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 keep. Please continue discussing these concerns on the talk page. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:53, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of YouTubers[edit]

List of YouTubers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Reasons I stated on the Article's talk page. Basically, we should make a list of popular YT channels, arranged by subscribers, and include who runs them, what the do, and skips cites completely. I would like to know where the conversation is going to take place, here, on this article's talk page, or on the WP:AFD. L3X1 (talk) 17:28, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I completed the nomination. More text is available on the article talk. @L3X1: discussion should be here, please. ansh666 01:56, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 January 1. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:12, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Oppose: In my honest opinion, I see it that this article should be kept, though it needs work. I saw your comment, and I believe you're putting too much thought into the matter. This is an informal list in need of absolutely complete reworking from my perspective. And I disagree, if we base off of sub count, then basically anyone gets an article if they "have a lot of subscribers". At this point, there are 1,000 youtubers with 1,000,000 subscribers, should every single one get an article? CGPGrey, a youtuber with less subscribers is an article and likely on the list because of his 3rd party notability. Sorry for the tangent. It's weak because this list is basically useless and has too many people, List of Popular YouTubers should be there instead.JerrySa1 (talk) 02:56, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Popular" would make the list arbitrary and POV. See, e.g., Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lists#List naming ("Note that the word "famous" is considered an unnecessary "peacock" embellishment and should not be used.") postdlf (talk) 22:49, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For: How bad can it to be to make an article"List of YouTube Channels by subs >200K" and "List of YT Channels by Subs 100-200K"? Not every single channel has to get an article, its being in a Wiki listing instead. Or, based on soemthing I read of Quora, it could be Channels with More than 513k subs". — Preceding unsigned comment added by L3X1 (talk • contribs) 16:02, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For: Also, on my user page, I made a small chart demonstrating what it could be. Perhaps these two ideas could exist at the same time, without any deletion? The policy should still be revised, though IMO. L3X1 (talk) 16:36, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Not sure about the proposal, but I don't think WP:AfD is the place for such a proposal. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:42, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: first of all @L3X1: the deletion discussion takes place here so please move any content related to it (your talk page entry) to here. Then for what I've read on the talk page you're not actually asking it to be deleted but changed instead. So I'm not sure why you created a deletion discussion for it.
  I'd agree that the table needs a new column for number of subscribers and that many entries are missing. This is why people like you need to come in and help with such articles by simply adding such missing info or discussing the addition of said on the talk page. For the number of subscribers-column: that's problematic as the numbers change all the time - however I don't see a problem with it if somebody or some bot maintains it (e.g. updating it every 6 months or so). Then for the criteria of notability: that's currently existing WP:RS about the youtuber - if you think it should be changed you need to discuss that on the talk page and potentially some other policy-related page (I don't know where - you might ask about this in your talk page entry). There are good reasons for the current Wikipedia policies, however they're not always the best possible or appropriate for some exceptions etc so don't feel shun off by them and make your case for changes with proper arguments and you may effect a needed change.

