Wikipedia:April fools/April Fools' Day 2005/Feature VfD

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Wikipedia:Votes for Deletion

* Opossum --Alterego 03:16, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)
* Opossum --Alterego 03:16, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)

Has been heavily edited and worked upon, and I think it really represents the diversityof opinion and thought on Wikipedia. Snowspinner 02:15, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)

  • Oppose. Still under heavy dispute by numerous parties. Wait for things to settle down before attempting to nominate this again. -- Grunt   ҈  02:25, 2005 Apr 1 (UTC)
  • Support: This article has really come a long way from teh time it was a stub. It'd be a travesty not to support an article that has improved as much through the Wiki Process as thus. -- Bobdoe (Talk) 02:34, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose--too long. Meelar (talk) 02:50, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose. No picture. —Korath (Talk) 02:53, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)
    • This has been taken care of: -- Bobdoe (Talk) 03:13, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Support, though it could be vastly improved by the addition of even more meaningless articles. The entire universe of nonsense is incomprehensibly vast, and the article barely touches it: yet featured article status may be one of the only ways to accomplish this worthy goal. Antandrus 02:55, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose: The writing switches back and forth between British, American, and Australian spellings, and the subject of "OMG schools are so notable which isn't in the deletion guidelines and you're all a cabal" is, I think, restated too often. One hysterical and paranoid statement of the theme is probably enough. Geogre 03:01, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Teh sh33r uburn3ss of dis artikle is propa bo lyk. Gotz 2 put it up on da main page cos itz propa wkd. Hedley 03:03, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Filled with too many non notable, vanity, dicdef, and POV comments. Zzyzx11 03:05, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Lacks appropriate references. --Allen3 talk 03:06, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • Opposse. Lead section far too long. calS !pu kaeps 03:12, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Writing lacks unity. Also the end of the article is a "how-to"-- not encyclopedic. Furthermore the frequent reporting of Google hits constitutes original research. This page would belong better on cleanup. Eric119 03:46, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. How could anyone want to ban pasta in tomato sauce? It's lovely! Someone who should know better, April 1st 2005, 10:20am.
  • Oppose. Too many redlinks. Or maybe too few. BlameJ|Pretend I care
  • Oppose. Too many self-references. Too many high schools. JebLam|Bore me
  • SUPPORT!! A+++++++++++ EBAYer!!!!1!11!!! Would buy again! Thanxxxx!!!! FreplySpang (talk) 04:51, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose. In my days at Wikipedia, I've seen fancruft, middle schools, band vanity, hoaxes, POV forks, spam, patent nonsense, copyvios and sysop accountability policies. Now we have ONE article with ALL OF THOSE! Whoever had the balls to nominate this should read up on some basic Wikipedia policy. Beerath Q. Drynkor
  • SUPPORT: all Wikipedia-space articles are inherently notable, just like all high schools, streets, minor characters in science fiction novels, people who died, etc. -- Lord Laurence Olivia Newton John Denver Broncos
  • Support this is the essence of WikiPedia, and any user coming to the front page deserves to be immediately confronted by it. Radiant_* 08:54, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose - not comprehensive. -- ALoan (Talk) 12:06, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose, not stable enough. Mgm|(talk) 12:14, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • Abject - I Abject! I Abject! ... what? ... Object? .... oh, that's different. Nevermind. slambo 14:03, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • Suppose - Regardless of what day it is, isn't this abuse of FAC and trolling? - Keith D. Tyler [AMA] 21:39, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • Soviet Russia - In soviet russia, Votes for Deletion features you! KirbyMeister 22:59, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)