Deletion of Plush Movies

Comment: Looks about time for a  methinks
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Snowball clause (WP:SNOW)

Comment: per Save the Children.  And .  And .  --'''&nbsp
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N||WP:V)

Comment: per , , etc. Also, most of the arguments for keeping are , , and 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N||WP:RS||WP:ILIKEIT||WP:ITSFUNNY||WP:ABOUTEVERYTHING)

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
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RELIABLE)

Comment: while I'm diverging into , 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
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:WAX)

Comment: No, it is '''not''' a otable|notable topic.  Nor is it a topic with erifiable|reliable arm's-length sources that assert its notability.  Nor does it matter how many |other videos there are on YouTube
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N||WP:V||WP:WAX)

Comment: 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
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS||WP:N)

Comment: 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
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N||WP:RS)