Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Youtube Poop (craze)

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 Snowball delete by DerHexer. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Many otters • One hammer • HELP)} 17:20, 13 May 2009 (UTC) (edit conflict) deleted per WP:SNOW, WP:CSD#A7 —DerHexer (Talk) 17:25, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Youtube Poop (craze)

Declining speedy deletion. A Google news archives search gives exactly one relevant hit (another hit is from 2001, another hit is French), and given that, I think the article creator is overstating the buzz. None of the refs are from reliable sources. - Dank (push to talk) 21:29, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- - Dank (push to talk) 21:30, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
G4 Re-creation of salted YouTube Poop and other capitalizations. At least one variation of the title has been through AFD. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Many otters • One hammer • HELP)} 21:42, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Please specify where this AFD is please. I have checked half a dozen capitalisations but all were speedy deleted and none was at AFD. There is no other AFD to be found using Special:PrefixIndex or by the search. It has been to DRV for the speedy deletions but never for AFD. It's thus not eligible for G4. Regards So Why 21:53, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - My mistake. A7 then as non-notable web content. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Many otters • One hammer • HELP)} 21:58, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's a DRV of one of the speedies here. That may be what TPH was thinking of. Deor (talk) 22:01, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yeah, also, the TV.com hit isn't actually from 2001. YouTube didn't even exist in 2001. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Many otters • One hammer • HELP)} 22:20, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per TenPoundHammer. Drawn Some (talk) 21:48, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If it survives this AfD, needs to be renamed as Youtube Poop (or similar) - no need for disambiguation. PamD (talk) 21:53, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The weird name was to get around YouTube Poop and Youtube Poop being salted. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Many otters • One hammer • HELP)} 22:25, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete and salt (I'm the nom, but just voting to change to "speedy and salt"). I wasn't aware of the multiple DRVs when I declined the speedy; if I had known, I would have agreed that a speedy deletion as G11 was acceptable, but on the other hand, the creator(s) of this article is/are so persistent that I'm glad I brought it to AfD, so we can G4 it if it reappears. - Dank (push to talk) 22:28, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'd go with maybe 6-month protection; it's always possible this will be notable in the future. - Dank (push to talk) 03:50, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:WEB. Iowateen (talk) 22:57, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete For the reasons above. AyaK (talk) 23:41, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete & Salt this and all possible variations, for reasons given above. Eddie.willers (talk) 01:15, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt again? Mama Luigi isn't pleased. JuJube (talk) 01:50, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. What the!?? Don't they realise this is what Uncyclopedia and Encyclopedia Dramatica are for? Fences and windows (talk) 04:04, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
SPEEDY DEoLETE then WP:SALT, WP:SALT, and more WP:SALT. JBsupreme (talk) 06:39, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete - absolutely no reason for keeping. Alan16

^talk 08:50, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Surely this article could be deleted under A1, A7, G1, and G11. It is just incoherent crap and seems like an advertisement to me. Also, completely unremarkable. Alan16 ^talk 16:34, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do not delete: Why delete an article on a valid subject that is relevant and significant!

Um... relevant and significant to Internet dumbasses != relevant and significant to the general public. JuJube (talk) 16:05, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy ~~flush~~ delete with a serving of salt - If two similarily titled (but presumably very similar) articles have been deleted and salted, I can't see this one going anywhere other than down the toilet (sorry). DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 09:24, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as a G4 runaround Sceptre ^(talk) 11:16, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DONT DELETE! Is urbandictionary not reliable? Is wikia.com not reliable? Ajfweb (talk) 17:04, 13 May 2009 (UTC) There are hundreds of thousands of youtube poop videos... I just would like it to be considered as not a "useless, meaningless thing that Youtube people do" and instead as a "valid, popular form of video remix". please, give it a chance! Ajfweb (talk) 17:07, 13 May 2009 (UTC) HEY HEY HEY! Hang on a second!!!! Youtube Poop on many valid encyclopedias and dictionaries on the web (not all of these are that reliable, choose for yourself though):[reply]

Other wikis aren't reliable sources as they're user-submitted. Also, please don't top post. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Many otters • One hammer • HELP)} 17:16, 13 May 2009 (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.