had a re-read and I've changed my mind--Sycamore (Talk) 20:59, 18 June 2008 (UTC)- For - I like
 (Bonner) (Talk) Jul 8, 18:38
- Mellotron - UnIdiot |
 | Talk | Contribs - 20:19, Jul 11
|
Against: 4
|
- Sorry, but I can never vote for something with formatting that obscenely horrid D: --
 TKFUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUCK  05:27, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
- Predictable against. Me being the person who nommed this for deletion and everything. Fair enough, there must be something I'm missing, and I have no problem with being voted down on VFD - proves it works - but this still bores me rigid. --SirU.U.Esq. VFH | GUN | Natter | Uh oh | Pee 09:09, Jun 8
- Against. I guess it certainly has enough content to prevent deletion, but I don't even remotely get it, and refuse to do so. It's way to boring. Prog rock (or whatever the hell it is) just isn't my thing. --
 Hi, hey! I'M A MOTERFUCKING NIGGER BITCH LOVER 18:33, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
- Against per UU. --MegaPleb • Dexter111344 • Complain here 03:19, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
|
| Comments:
|
- Abst Seems pretty well written, not delete by far (FUUU) but not feature IMO. I really like the beginning but as you progress through it the article gets more difficult to understand/enjoy. If it were shorter and like the beginning throughout it would be a For --Sir DJ ~ Irreverent
    09:13, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
- You should note that Mhaille has made a great improvement to this since UU nominated it. No need to make Irreverent comments about UU. MrN
  Fork you! 18:53, Jun 8
- I suppose this is fairly meta...an article about a musical genre that is largely rejected by the mainstream is not accepted by the mainstream.~~ Sir Ljlego, GUN [talk] 20:35, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
* Abstain.--— Sir Sycamore (talk) 12:48, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
|
VFH
← Back to summary VFH
← Back to full VFH
17:05, 15 July 2008 (UTC)