Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charlie goes to candy mountain


 * 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. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 00:26, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Charlie goes to candy mountain

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

This YouTube-based cartoon short is supposedly very popular, according to the article. Yet Google searches fail to confirm this claim. The article does not meet WP:RS standards. Pastor Theo (talk) 12:57, 2 May 2009 (UTC) -Hang on, but how come you guys consider it acceptable to have a whole article on EVERY Simpsons or south park episode, despite the fact that some of them may not have 30,000,000 views? Or the stub on the Prime Minster of Lichtenstien, Klaus Tshutscher, despite the fact that 30,000,000 people cannot have heard of him? And anyway, why is it that, while harmless cartoons like Pokemon or Charlie the Unicorn get their articles deleted, more obscene articles- such as "Penis"- are hundreds if not thousands of words long
 * Keep Charlie Goes To Candy Mountain is a classic! Over 30,000,000 views, that should be notable! Hold on, does that mean we could make a Charlie Bit My Finger? Pastor Theo, Google won't confirm anything on YouTube. A bloke called AndrewConvosMy Messies 13:06, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment I support my Keep, but I have to say it is a very poorly constructed article. Doing the editing now. A bloke called AndrewConvosMy Messies 13:10, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions.  -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  15:27, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Are there any sources for this article? I know it's a popular Internet video, but we really need some solid potential sources. Gigs (talk) 16:33, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Sorry, but 30 million views isn't exactly notable. Has it won any major awards? Don't believe so. Has it received significant external media coverage? No. WP:WEB's standards are not met (and certainly not WP:MOVIE, if you want to stretch it that far). flaminglawyer 17:28, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Has Mem Shannon won any awards for his music? Nope. Has he recieved external media coverage? No. I rest my case. A bloke called AndrewConvosMy Messies 20:37, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Fails WP:WEB.  We deleted Lobster Magnet, which had far better numbers to support it, after all. Tevildo (talk) 20:39, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * To anonymous person: It must mean that Wikipedia a dirty page. Why do we have to have articles supporting every single part of the Female Reproductive System? A bloke called AndrewConvosMy Messies 06:42, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Whilst it may have 30,000,000 views, that doesn't represent popularity. It just demonstrates the number of people who've ended up at that page. Greg Tyler (t</b> &bull; <b style="color:#A00">c</b>) 07:33, 7 May 2009 (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.