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 delete. Aside from some WP:ILIKEIT arguments that I am ignoring, the "keep" arguments here are largely based on WP:LISTN and the coverage that number of spotify followers has received. The "delete" arguments largely do not dispute this coverage, but point to WP:VENDOR and WP:SINGLEVENDOR as reasons why this isn't suitable for inclusion; or in plain English, the facts that this is essentially a music chart from a single vendor, and that it is never going to be stable. I find the arguments favoring deletion stronger, and they have not been substantively rebutted. There is a fundamental issue with an article that's going to be permanently inaccurate. There is also a substantive numerical tilt towards deletion. Vanamonde (Talk) 11:25, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of most-followed artists on Spotify (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

I noticed a discussion was started last year and the result was to keep the article based on the topic being notable i.e. a legitimate topic of interest. However, as I understand it, people are now sourcing direct from Spotify and so these numbers could fluctuate drastically? We don't use Spotify, iTunes, Deezer or AppleMusic (or any other vendor charts) across Wikipedia because they're non-static and change all the time (see WP:RECORDCHARTS). Futhermore WP:VENDOR also says "It may be impossible to provide a stable source for the alleged ranking".... For such reasons, such rankings are usually avoided as Wikipedia content. On that basis, I know people feel strongly about such lists, but I would argue that a single vendor one that can change daily, monthly, weekly is not encyclopaedic. >> Lil-unique1 (talk) — 22:48, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Lists. >> Lil-unique1 (talk) — 22:48, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: hasn't the list always been sourced directly from the artists follower counts on their profiles though? I'm not aware of any chart that provides this data. Secondary media sources occasionally cover when artists reach certain milestones, but no one ever constantly publishes detailed data about it because followers are a dynamic stat. -- Carlobunnie (talk) 00:25, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    No it was previously sourced from Chart Masters which is a copyright violation and mirror of Spotify and also out of date. Follower count literally fluctuates every minute meaning this page could be constantly out of date every time its published. >> Lil-unique1 (talk) — 08:53, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Oh. I forgot about that site since it's an unofficial source, so I got a little confused when you said "...other vendor chart" in your original post because ik there's no official chart that tracks Spotify followers, not even Spotify has an official list or ranking of that. I've been updating the page for about maybe 2 yrs roughly (iirc) and take stats directly from the artist profiles (I also added the secondary sources in the lead) since there's no other way to get the most up-to-date data. Secondary sources have covered follower stats over the years for various artists, but mostly do so for major milestones as opposed to publishing constant/regular updates. -- Carlobunnie (talk) 17:06, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - per nom and WP:NOT. We document things like "number ones", but not the entire charts. If you want to know the most followes Spotify artist, you should be going to Spotify, not Wikipedia. We shouldn't be a barebones mirror to Spotify. Sergecross73 msg me 23:53, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Sergecross73: But on Spotify it isn't clear which artists have more followers than others. if you mean the artist rating in the box at the bottom of the page, it is based on monthly listeners which has a separate list.--Hamedkazemi2 (talk) 01:52, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The follows on spotify can be upped by bots, stream-farming is a thing as well. They really don't give much information and can be fakes/inflated. None of this is much for wiki notability, unless we create a discussion about stream farms and bot-inflation of numbers. Oaktree b (talk) 04:27, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom and Serge's reasoning particularly. Spotify is a massive organisation, I'm sure that info can be found in dozens of listicles/data-vacuuming sites across the internet. WP has higher standards than that and this does not meet them for the reasons mentioned above. QuietHere (talk) 13:27, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - on the Spotify platform, unlike the browser, it isn't possible to see the number of followers of artists. and this makes people curious. this list helps to determine which artists have the most followers. this list should be expanded and updated everyday. Hamedkazemi2 (talk) 14:16, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Please see WP:ITSUSEFUL. Your argument doesn't address notability or NOT concerns. Sergecross73 msg me 15:00, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I am confused: if it isn't possible to see the numbers, what's the source for most of this chart? I clicked on one link and it didn't seem to contain that number. