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.
Delete It doesn't seem to serve any purpose a category couldn't; it's not divided into occupations or anything like that as other lists of this type are.--Gloriamarie 01:09, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Do you have a rationale for deletion other than a suggestion for improvement? Ichormosquito 02:37, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Such a list will become jam-packed with wannabees. At least if they have to create an article for a YouTube "celebrity", it must pass muster. As a category, it should be called "Internet video celebrities" or some such so that it is not restricted to YouTube. SolidPlaid 02:10, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Such a category already exists, and I think there's more than enough justification for an article about "YouTube celebrity". Ichormosquito 02:37, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per above. Tazmaniacs 02:17, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Either keep, but add references to really notable ones, i.e. those that make Countdown with Keith Olbermann or Attack of the Show, or make a category for ones notable enough to have their own articles. The sources are notable, at least: New York Times, Entertainment Weekly, Wall Street Jorunal, etc. show that the topic has received mainstream attention. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 02:20, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"The really notable ones" have articles already. SolidPlaid 02:27, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. The article could be improved, but it's not listcruft. Quote from Wikipedia:Listcruft: "In general, a 'list of X' should only be created if X itself is a legitimate encyclopedic topic that already has its own article." "YouTube celebrity" can sustain its own article, as made clear by the abundant sources. For all intents and purposes, the entire New York Times story is a definition for the term. The article could probably take a note or two from List of Internet phenomena, but I can't think of a reason to delete outright. Ichormosquito 02:37, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: there is no criteria for inclusion in YouTube and Category:Internet memes functions to categorize these kinds of articles.- Gilliam 03:11, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I think Category:YouTube video producers does a better job, but I see your point. Still, isn't the phenomenon of YouTube celebrity notable enough to support its own artice? Ichormosquito 03:31, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutural: This article is really unnecessary and is causing silly debates on who is notable or not. Though with a major makeover it could be worth keeping. Zanders5k 04:32, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I also want to point out that in addition to sourcing its underlying theme, the article performs at least one other valuable function a category can't: for the sake of clarity, it lists YouTube aliases next to all the entries. Articles about YouTube vloggers are hampered by the fact that while the news media calls vloggers by their real names, fans oftentimes know vloggers best by their YouTube usernames. Listing them this way avoids confusion. Ichormosquito 04:33, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Agree with Ichormosquito's comments above. --Borgardetalk 04:36, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I think a mention on the main YouTube article will be enough, as well a category. Spawn Man 05:46, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That is a great idea in theory but in practice it doesn't work well. This list started as a section in the main article but was broken out mostly for maintainability as it's too long to put into another long article and it's a high maintenance list. --ElKevbo 14:56, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - since there's not really another way to be a celebrity on the internet (most celebrities are actors/actresses), this seems like it covers the category of "internet celebrities" apart from "internet phenomena", which covers the rest. Zchris87v 09:29, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I found the list useless. Elmao 10:25, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Multiple main stream references indicate this is an appropriate topic. The only thing I find problematic is that is is specific to one brand, and should probably be given a more generic name, such as List of viral video celebrities. Dhaluza 11:31, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or categorise. Hmm... let's see... 53 entries... 8 sources... 53 entries... 8 sources. Something here doesn't quite add up. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:28, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The only reason I created this list is that it previously sat in the middle of the main YouTube article and contributed disproportionately to the length and maintainability (it's a spam magnet) of that article. I lean towards categorize or keep but I do not feel very strongly. I am happy to see and act on the input of the wider Wikipedia community. --ElKevbo 14:52, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or categorize The ones who have their own articles should contain sources in said articles demonstrating notability (otherwise, they should be AfD'd themselves). Those without their own articles should have a reference demonstrating notability. Those that do not fit into either of the above categories should be removed from the list. With that said, the mere lack of sourcing does not mean this is an unnecessary list. The parameters of said list fit into all guidelines, as it collects people who are all notable for the same specific reason (and not that they are all left-handed or all from the same county, but that they all gained notariety due to one culturally-significant phenomenon). I would categorize only if there are no notable (and sourced) entries that do not have their own articles; if this is the case, then the list is pointless, as it doesn't add anything that a category doesn't cover (i.e. it's simply a list of names with zero added information). -- Kicking222 15:20, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment James Provan is one such case of a performer on YouTube who, although he gained media attention for one of his videos, could probably never sustain his own article. I'm sure there are other cases. Ichormosquito 16:33, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Sxephil, who gets almost 1 million hits on Google but only three sentences in a New York Times article, is another. He's also one of the 20 to 30 YouTube users in YouTube's revenue sharing program. Ichormosquito 18:39, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Cory Williams is another. Ichormosquito 02:43, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I should probably point out that something like this was deleted before: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Notable YouTube memes. The difference is that since then, YouTube's cultural significance has grown exponentially, as the sources related to "YouTube celebrity" attest. From the sound of it, the previous article did not try to assert why its topic was notable. This one does. Ichormosquito 16:47, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