--Fixuture (talk) 13:04, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• response: Here is what I wrote on the List of YouTubers talk page: "This article should be deleted, do to the nature of its listing policy. The policies (from nearly a DECADE ago, before YT became big enough for many big corporations to realise it power in advertising, communication, and creating original content) are flawed. Not counting subs? Really? So, Smarter Every Day has >4Million subscribers, more than 31 states of the Union, yet he isn't on the list. HAVING SUBS IN NOTABLE. That's why YT give out multi-colored play buttons as awards. PDK productions (makers of Nerf Wars) isn't on the list, yet he has 1 Million + subs. McJuggerNuggets has >400K subs, is capable of bringing in more than a million views on select videos in a few days, yet was added yesterday. Violette 1st has >100K subs, is capable of grabbing up to 200K views on some videos, and is unlisted. The criteria is confusing and having to have 3rd party references serves what purpose? We can all go to YT and see how many subs are displayed, unless the creator has turned off public display. It's time the criteria was revisited and revised. Also, why are they alphabetized by FIRST NAME???? Should be by last name, not first. tldr; Having subs should get you on the list. This list needs to be greatly expanded, or the project should be deemed beyond the scope of Wikipedia, and deleted." L3X1 (talk) 16:00, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• response: I would submit there is a difference between a List of YT Channels by Sub, and a list of Notable YTers. Note how many one hit wonders that received millions of views on a video, because they are one-hit, they don’t receive a sizable subscriber boost. Also note, due to the lousy existing policies, any YouTuber who gains enough external cites can be added to the List. Case in point: Allie Knight. 77k subs, will probably hit 100k sometime this year. I was able to prove and defend notability by showing how she ended up in 4 news accounts, was an industry specialist, and had enough subs to not be too big of a nobody. But still, she is a nobody, I bet none of you have heard of her. Because of the above reasons, I do not think combining and expanding the articles is a good idea. The chart on my user page? I made it in 30 minutes with simple YouTube searches. Now suppose I had to go dig up cites which meet WP policy for each and every channel? I’d still being do so to this minute! I mean, C-SPAN, CNN, Ford, they don’t need cites! Everyone (in America at least) knows who they are, what the do. Emma Blackery, she has millions of subs and a is a well known YTer. Having to dig around for a credible website that mentions her name is a waste of time and effort. As for effecting changes on the existing policies that define Notable YouTubers, the only change I think will work is removing every policy for notability except 2: Subscription count, and cites for 1HWs. That is: revolution. That is why I WP:AFD this. Perhaps rather than revolution, we can agree on making a list of YT Channels by sub, and letting the 2 pages coexist. Perhaps in 6 months or so we can come back and determine which one is more popular, more helpful, and better organized, and then WP:AFD the loser. L3X1 (talk) 16:22, 2 January 2017 (UTC) has spoken[reply]

• Delete Too many 'notable' Youtubers exist to give so many of them a spot on the list. Maybe they should be listed in subscriber rank order with only the top 20 or so shown? Oliverrushton (talk) 20:57, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As the other existing YouTube articles and my User chart show, the top 20 is unhelpful, as that is mostly YouTube collective channels, and Top Musicians Vevo. We have to do at the top 200, which will get down to about ~500mil subs channels. L3X1 (talk) 22:08, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That you want this article deleted is clear due to you having nominated it. You are not supposed to vote, since this is akin to you voting more than once. So you should remove the bolded "Delete" and "Delete or Truce if both pages are created, not so keen on a merger" part of your above posts. You can leave the posts, but remove the bolded portions that make it appear as though there are more delete votes than there actually are. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:46, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that. L3X1 (talk) 12:57, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How come I shouldn't be allowed to vote? Sorry if it was just a mistake removing my 'delete' in bold Oliverrushton (talk) 17:06, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, it was a mistake.L3X1 (talk) 17:49, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as index of articles per WP:LISTPURP and as complement to Category:YouTubers per WP:CLN. If the inclusion criteria needs to be changed, that's a matter for normal editing and discussion. Not liking the current state of an article is not a valid reason for deletion. If the list is too long, then it can be split into sublists, just as the category has subcategories. Again, a matter for normal editing and discussion to resolve; see policy at WP:ATD. What is not in question is that there are enough notable people who verifiably fit the list's concept to merit a standalone list. postdlf (talk) 17:37, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep – If the issue is length, the list should simply be split. This could be done alphabetically. If the issue is that the list doesn't add anything to the Youtubers category, then that would be a good complaint. I disagree, though, and believe that there is a unique value to this list. List of most subscribed users on YouTube already exists, and has an entirely different purpose and approach from the list of Youtubers. One recommendation I do want to make is to add a section on what being a "Youtuber" is about, and the kind of work ethic and income the profession deals with. After all, "Youtuber" redirects here. That's not really related to the AfD, though. ~Mable (chat) 17:52, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, but... It should be renamed something like "List of notable YouTubers" though, perhaps set up a 7 million subscriber minimum etc... Sandiego91 (talk) 00:12, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 06:47, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 06:47, 7 January 2017 (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.