Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Plush Movies


 * 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. Article fails to comply with verifiability policy. --Aarktica 12:46, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Plush Movies

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

This has been tagged for speedy deletion, then a prod, but for me the real giveaway was the "Stop trying to delete this" comment at the top of the article. If this is a notable topic, one certainly wouldn't be able to discern that from this article, which seems to be largely a plug of one particular youtuber (I'm assuming, the article's creator). Alai 00:32, 28 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep The page's creator did not put that comment there. He only left it there, and had no idea who placed it there. The page's real creator was Thomas Wharton, who then had Scott work the rest. If it sounds like the article is based too much on me, I would enjoy writing about other artists more also (which I might do right after I save this page). Why does that section ("Other Artists") keep deleting? Also, it is a notable topic. There are many videos in the genre on YouTube, and those 5 are not the only ones. - Scott —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.112.6.232 (talk) 01:06, 28 October 2007 (UTC)  — 76.112.6.232 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Delete. No, it is not a notable topic.  Nor is it a topic with reliable arm's-length sources that assert its notability.  Nor does it matter how many other videos there are on YouTube.  Accounting4Taste 01:20, 28 October 2007 (UTC)=


 * Keep See here. plush movies. yah, sure it does sound like a useless page to put on wikipedia, but it isn't. if you search one thing involving banjo-kazooie, super mario bros, sonic the hedgehog, or anything like that you're bound to get a plush movie. plush movies have become a big part of youtube nowadays and are very popular do to their humor, the fact that they're just plush, etc. this one page about plush movies isn't something to just tear down just because it SOUNDS stupid. you go to youtube, get a bag of popcorn, and watch one of BanjoBoy123's or Meitnerium109's videos and you tell me that you did not laugh. Meitnerium109, BanjoBoy123, MarioMario8989. etc. are all actors in their own way, and by posting their stuff on the internet, whether it be YouTube or Wikipedia, they're getting 1 step closer to becoming successful in life. They just want to share their ideas with the world, it's not like they're doing anything wrong by posting something on wikipeida, you're doing something wrong by taking down these pages. By doing that, they think they're movies don't mean anything. they're just another kilobyte in this huge world that is the internet. and by doing that they have nothing to do. they will maybe finish school. and do what? not what was teared apart by wiki all those years ago. not what they loved to do. no. because of YOU. now just leave this page up or you'll be wrecking a young child's dream. no wait, try 100 children's dreams who will follow in the plush movie series. just leave the page be. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tylerkeyes619 (talk • contribs) 01:58, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per Save the Children. And WP:N.  And WP:V.  --  But | seriously | folks   02:18, 28 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete not notable at all, this one's a no-brainer -- Mr.crabby   (Talk)   02:27, 28 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep Plush Movies are real, they are on youtube, and I think theres enough of them to make a page about it. Need I say more? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Skutieos7 (talk • contribs) 02:37, 28 October 2007 (UTC)  — Skutieos7 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Delete. There are no reliable sources discussing this YouTube phenomenon; it does not appear to meet the notability guidelines.  Come back and recreate when Time Magazine starts reviewing films in this genre.  And then shoot me. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 02:41, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. When Time Magazine starts reviewing films in this genre, I'll be the one in hell surrounded by ice skaters. But at least I'll have succeeded in dashing the hopes of some teary-eyed little tykes on my way there.  Accounting4Taste 02:53, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. Oh, man!  "But at least I'll have succeeded in dashing the hopes of some teary-eyed little tykes on my way there."  I am going to write that down and keep it, 'cause that is a great comment.  Who knew AfDs could be so fun? ---  RepublicanJacobite  The'FortyFive'  03:57, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * delete -are there a lot of single-purpose accounts and anonymous comments around this article and its AfD? lol at ruining children's dreams.  There's plenty of places to post stuff like this.Merkinsmum 02:50, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Keep The movies exists, that's why this page should stay —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.18.15.112 (talk) 02:52, 28 October 2007 (UTC)  — 190.18.15.112 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Delete as WP is not for stuff made up one day and posted to YouTube. JJL 03:47, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Existance is not the minimum standard for inclusion as a Wikipedia article. notability is.  