Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/You are X and I claim my five pounds


 * 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 of the debate was keep.  K ilo-Lima|(talk) 16:05, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

You are X and I claim my five pounds
Wikipedia is not a repository for articles about relatively infrequent internet snowclones occurring occaisionally on usenet. Basically, non-notable neo-phrasism, and this sort of thing is the gateway article to a mountain of new articles, with variables in their names. Maybe if the article were about the original phrase, with a note that it has spawned many snowclone usages, but for crying out loud, Wikipedia is not your clubhouse. TerrorIsland 07:34, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge into List of snowclones. Doesn't seem notable enough on its own to merit an article.  --Hyperbole 07:47, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep - the phrase is used widely throughout British culture, and needs explanation. N.b. user's only "contributions" to Wikipedia are to flag three articles for deletion.  --ajn (talk) 07:51, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I didn't realize Ad Hominem Attacks were a legitmate portion of discussion. Might I ask what bearing my contribution history has on whether or not this very article is in any way notable enough to be its own article?  The google search on "You are * and I claim my five pounds" gets a paltry 614 hits. not that that's definitive proof, but for comparison, "I for one welcome our new * overlords" gets 113,000 hits.  And it doesn't have its own page.TerrorIsland 12:57, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: Ad hominem attacks are not acceptable here (see WP:NPA), but the Deletion policy says that arguments/votes from new users may be given less weight or no weight.  Some deletion debates prompt a flood of votes from people who are interested in the topic but who don't know Wikipedia policies and disregard them in voting.  When your only contributions are delete tags, rather than editing researched facts and citations into articles, it's reasonable to note this.  Barno 13:59, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Hi: I'm a new user here myself. I found this discussion because I was voting at Articles for deletion/Anabasii, which is from the same guy. I didn't realize that arguments and votes from new users don't count. Does that mean I shouldn't have bothered voting to keep the anabasii article (and probably this one, since it looks good to me)? I thought new users were allowed to participate everywhere on Wikipedia. Jimpartame 14:07, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I think I messed up the threading on these comments. Jimpartame 14:19, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
 * The part about them being deletions, then, is irrelevant. It is about my new-ness as a user.  So, really, the comment should have been, "User is new, disregard his comments without considering them on their merits"?  is that official wikipolicy? TerrorIsland 14:06, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
 * It is not exactly like that. There is no official Wikipedia policy to ignore votes from new users. What is meant here is a guideline to give less weight to votes from new users, with little or no actual reasoning or explanation. Your comments on this AfD debate are well-written and reasonable. Therefore I don't think they will be automatically ignored just because you're new. What the guideline is meant for is to ignore votes that only consist of "Don't delete! This is a cool phrase!", and to ignore votes that appear to have been written by the same person with multiple user accounts. J I P  | Talk 14:27, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: JIP is correct.  We don't treat new users' contributions here as zero-value.  I apologize if my note explaining ajm's posting made TerrorIsland or Jiumpartame think otherwise.  If you have facts that are relevant under WP policies, please do tell us those facts and cite sources where they can be verified.  If you are merely making assertions without factual backing or ones that don't help determine whether the article meets Wikipedia policies, the administrator who closes the AfD debate will usually give less weight to a new user's words (if apparently well-intended), or give no weight to it (if suspected of being intended for self-promotion or feuding or otherwise not to improve the encyclopedia).  Remember also that AfD is a discussion seeking consensus, not a vote.  Barno 22:26, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Reply If this is really a forum for discussion, I am surprised at the number of people who indicated their position as a vote, rather than trying to discuss the matter. Very few people have responded to my contention that a catchphrase, even if popular in variation (like a snow clone) gets an article for the phrase itself, not the template with a variable in it.  I don't understand why, if this isn't just voting, very few people are discussing the things I said, and instead list a vote followed by some positive feature, like, "notable". TerrorIsland 22:48, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I think you're confusing ad hominem and personal attack. A reply can be ad hominem without seeming like a vicious personal attack.  Any response to a challenge that weighs the qualities of the person levying the charge instead of the merits of the charge itself is an argument ad hominem (against the man) rather than against the claim itself. TerrorIsland 14:09, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, historical phenomenon as well as usenet stuff, and the article links to Lobby Lud which gives more detail on the origin. --Squiddy | (squirt ink?)  11:31, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Fine, merge and redirect to Lobby Lud. Alba 12:10, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
 * You are a deletionist and I claim my five euros. Keep, this is a notable phrase. I had seen it in many places before, but this Wikipedia article was the first place where I found out where it originally came from. J I P  | Talk 13:34, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