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 16:27, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have also the same question/concern of Piotrus. Where the numbers came from? Or I have the impression those numbers still taken from ChartMasters instead of Spotify. Please advise. --Apoxyomenus (talk) 16:31, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Its my understanding that the numbers come from Chart Masters, Twitter and a range of other sources including the artist's page on Spotify but is visible when you have the app/desktop version installed as opposed to the browser version. >> Lil-unique1 (talk) — 17:13, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Can't speak for prior to when I put the page on my watchlist, but I take the numbers directly from the artist profiles on the desktop app. However, like Lil-unique1 said, it's a dynamic stat, so the list can never truly be up-to-date at any given point, regardless of whether the stats come from a primary source or a reliable secondary source. -- Carlobunnie (talk) 17:21, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your argument doesn't explain why per WP:VENDOR this list should be kept. We keep any rankings or chart listing tabulated by WP:SINGLEVENDOR so why should this be any different? >> Lil-unique1 (talk) — 16:00, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. This USA Today listicle suggests this may meet WP:LISTN. Can anyone find more RS to save this? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 16:28, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  That doesn't address that the list is based on non-static stats that constantly change, and WP:VENDOR advises against retail stats. >> Lil-unique1 (talk) — 17:12, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep because other sources publish this list. Binksternet (talk) 22:09, 4 August 2022 (UTC) However, its data could be merged to List of most-streamed artists on Spotify. Both Chartmasters and Guinness maintain a list of most-followed Spotify artists, which would indicate that a list article such as this can exist on Wikipedia, but we already have a related article at List of most-streamed artists on Spotify, which also mentions the most-followed artists. Alternatively, we could merge the most-streamed over to the most-followed list. Note that Spotify added the 'About' tab in 2015, differentiating for the first time the number of monthly streams. Prior to that, the number of followers was the main statistic. So followers is older than streams. Binksternet (talk) 16:38, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The notional merged article could be moved to List of most popular artists on Spotify, with both streaming and followed stats shown in sortable cells in the same table. One could sort by streaming or by followed. Binksternet (talk) 18:08, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment about WP:VENDOR: the guideline doesn't apply here because Chartmasters and Guinness both carry the information. Spotify is not the only source. Binksternet (talk) 03:27, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. As others have said, not only this stuff is extremely volatile, but it can also be manipulated by bots. Handmeanotherbagofthemchips (talk) 13:00, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Lists like this and the most followed in social networks are always facing the problem of reliable sources. Most of the websites that provide such lists are either invalid or there are doubts about their validity. This applies not only to Spotify but also to other social networks. Reliable and credible websites have introduced the top 10 or 20. I searched the internet about this and found content that is invalid according to WP's rules and should be avoided. But their visits were high. Although some of them are obsolete. ChartMasters is an example of them. 2.185.124.64 (talk) 14:20, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Not clear what about this makes it a keep vote. It sounds like you're just describing the same issue as the other editors above without a counterargument. Unless "But their visits were high" is referring to the WP list which is the subject of this AfD, but I don't think that's a valid counter. The page receiving high amounts of traffic might even be worse since there's no guarantee about the accuracy of the information which means all those visitors are being unknowingly misinformed about whatever they're trying to learn about. QuietHere (talk) 17:20, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Isn't this the same kind of thing as List of most-followed Twitter accounts or List of most-subscribed YouTube channels? A lot of the arguments about these numbers not being static, liable to bot manipulation, etc., would seem to apply equally to Wikipedia's other such "list of most-followed X accounts" articles (which we find to be acceptable), no? Endwise (talk) 00:44, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  That's assuming the sourcing on those pages isn't more trustworthy than this page, and I think that's the whole point of concern regarding this AfD. I mean maybe their sourcing is equally as bad, I haven't checked, but either way it's not the subject matter that editors are at odds with here. QuietHere (talk) 03:09, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Consider also the option of Merging content proposed here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:32, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, passes WP:NLIST, as established in the first AfD and notability is not temporary. SailingInABathTub ~~🛁~~ 23:23, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  The first AfD focused on the notability of the list, this AfD focusses on the the fact that spotify rankings are not appropriate per WP:VENDOR and this list is potentially out of date every time its published because there's no static point from the sources. Spotify is not a reliable source for rankings per WP:RECORDCHARTS, we almost never list it on song articles, and definitely not in discographies. >> Lil-unique1 (talk) — 08:30, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well in this case Spotify is unreliable as a primary source first and foremost, however adequate secondary sources (to which WP:VENDOR does not apply) have been presented from which an article could be written and therefore anything else is just cleanup. SailingInABathTub ~~🛁~~ 21:35, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