This fails notability tests as NO independant coverage has been given to this phenomenon in reliable sources.  --Jayron32| talk | contribs  03:54, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom and FisherQueen. All of the keep messages that have been posted above only support the notion that this is utter rubbish. ---  RepublicanJacobite  The'FortyFive'  03:54, 28 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete, no attribution of notability of topic to credible and independent sources. (I must say I was worried before clicking on it that this was something to do with plushophiles... fortunately, it is not. I think.) --Dhartung | Talk 04:24, 28 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete Fails notability guidelines in a spectacular way. One Night In Hackney  303  04:59, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Dear Lord. The first hint that this doesn't merit an article is, of course, that the article is being written by participants. Maxamegalon2000 05:22, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Send in the AC130's and polverise this article into its deletion as per all "delete" reasons stated Birthday sig-leave some love 05:25, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Not notable on YouTube as claimed - only hundreds of views.  Colonel Warden 11:01, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Nate from Wikipedia says Plush Movies is "Awful. I didn't laugh once, and I did that with my stuffed animals when I was five. It wasn't funny then, and I certainly wouldn't have filmed it for YouTube if it existed back then." Beyond that, I couldn't find any sources on it and it's unnotable. We're not trying to trash your dreams, they're just not the kind of material which is appropriate for an encyclopedia. Nate 11:57, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete... then set ablaze in a well-ventilated place. No evidence of notability demonstrated or likely . Currently it just seems like a directory of YouTube users with too much time on their hands.  WebHamste r  12:26, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment They are not awful, it depends on what you think is funny. Lots of people like them, read the freakin' comments. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Skutieos7 (talk • contribs) 15:10, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment "Lots of people like them" is beside the point, and not at all a good reason for the article to be kept. See GlassCobra's comment below. ---  RepublicanJacobite  The'FortyFive'  17:53, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment YouTube reviews are not a reliable source of criticism at all. I looked over a few of them and they seemed confined to a small circle of viewers that are consistent from movie to movie. The view count also suggests not much popularity outside of those few viewers, and YT reviews are also subject to sockpuppets that could be among the reviews. Nate 20:27, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:N, WP:RS, etc. Also, most of the arguments for keeping are WP:ILIKEIT, WP:ITSFUNNY, and WP:ABOUTEVERYTHING. GlassCobra 17:45, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete while I'm diverging into WP:WAX, if a video series with tens of thousands of viewers isn't notable enough (yes, I am talking about YGO:TAS), I highly doubt that those with barely more than 100 views will. Will (talk) 19:19, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete due to non-notability. Seems to be edited exclusively by single-purpose accounts. WP:ABOUTEVERYTHING being used repeatedly by the article editors isn't helping. ShadowUltra 21:23, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Also note that WP:GOOGLEHITS is not a way to decide whether the article stays or doesn't stay, in this case Google Hits refers to the amount of views the videos have. ShadowUltra 21:32, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: They aren't single-purpose. I just made this like, two days ago, and haven't found anything else I've been able to edit knowledgeably. Meitnerium109 19:24, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete -- took a quick glimpse at the article and it screams "non-notable" -- lots of screen names instead of regular names, writing was incoherent and pointless, and I haven't even heard of them until now. Also, the only edits ever done by Skutieos7 (the creator) are those associated with this article. If Plush Movies is an actual genre, he's probably not too knowlegable in that genre, or anything related to cinema. -- azumanga 02:21, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. The only sources come from YouTube. ≈  Alessandro  ♫T • C 12:57, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per others. Inadequate sources, non-notable, etc. Doctorfluffy 20:08, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - The entire article reads as a vanity page for half a dozen people's youtube accounts. Certainly viable for a speedy based on notability. Cantras 20:19, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - Looks about time for a WP:SNOW methinks.  WebHamste r  22:12, 31 October 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.