Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Im in ur base killin ur d00dz


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.  

The result was delete. -- Steel 09:06, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Im in ur base killin ur d00dz
nn internet meme Will (Glaciers melting in the dead of night) 18:58, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Neutral Weak delete. "Im in ur _____, _____ing ur _____" might be notable, but the article would have to be moved to "in ur stuff," the most commonly used name for all forms of this meme.  Is it notable?  Maybe.  The YTMND wiki has an article on this... another reason not to have one here.  I've seen it used outside YTMND on many imageboards, and it seems to be widely recognized, but it certainly isn't as notable as the most famous, such as AYBABTU/etc.  So I'll stay neutral on this. &mdash;   Da rk Sh ik ar i   talk /contribs  20:21, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, as the article shows no evidence that it has had non-trivial coverage in multiple independent sources, which means it doesn't meet WP:WEB. NeoChaosX [ talk | contribs ]  20:29, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
 * As I changed my vote above, I'll add my reasoning. The article itself is worthless, but the meme might be notable.  However, its hardly salvagable, so I'll vote to delete it for that reason. &mdash;   Da rk Sh ik ar i   talk /contribs  20:38, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete the SA forums are prolific meme generators; this isn't one of the top ones. Opabinia regalis 21:24, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
 * im in ur wiki, deletin ur artiklez: Insignificant meme, nothing about it that can really be reliably sourced. WarpstarRider 21:38, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, not even close to notable. Fails WP:V. Recury 22:53, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete first I ever heard of this was in the Flash Tub. Then again, I don't play these kinds of games; however, all the votes above seem convincing. Danny Lilithborne 23:12, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete as per nom. Another staggeringly insignificant "meme" without evidence of notability. YTMND/SA whatever etc. are memetic diarrhea factories Bwithh 01:09, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete Internet crap. --Don&#39;t mess with Scott. 04:38, 1 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete Non notable meme.Soulresin 04:56, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete another bad meme...--Nilfanion (talk) 15:55, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete NN meme. And the article is a bit speculative and I can't remember seeing this meme discussed in press or anything. Also, the article doesn't explain the role of Lyttle Lytton Contest paragraph winner 2006 (which is in that article). =) --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 16:03, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Okay, now I've read the article throughoutly and peeked at the history. My pondered conclusion is that it basically reads as "okay, let's start an article about this funny phrase I've read often." Other people go "Hmm, it may have something to do with this thing and that thing. And it may have started there. And here's some variations I've heard." While I'm probably the laxest end what comes to demanding sources for anything, and I'm not in favour of deleting articles solely for being "unverifiable", but I think this is a bad way of starting an article and only leads to sourceless speculation. Right now, there's basically no way to vounch this phrase is used widely, or even what its orgins were. That's the problem. It's no use listing what "may" be the source if all you can do is state "may", "may", "may"! What I think happened is this: People started, for some reason, imitate the Lyttle Lytton winner's phrase, cause it's funny. Then someone started an article: "Oh, said by one gamer to another", one says. "Probably originated in Counterstrike or Starcraft", says another. Or is it other way? We don't know. There's no research, even journalistic one, done exploring that thing! Please, let's not base articles entirely on conjecture (and quite obviously pulled-out-of-your-hat conjecture at that). And sorry for going on tangent like this. I don't try to offend anyone. I'm just saying this is not how articles are made. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 16:26, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep notable internet memes, but suggest a name change per above. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:06, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep ... I've seen this mentioned often enough w/o being able to figure out the origin. &mdash;Hobart 22:40, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per precedent in Articles for deletion/Im in ur base and lack of verifiability from reliable sources. SomethingAwful, being a bulletin board, does not qualify as a primary or secondary source for a definitive account of this meme, nor as a source for establishing this meme's currency. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 06:11, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.