However, the secondary sources are still reporting on a vendor/retail. WP:VENDOR and WP:RECORDCHARTS both present the case that commerce or single retailers are not appropriate rankings. >> Lil-unique1 (talk) — 21:44, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:VENDOR does not apply as there are stable, independent sources confirming the ranking as being relevant. SailingInABathTub ~~🛁~~ 22:04, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you understand what I mean. WP:RECORDCHART and WP:VENDOR both explain that rankings based on a single vendor are not encyclopaedic or appropriate for use on wikipedia. Although secondary sources confirm the content, the content they are confirming is still a single vendor chart/ranking which we would not deem usable in song articles, album articles or discographies. Although being popular on spotify has received coverage in reliable sources, we still would list it as relevant. Vendor says, When only self-published by the vendor, i.e. no reliable independent source confirming the ranking as being relevant, the ranking would usually carry insufficient weight to be mentioned in any article. Just because sources say "X artist is the most followed on spotify" does not mean that the ranking carries sufficient weight. That's the point I'm trying to make. An artist's popularity on Spotify (Amazon, Tidal, etc.) is a component of their overall chart success. >> Lil-unique1 (talk) — 22:29, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:SINGLEVENDOR. Ovinus (talk) 23:12, 11 August 2022 (UTC) Weak keep – passes WP:NLIST. The following amount to significant coverage. They aren't the cream of the crop in source quality, but I believe they establish notability. Ovinus (talk) 00:05, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  You missed the point per WP:VENDOR and the fact that spotify rankings are not used in discographies due to being single vendor rankings. >> Lil-unique1 (talk) — 08:31, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  My understanding of WP:VENDOR—which I missed and is actually new to me, so I thank you for duly questioning me—is that it is intended for single-vendor rankings which involve subjective or secretive selection. The "bestseller lists at Amazon" which the policy cites involve much more secrecy; correct me if I'm wrong, but Amazon does not post how many books are sold. List of most-subscribed YouTube channels has been speedily kept on numerous occasions, despite being a single-vendor list/ranking. Most concerns about this list apply to that list and vice versa. Follower counts are simply numbers, and unless duplicity is suspected on Spotify's part, I don't see the issue. Ovinus (talk) 23:03, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  You raise a great point, though I will say WP:OTHERSTUFF is never a great avenue to go down when it comes to AfD. A single vendor ranking like YouTube or spotify only serves as part of an artists' commercial or chart performance. Other vendors exist. If we go down the primary sources option its potentially always out of date, if we go down secondary sources we're supporting copyright vios and people will always update direct from spotify. I don't think its accurate or encyclopedic to report on a realtime ranking. If it was an annually published list fair enough but a realtime always changing list we would not report for song or album popularity per WP:RECORDCHARTS, where we specifically don't allow spotify or iTunes chart positions. I see this exactly the same. >> Lil-unique1 (talk) — 23:09, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Agree OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is a suboptimal argument, especially because VENDOR was not cited at that AfD, as far as I can see. (I'm not sure about the history of VENDOR; do those AfDs predate the rule?) I do think the comparison does show that there is no strong, blanket precedent to delete this type of article. I'm not entirely convinced by the WP:RECORDCHARTS argument, as that seems to apply to individual articles, not broader articles like this one. It is also not clear whether that guideline's writers considered this case. If we go down the primary sources option its potentially always out of date—well, if we use only secondary sources it's guaranteed to be always out of date! :P I don't see what is wrong with using Spotify as a primary source here, unless, again, we suspect Spotify is being deceptive. I will think about it some more, though. Ovinus (talk) 23:20, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Okay, thought about it some more. Leaning toward delete now, not only because of reading between the lines of WP:SINGLENETWORK but also because of the verifiability concerns. If coverage of this list were overwhelming, as in the list of YouTube channels by sub count, I would say keep. But there aren't that many sources here. Ovinus (talk) 23:12, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oyedeji, Miracle (31 March 2022). "Top Artists on Spotify in 2022". inquirer.net.
  • "Ed Sheeran and Justin Bieber currently have the most monthly listeners of all artists on Spotify". Music Business Worldwide. 18 May 2022. (listeners, not followers)
  • "Eminem Stays In Top 5 Most Followed Artists On Spotify". 22 May 2020.
  • Newman, Tom (28 July 2022). "The 10 biggest artists on Spotify in 2022". RouteNote Blog.