 * As long as we can call me a name before deciding to keep the article, I suppose all is well. I am not a deletionist, unless by that you mean someone who thinks that there are some articles which should be deleted.  Because then, sure I am.  Phrases of that form get 614 google hits.  Can anyone tell me where all of theses uses are that mysteriosly don't come up on google searches?  Also, why is this article about the phrasal template and not about the origin phrase, which is how all other snowclones are listed?TerrorIsland 13:54, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I have struck out my comment as it was not serious, I just wanted a chance to use this phrase. Back in the late 1980s and early 1990s, I was a huge fan of Amiga computers and games. I read many British Amiga magazines regularly, and thus became more familiar with British culture than most Finns of my age. I noticed that several magazines contained this phrase, but I had no idea what it meant or where it had come from. Then I found it on Wikipedia and it explained it to me. These mentions obviously do not show up on Google as it does not yet search through printed material. So that explains why I think it is notable. J I P  | Talk 14:17, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Doesn't it seem odd to you that most catchphrase articles are about the original catchphrase, rather than having a variable in their name? Shouldn't the article actually be "You Are Lobby Lud and I claim my five pounds?"  Or merged in to the Lobby Lud, article at least?  I still think its not notable enough, but I am confused why people who do think the content is notable enough think the article should be kept rather than merged, moved or redirected.  Also, I apologize for misinterpreting the tone of your initial vote.  Sometimes its hard to tell when people are kidding on the internet. TerrorIsland 14:23, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep or merge and redirect at Lobby Lud, and retain on List of snowclones as well. Mysterious catchphrases need explanations.  Smerdis of Tlön 14:42, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per ajn. JimTS 14:43, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, if this article hadn't linked to Lobby Lud, I never would have known to start the Kolley Kibber article! Jimpartame 15:01, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge and Redirect to Lobby Lud.--Isotope23 15:03, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep usenet with 5000 hits from all over the place 494 unique googles Kotepho 15:12, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: Just to be objective here, I counted six hits on the "unique googles" link presented above and its following page that were not about this meme. J I P  | Talk 16:24, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect per Smerdis. Fishhead64 15:53, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Oops (my comment did not make sense, I have removed it). TerrorIsland 22:51, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep --Ter e nce Ong 16:56, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep it is well-known and I like the link to Lobby Lud. The whole thing was parodied in the otherwise rather-stodgy Agatha Christie's Poirot TV series. Carlossuarez46 18:28, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Notable expression. --Billpg 19:51, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
 * The expression in the title is not notable. In fact, it is either not a complete expression, or it accuses someone of being the letter 'X'.  I think you mean the expression "You are Lobby Lud and I claim my five pounds" is notable.  Perhaps you then think the article should be moved to either the main Lobby Lud article or to the actually famous phrase?  TerrorIsland 22:54, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
 * The X is a placeholder, replaced with the person, organisation, etc being compared against. If the presence of the X is objectionable, I would have no objection to renaming this to "And I claim my five pounds". --Billpg 01:51, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
 * It's not like I'm confused about what the "X" is supposed to be doing. I'm saying that its not how we have this sort of article named, usually. TerrorIsland 02:11, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I'd be happy to discuss renaming if this article survives deletion, but for now, my vote remains. --Billpg 13:10, 17 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete as unverifiable unless some good, verifiable source citations are provided. What needs to be verified is not the content of the article Lobby Lud, but the assertion that this has become a common internet meme/snowclone. A catchphrase that is widely used in general does not need a special article to point out that it is also used on the Internet. I have no doubt that people have used the phrase "Close, but no cigar" on the Internet too. Presently the article contains only two references, both to personal websites. Dpbsmith (talk) 01:35, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect to Lobby Lud. - AdelaMa e  (talk - contribs) 03:14, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Most other people have voted to keep, and by Wikipedia policy, the consensus is what's important. Jimpartame 04:39, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
 * While I think its good that you're giving a reason, I'm not sure that's the best reason to keep an article. TerrorIsland 10:26, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Isn't Wikipedia policy the best reason? This is Wikipedia, so Wikipedia policy is what matters. Jimpartame 11:20, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
 * The presence of a consensus is not as important as whether the actual WP policies are met. The discussion is seeking consensus about whether the facts show that those policies are met.  A consensus of non-policy "votes" doesn't override the policy.  You have the process backward.  Barno 19:57, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
 * The presence of a consensus *is* meeting "actual WP policies." Those are not two separate things. See Deletion process. Jimpartame 20:58, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I once saw a Usenet posting to the effect of "You are a soulless automaton sent by Skynet to destroy us all... and I claim my five pounds", to which the response was "As you vish. *pound pound pound pound splat* ... oops." Keep. DS 21:02, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
 * That's pretty funny, and a good illustration of why we need the article. Jimpartame 10:59, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Has historical and internet significance. Other phrases with much less usage are included, and for non-UK persons especially this can be helpful to remain.SidP 21:35, 17 April 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.