STRONG KEEP useful article 68.62.22.239 20:31, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please see WP:USEFUL. Usefulness, in itself, does not necessarily justify keeping an article. Terraxos 03:27, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge (but only information that can satisfy WP:V and WP:RS) with List of Internet phenomena - lists are both on the same subject and I don't see why YouTube celebrities in particular need their own separate list. Anyone on YouTube is going to be elsewhere too. Wikidemo 21:19, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If we were to merge all the verifiable stuff, List of Internet phenomena would quadruple in size. I think the sources indicate that "YouTube celebrity" is a notable enough quantity in and of itself. And they are not the same subject. See these recent articles for evidence of the increasing popularity of online video and YouTube in particular:[1][2] There's no reason why we should have only the most general coverage of such a huge field. Ichormosquito 21:27, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't really see how even a single 'YouTube celebrity' can assert their notability, never mind a whole list of them. Anyone sufficiently notable to be called a celebrity is likely to be known for more than just making youtube videos, and is therefore likely to feature in other articles, lists, categories etc. That just leaves people who whatever reason have a lot of page views on youtube, which doesn't seem like a very good argument for inclusion in an encyclopaedia. Short version: the list exaggerates the importance of some entries and downplays the importance of others, and does justice to no-one. Therefore it should be removed --carelesshxtalk 01:27, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Notability is asserted through sourcing, and YouTube celebrities are judged by the same criteria as any celebrity in any other forum. Dhaluza 04:45, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
'Keep The above arguments show quite a mix of invalid deletion rationales: 1/ "listcruft" 2/ not as good as it might be 3/ might become fllled with spam, 4/ "per above" 5/ unnecessary 6/ "I found the list useless" 7/ only some of the items have been sourced 8/ no youtube celebrity is notable, or can ever be. A nice compendium of arguments to avoid in deltion discussions. The only valid argument is that a category might be sufficient, but several reasons have been given why the added information here is valuable. DGG (talk) 02:01, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or categorise - I think this list could work equally well as a category, but one way or another, it should exist. Since we have articles on most of these people already, it makes sense to have a list/category that collects them all in one place. It could be expanded into an article on 'YouTube fame' in general, but even if it were, this list would probably still take up about 90% of the page. Terraxos 03:25, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on categorization: The list contains entries for people covered in RS, but not in sufficient detail for a stand-alone article. So categorization is not a substitute for a list in cases like this. Dhaluza 04:48, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as Youtube celebrity If necessary, delete the list of performers. But the concept of a youtube celebrity is notable. Tlogmer(talk/contributions) 09:48, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Pointless list, maybe make it into some sort of category as mentioned above--$UIT 19:47, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Feels a lot like a highschool popularity contest to me... --Tarage 20:08, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Every entry is backed up by reliable sources. "Popularity" has nothing to do with it. If it did, daxflame, Kevjumba and What the Buck would be listed. Ichormosquito 22:21, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep today, the internet is as much a place as any country, this page deserves to be here as much as a page about American Celebrities or French Actors or anything. At least keep it as a category. Gaiacarra 11:18, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Very notable subject. If it's worthy of coverage by the New York Times, for pete's sake, that pretty much covers any notability requirements. Obviously needs to be policed to make sure those listed actually are considered celebrities, etc. Start with the ones cited by New York Times, and work from there. I agree the words "List of..." should be removed from the title, as that's an AFD magnet these days. 23skidoo 17:18, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The concept of "YouTube celebrity" is a worthwhile encyclopedic topic. 23skidoo offers sage advice on how to revise this article. RFerreira 19:02, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but improve - I see where 23skidoo is coming from on this. That said, the list must be gone through with a fine comb, to ensure that ONLY people who have been mentioned in the New York Times (etc.), and who "earn ad revenue in YouTube's partnership program", are actually on the list. No cruft = keep. Dihydrogen Monoxide (H2O) 04:42, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And in response to Starblind's comments above, all people who aren't mentioned by a source should be removed - only the rest should stay. Dihydrogen Monoxide (H2O) 04:43, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm adding sources now. I think the sources will discourage spam. Ichormosquito 18:06, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
STRONG KEEPPortillo 06:32, 20 September 2007 (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.