• Weak keep, passed WP:NLIST, there's sources available, and while I may not be interested in it, it is notable to be one of the most followed on a streaming platform. Hey man im josh (talk) 00:12, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Does not address WP:VENDOR which states commercial rankings are not appropriate. >> Lil-unique1 (talk) — 08:28, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Question. How can this be kept accurate and updated? How often does this change? How is the information published? What if the availability of information changes? I fear a maintenance nightmare here. Jacona (talk) 12:13, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comments only. Firstly all charts have been manipulated in one method or another, whether sending a man to the record store to buy extra copies of a 45, or giving the store owner extra cash for false accounting, or done by bots. They've always been manipulated, not an argument for keeping one chart and not another. The updating of the article can be clarified by making the date of the chart more apparent (at the bottom of the list where it says 1st August 2022 is not prominent enough, but correct at certain date should satisfy that, WP is, at best, a reporting encyclopedia, not an up-to-date platform! I also assume that Spotify and other major music platforms submit stats to Billboard (etc) to compile their charts, so this is only a component part of Billboard charts. FWIW, I still can't make my mind up keep or delete. --Richhoncho (talk) 08:46, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per Nom and User:Hamedkazemi2's comments that the "list should be expanded and updated everyday." The list has 54 references and 50 are from Spotify. It doesn't matter if they are "deceptive" or not the content becomes outdated rather quickly and is the companies reporting venue. At least List of most-streamed artists on Spotify has secondary sourcing. At best we can get a historical snapshot (June 29, 2022) per Guinness World Records but what is the encyclopedia value? Fans of Lady Gaga might be interested that she is now listed in 50th place. -- Otr500 (talk) 10:16, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep I think that this article is notable enough to be kept but the references should be changed. 𝙷𝚎𝚕𝚕𝚘𝚑𝚎𝚊𝚛𝚝 👋❤️ (𝚃𝚊𝚕𝚔🤔) 01:58, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  What sources do you have in mind that prove notability/should be on the article instead? Can't say I've seen anything here so far that would cover that, especially for keeping the list up-to-date. QuietHere (talk) 03:15, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm not sure I understand your stance or your suggestion... Sergecross73 msg me 18:08, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Arguments in favor of keeping have generally not addressed why WP:SINGLENETWORK does not apply.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (Talk) 02:36, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as passing WP:NLIST; yes, we do cite Spotify for the data itself, but that doesn't change that the topic is notable. Elli (talk | contribs) 20:18, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  But by citing Spotify directly we are explicitly violating WP:SINGLEVENDOR which is the whole point of the nomination in the first place. Not to call you or anyone out specifically, but most of the keep votes here have been based on notability when that's not the violation the nom is concerned with. Surely that invalidates all of those votes, right? QuietHere (talk) 21:24, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SINGLEVENDOR is applied to record charts. The number of followers an artist has on a platform is not a record chart, and so it does not apply in this case. SailingInABathTub ~~🛁~~ 21:44, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree - a chart is just a ranking based on sales or streaming. Its a measure of popularity for a single or album. List of most-followed artists on Spotify is effectively a chart of artists popularity, much like Billboard's Top Artists chart. The only difference is that it isn't officially published by an independent body. Even if it was, there would be no way we would allow it - regardless of the "independent" publisher because it was based on a Single Vendor. I don't see why the same logic doesnt apply here. Additionally vendor rankings are not suitable for use on wikipedia. Third issue - its potentially always out of date. >> Lil-unique1 (talk) — 22:29, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree that WP:SINGLEVENDOR overrides WP:N in a case like this. Elli (talk | contribs) 04:24, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment How long before this list is out of date, and who will commit to keeping it current? This is like creating a list for "Best sellers" with a list from one particular week. It's just too ethereal. Lamona (talk) 20:54, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Not an interesting stat, and too much for Wikipedia to replicate and verify. -- Mikeblas (talk) 23:10, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @Mikeblas just a reminder that WP:NOTINTERESTING is not a legitimate reason to vote in an AfD. I don't think that would invalidate your vote given the "per nom" and the latter part but just keep in mind that's something to avoid in future. QuietHere (talk) 07:15, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete this list cruft per nom. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 20:32, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete As per nomination. MrsSnoozyTurtle 08:46, 19 August 2022 (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.