Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/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 keep. (non-admin closure) ASTIG️🙃 _{(ICE-T • ICE CUBE)} 13:00, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

All your base are belong to us

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete WP:NOTDICT per WP:NOTDICTIONARY Wikipedia is not a dictionary, phrasebook, or a slang, jargon, or usage guide. Fxmastermind (talk) 13:00, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The article doesn't read like "a dictionary, phrasebook, or a slang, jargon, or usage guide." It reads like an encyclopedia article. AYBABTU is an important part of 2000's internet culture because at the time it was relatively unique. 70.112.167.177 (talk) 10:52, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Zero_Wing#Legacy. Sources appear to be adequate, but not WP:NOTABLE enough to justify an independent article. I agree with 70.112.167.177 and certainly wouldn't consider this a dictionary page and doesn't fall under WP:NOTDICT. Skipple ☎ 13:06, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Skipple, this doesn't fall under NOTDICT - the article mainly covers uses, history, and context, not definitions. I also think a merge is inappropriate - there is clearly significant coverage of this phrase, separate from the game itself, to warrant a standalone article. Examples: this short Times article [1] and three long articles written 20 years later, from The Verge [2], Ars Technica [3], and Kotaku [4]. Toadspike (talk) 15:43, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect that this AfD might have been spurred by this RfC, listed at CENT, which centers on a policy page that links to this article. I don't mean to discount the discussion, just to provide possible context. Toadspike (talk) 15:49, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I think it may be more connected to Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Super galaxy (2nd nomination) and Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Spite store, which the nominator appears to have gotten very frustrated over. This AFD may be retaliatory in some way. Axem Titanium (talk) 18:27, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, lots and lots and lots of coverage over the years, including as recently as this year. One of the most notable memes of all time and the coverage reflects that. Certainly independently notable and should not be merged. Axem Titanium (talk) 18:27, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this article is clearly not a directly or dictionary definition. I also believe there is enough coverage that a merge is unnecessary either.--65.93.192.146 (talk) 21:06, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The current state of the article is poor, but it's a notable Internet meme. Per WP:NEXIST it should be kept and improved. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 04:10, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 September 28. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 04:21, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and don't merge per Axem Titanium. The meme is more famous than the game.--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 08:18, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Toadspike. XtraJovial (talk • contribs) 14:00, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Still memorable and used 25 yrs later, [5]. Do a google search of the phrase, it's widely used in media. There already are sources in the article that should meet GNG. The rest is gravy. Also discussed in scholarly journals [6], discussed it directly. The phrase itself has at least 10 pages of use in Gscholar, either as an article title or used in the text of the paper. Oaktree b (talk) 15:02, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep Merging all of the notable and worthwhile content from this page into Zero Wing would probably be undue to the game and overwhelm it. Skynxnex (talk) 20:49, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Well-known subject with many reliable sources. Partofthemachine (talk) 00:06, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for all the reasons given by others above. --Bduke (talk) 05:09, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
All this article are belong to us. Clarityfiend (talk) 15:54, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This article is beyond a dictionary definition, and it's notable for reasons distinct from Zero Wing. David Stargell (talk) 04:20, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Internet. Skynxnex (talk) 18:22, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article needs improvements, however the sources found by Toadspike shows that this meets WP:GNG and is not WP:NOTDICT. VickKiang (talk) 09:26, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Terrible nomination showing a lack of understanding of the subject, as it's not a dictionary type entry. I could go either way on keeping or merging, but there's obvious alternatives to deletion here, so I'm strongly against that. Sergecross73 msg me 15:53, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This is not a dictionary definition by any means, it is a well-documented internet meme that has more than enough coverage to justify an article per WP:GNG. Even if it were just a phrase, WP:NOTDICT itself contradicts the nom's rationale with WP:WORDISSUBJECT, as the reliable sources demonstrate. - Aoidh (talk) 02:26, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep notable meme Andre🚐 02:54, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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.