Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of cultural references to "All your base are belong to us"


 * 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 no consensus to delete, but sourcing should be improved W.marsh 18:58, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

List of cultural references to "All your base are belong to us"

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

This is one of those times when the first sentence of an article provides the best reason for its deletion: "'The main article on the early-2000s Internet phenomenon All your base are belong to us contains only occurrences/incidents that obtained media coverage; this list is intended to provide a broader inclusion of AYB cultural references.'" In other words, the main All your base are belong to us article contains those references to the term that are notable and can be verified This list copies those and adds trivial references. I really don't think we need to document every sign someone holds up at Wrestlemania. Normally I try to avoid using "cruft" in AfD, but this is a textbook example. JChap2007 06:05, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions.   -- SkierRMH 06:33, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. All your useful content are belong to the existing article All your base are belong to us. --Metropolitan90 07:50, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete for great justice. The point in the nom is pertinent; this seems to be not a POV fork, but a V fork. Encyclopedia Dramatica and Uncyclopedia are welcome to handle this sort of thing if they want. --Dhartung | Talk 08:14, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete this article is on the way to destruction. JuJube 08:32, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete I know what I doing -- lucasbfr talk 08:48, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - (zomg, someone !voted keep)! Yes, I think this is a helpful list. This is a very culturally significant term, and many of the listings are interesting, encyclopedic, and useful (e.g., In the Futurama episode Anthology of Interest II, a space invader speaks the phrase.). Per WP:LIST: The list may be a valuable information source, I believe it applies (I know, you don't think it's valuable, but is this any less valuable then Santorum (slang) or Stanley Steamer, which the community has decided are encyclopedic?). Unfortunately, we don't have any guidelines on what a list should be, but I think this falls under it, as much as many other lists we have, and have set a precedent on WP for notability: (e.g., much more valuable than List of Ace Mystery Numeric-Series Single Titles). Keep in mind, this was a very culturally significant term in the early 00's (<-- how does one pronounce that?), and the list is pertinent. If you wish to trim out unverifiable terms, I say go ahead, but keep this list. Part Deux 10:17, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete The cultural significance of the term is what paradoxically would make this list an indiscrimate collection of information. There would be just too many references to make this article useful.  Saligron 11:52, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, What you say !!? Many of these items would have been left on the root article without much debate, but the size of that article warranted splitting.  I think the list as a whole should stay, but needs to be further referenced, and perhaps pruned. —  xaosflux  Talk  13:12, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep and repurpose. The article's current mission is to include less-notable and borderline notable cultural references to AYB: this is a bad idea. However, if it were repurposed and pruned per Xaosflux's suggestion, it would be a good article. (If not a Good Article.) -Toptomcat 13:35, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: Well the introduction sentence of the article clearly implies it is intended for cultural references that did not get Media coverage. Isn't it that original Research? -- lucasbfr talk 14:46, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep but Prune As annoying as the AYB phenomenon is/was, the content listed is verifiable, and follows guidelines for encyclopedic content. Some may question the usefulness of the article, or like me may just not care for the subject, but these are not valid reasons to delete, as per WP:AFD. Some pruning and consolidation could be done to keep the size manageable though. Arakunem 17:24, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Of course, if we do as you suggest and prune all those that are non-verifiable and the product of original research, we wind up with a copy of the list already in the main All your base article. JChap2007 19:17, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Edison 18:47, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. The nom provided an excellent analysis. That this might be "interesting", "helpful" or "useful" does not make it encyclopedic or change the fact it's trivia and an indiscriminate collection of AYB..."cruft". There is also nothing to back up any assertion that this is a "very culturally significant term". Whether or not one can measure its "value" is questionable, especially by comparing it to other articles. We're not discussing those other articles and whether or not they are encyclopedic does not affect this article. Agent 86 20:01, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as unreferenced As the nomimator correctly points out, the introductory paragraph tells all. This list is the unreferenced uses of the phrase.  Delete this entire article as unreferenced and unverified. Dugwiki 20:54, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep They're somewhat referenced, and it was a notable internet phenomenon. Although some might have to be pruned, I'd suggest a fair bit of this could be salvaged with a bit of effort. No need to throw the baby out with the bathwater :P --TommyOliver 01:04, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Don't misunderstand. The article All your base are belong to us is fine. The problem is that the article in this afd is an attempt to take all the unreferenced information that didn't belong in the main article and put it in a single list.  That's why this list needs to be deleted, but the main article is ok. Dugwiki 00:02, 2 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. "(random webcomic) by (red link to nonexistent author article) mentioned AYBABTU in its January 31 strip" is not notable material. Krimpet 03:53, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Was quite an enjoyable read, and interesting. I personally think that this should stay. —  Jeremy  Talk  05:40, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - after comparing the two articles, it looks like the best and most verifiable references are already in the main All Your Base article. It's not a good sign when a sub-article has to reference its parent article. --JohnDBuell 10:02, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep per Part Deux. Mathmo Talk 14:44, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep The list is relevant but to long to include in the main article. /Jiiimbooh 18:53, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * The issue isn't if the list is "interesting" or "relevant". It's that the entire list is unverified and unreferenced. Keep in mind that most or all of the referenced items already appear in the main article. Dugwiki 00:02, 2 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete and replace I'm persuaded by the argument that such a list might be useful as a standalone page. I suggest deleting the current page (an exhaustive list is still indiscriminate collection) and extracting the list of notable references from the main article.  Saligron 00:37, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I'll support that suggestion, assuming the number of such verifiable references is large enough to warrant a subarticle. If the verifiable list fits comfortably in the main article, then in that case there's no need to split it off. Dugwiki 17:27, 2 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Merge by itself, this page is really not wikipedia material, but it's content would make sense on the page for the meme itself.TheGreenFaerae 10:56, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong keep --62.14.149.95 21:48, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge, the article can be put under the main AYB page, where some other references can be found. Aramjm 22:15, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge. The nominator makes a good point. I'm a fan of this meme, which everyone agrees has gained widespread notoriety, so I oppose deletion because WP:ILIKEIT.  But merging to All your base, and cutting out all the unsourced junk, works for me. YechielMan 20:13, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete unless sourced. For the avoidance of doubt the main article doesn't constitute a reliable source. Addhoc 15:29, 5 February 2007 (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.