Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Can't sleep, clown will eat me

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. Mailer Diablo 06:03, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Can't sleep, clown will eat me

This entry seems to be nothing more than a once-used line from a cartoon. If this is worth keeping then we might as well let anything go? It's pointless trivia, and even that is praising it too much Gretnagod 21:24, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

• Strong keep, phrase is eminently notable, with 191,000 Google hits[1] -- encourage withdrawal of nomination. Adrian Lamo ·· 21:43, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete Actually, only 35 of the Google returns are unique. The rest are related to the Wikipedia user User:Can't sleep, clown will eat me - see [2]
• Keep Phrase is in moderately common usage, and the article has the origin, other usage, etc. I learned something reading it seeing the AFD nom. IMHO, the subject is sufficiently notable and the article is a good article regarding it. Georgewilliamherbert 21:50, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
• Wasn't this already on AfD and kept, not long ago? Keep. Jonathunder 21:53, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

  Nothing on the talk page. So what is your reason for keeping it? I repeat, only 35 of the Google returns are unique - has any other Wiki entry got a lower return? Articles have been merged/deleted for having thousands.Gretnagod 21:55, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

  Yes, it was on AfD recently, I saw it. It was obviously kept as article is still on Wikipedia. Hmmm... Deskana (talk) 21:57, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

  Google is not the only source of valid notability in the world; there are lots of things which nobody bothers to put online. The phrase, as a meme, is extremely widely recognized (everyone I know socially seems to know it). Google can be used to show that something is notable, and lack of google hits is reason to suspect it isn't notable, but lack of google hits is not proof that subject is not notable. Georgewilliamherbert 22:00, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: look, the whole "unique google hits" thing is a total fallacy. I'd really love it if folks stopped citing it on AfD. If we buy it, then Microsoft gets just 512 "unique" hits to my own 493 "unique" results. It's just Google's attempt to present you with relevant results, not any indicator that results beyond that point are totally non-unique, nor am I just 19 hits less notable than Microsoft. Adrian Lamo ·· 21:58, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: I don't necessarily disagree with your overarching point, but what google are you checking? "My" google returns two billion, three hundred and 40 million unique hits for microsoft. By my calculations, you are 2,429,999,507 hits less notable than Microsoft --Fuhghettaboutit 23:55, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: The expression, as I have always heard it, uses the plural, "clowns will eat me." You'll also find that that formation returns far more unique google hits (if we're still using google as an indicator). Accordingly, even if this article is kept, it should probably be moved to this more well know and used turn of phrase, even if the Simpsons' original derivation was singular. This should probably be coupled with a note in the article to the effect that the plural designation is how the phrase is generally used in the parlance. --Fuhghettaboutit 00:14, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

• Comment The same Google you're checking. Do note that I was referencing "unique" hits, not total hits, which are two very different animals :) Adrian Lamo ·· 23:24, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete not a general enough usage to merit an article. Would also support redirect to Simpsons episode.--Isotope23 22:00, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. I think it's a phrase in common enough use, and the article has a fair amount of material. -- Mithent 22:02, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep see above --HasNoClue 22:06, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete or perhaps Merge I have a problem with phrases being in Wikipedia unless they're undeniably a cultural phenomena (like for example, Wuzzzup). When I think of whether articles should be on Wikipedia I think, would I ever find this article in a book encyclopedia? It's a slippery slope. By the keep votes here, one could make the argument that almost any joke from The Simpsons/Family Guy could be made into its own article (which seems to be a disappointing trend on Wikipedia). Merge seems to be a fair compromise. I've heard lots of people (and I profess to doing it myself) do the "Who else but Quagmire" joke from Family Guy. It's certainly become a phrase. But if you'll notice, they mentioned that detail in the article Breaking Out Is Hard to Do, instead of making it its own article. I see no reason why it shouldn't be done for this phrase as well. Canadian Paul 22:10, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete or merge per Canadian Paul's rationale. I do hope nothing happens to spoil this fancy AfD... --Kinu 07:56, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
• keep please this is a common used phrase Yuckfoo 22:25, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Sorry for my language, but the phrase "Go fuck yourself" is used far more often, but doesn't get an entry. Gretnagod 22:28, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

It also has no significance or meaning or history or definition beyond the obvious, and WP is not a dictionary; that's not true with "Can't sleep...". Georgewilliamherbert 22:36, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, While this isn't my personal opinion, I know by past experience that far stupider and less notable (internet) memes have survived afd. We need better guidelines on internet memes or we'll be stuck with an article for every catchphrase and image ever created by Something Awful, FARK, et al. Obli (Talk) 23:31, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. This is more than an internet meme; it's a real-world meme, and it has held up for years. --Allen 00:18, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. A friend of mine has this slogan on a metal band around his car's rear license plate. Very well known saying. --Fuhghettaboutit 00:48, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - found this previous deletion discussion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Can't Sleep, Clowns Will Eat Me. Not sure if it has any actual bearing on this, though. -- Jonel | Speak 04:50, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. I am a man, but more than a man. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.92.84.190 (talk • contribs) 05:21, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
• Well, I guess it really goes without saying where I stand on this one.  :-) I would like to thank Adrian for his insightful and somewhat surprising comments regarding the relevancy of "unique Google hits"; I will be bearing that in mind when formulating AFD nominations in the future. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 08:38, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Nothing makes a guy wish he hadn't ranted quite so much like complimenting him on it ; )

Adrian Lamo ·· 09:09, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete what next? Thats another fine mess you've gotten us into? Jcuk 13:03, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Brookie :) - a will o' the wisp ! ^(Talk!) 17:36, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep my god... if a fucking pokemon that was never PRINTED can get an article... and the O RLY? meme gets one... and the fucking FARK Squirrel with the big nuts gets an article... this can certainly stay.  ALKIVAR™ 18:22, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep — based on semi-popular usage and a decently-written article. I get 560 google hits with a -wikipedia. :) — RJH 18:50, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep -- notable phrase/pop culture reference. Though I usually see it with "clown" in the plural. Haikupoet 04:31, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, If this is worth deleting then we might as well let anything go? bbx 08:04, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
• Can't keep, clown will eat meSceptre ^(Talk) 16:15, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
• keep, Alice Cooper songs are notable, and wikipedia is not a book encyclopedia. Kappa 20:09, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. As Kappa said, Wikipedia is not a book encyclopedia, and this is a very well known meme. As such, it is unique in the "Quotes from Family Guy and The Simpsons" department and deserves to remain an article. 69.138.229.246 03:02, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Alkivar's excellent point and the fact that this is a very well-known meme. Turnstep 04:37, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, notable meme. -Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 09:22, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep, the existence of this article is a pretty strange fact. On the other hand, there are all too many articles here that are too trivial for an encyclopaedia. Let's consider this a nec plus ultra: we discourage that people go on creating articles like this but we won't throw it away. Caesarion 12:06, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
• Comment You've hit the nail on the head there. People are told not to create these sorts of articles yet these ones are left on. Surely, we're leaving ourselves open to punishment. Pages like this limit how far Wikipedia will be able to evolve, as this sort of article makes Wikipedia look like a playground for self-obsessed teenagers. Gretnagod 14:22, 14 February 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.