Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/YouTube Poops

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. postdlf (talk) 11:28, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

YouTube Poops (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Prod contested with the rationale, This shouldn't be proposed for deletion, the concept is actually very notable and the YouTube Poop series is very famous. However, there are no sources provided to attest that this is indeed the case. Delete.  Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 23:30, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Somewhat common slang word that is neither notable nor more than an urban dicdef if you remove the original research. Dennis Brown (talk) 23:38, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I was surprised to encounter that the term is actually a term, and it is a bit widespread. It is certainly not notable though, being not much more than branded and targeted mashups, and no good resource will be turning up for a while - frankie^MR (talk) 23:53, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Although there's a plethora of mentions of YouTube Poops on wikis, blogs, message boards, fansites, etc. I can't see where it's ever been mentioned by a third-party reliable source. You'd think that something this popular with kids would have gained that kind of attention, but I can't find any. If other editors can find better sourcing, naturally my !vote would change. --NellieBly (talk) 00:31, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete G4-repost Page clearly titled to get around title protection placed at actual name for concept since 2007. They can be hilarious, but they haven't gained additional notability since then other than on the Internet's periphery. Nate • (chatter) 05:44, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • G4 has been reworded since then to apply only to AfD-deleted articles. The other title has been speedied 6 times before being salted, but there's never been an AfD. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 14:03, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sounds like we need to let an AFD go all the way through in order that we can have one on the record. SchuminWeb (Talk) 15:41, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Was not sure if it met the repost guidelines, so I'm happy for the clarification. Vote downgraded to just Delete, but no change in reasoning. Nate • (chatter) 20:23, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • No problems there. Sometimes you need to deliberately follow an AFD process to the letter on purpose (and painfully so) so that one can have a good, solid precedent about a topic on the record. SchuminWeb (Talk) 07:00, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Need to have an AFD on the record for this, as it seems there is none. SchuminWeb (Talk) 15:41, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Article is nothing more than a description of video mashups, hardly notable. --Whiteguru (talk) 22:51, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:07, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Don't delete The article should instead merge with Mashup (video). Do you think so?
  

~~LDEJRuff~~ 0:47, 20 April, 2011 (EDT)

• Delete - Non-notable slang word. -- Joaquin008 ^(talk) 17:10, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Non-notable neologism.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 00:35, 21 April 2011 (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.