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 Speedy/Strong Keep (non-admin closure). Consensus asserts heavy keep, including comment over a recent AfD nomination. WilliamH (talk) 16:47, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of YouTube celebrities[edit]

AfDs for this article:

I just think the term "YouTube celebrity" is down to nothing more than speculation. Buc (talk) 12:08, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The notability criteria are a definable line to help us understand what constitutes a 'YouTube celebrity.' It's true that this article sees a lot of non-notable self-insertions, but that is not a reason for deletion, and there seem to be plenty of people who have watchlisted this article and remove the non-notable additions. I don't agree that there is no such thing as a YouTube celebrity, since some people have achieved a measure of fame through their YouTube participation, and this can be verified by reliable sources, and is so verified in this list. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 12:27, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. This will never be a featured list due to its nature which invites self-insertions, but we have a previous consensus to keep, to which this nomination changes nothing. --Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 12:45, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Youtube celebrities are notable. An index of them is perfectly encyclopedic, and the page requires that they have reliable sources to cite their 'celebrity-ship'. By the nominators argument, we should also delete List of celebrities, as 'celebrity' doesn't have a set, numerical criteria either. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 12:47, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - Notability guidelines allow us to determine what makes them a 'celebrity'. By your thinking, should we not also delete List of celebrities also, as it seems you believe it cannot be determined what makes someone applicable to that standard? asenine ^t/_c 13:00, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep Nothing has changed since the consensus in the second AfD and I don't think your new concern is particularly valid - all the performers listed have sources to assert notability or they are removed. All 'speculation' is done by the 'reliable sources' referred to. ~ mazca ^talk 13:13, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep as this article survived AFD with a keep decision only a couple of months ago. Articles must not be re-nominated repeatedly in such a short period of time. And I agree with Mazca that I don't think anything has changed in terms of consensus since the thing was kept the last time. 23skidoo (talk) 14:20, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Worthy subject, but still not a terribly informative list, even with the "a.k.a." thrown in to give a hint as to the nature of their celebrity status. Mandsford (talk) 16:36, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 16:41, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - Notable, but it's a poor article. ChessCreator (talk) 16:45, 6 April 2008 (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.