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. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:22, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of most-liked YouTube videos[edit]

List of most-liked YouTube videos (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)

List is not encyclopedic content and we are not the Hot 100. Looks like listcruft and WP:NOTSTATS. List is nothing more than poll/popularity data that is subject to rapid changes and maintaining these lists is not what Wikipedia is about. These lists are magnets for UPE/COI promotional editors. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of most-followed Instagram Business accounts.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 15:40, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 16:05, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 16:05, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I agree with Berean Hunter--Luke Stark 96 (talk) 16:30, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Very interesting list! People look at Wikipedia exactly for this kind of stuff. --Checco (talk) 20:06, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:INTERESTING is not a suitable reason for keeping an article--Luke Stark 96 (talk) 16:49, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - I would have to see more convincing reasons to delete an article like this. Whether or not it's a magnet for COI editors is not an issue - we need to make a consensus based on notability. Skirts89 (talk) 21:13, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I understand the concerns of the proponent of the AFD, but I disagree that updating this list is too much of a chore, considering that people are passionate about youtube views this would seem like a non-issue. In theory the article could be merged, but then again, the main article has a lot of info already, if the article is to be merged considering the other AFD (list of most liked videos and list of most subscribed) this could add too much information to the main article, and considering that this information is notable by itself, I am against the deletion. Garlicolive (talk) 20:45, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Updating this list is not a problem because I update this list every day, but if I stop who will update this list?--Luke Stark 96 (talk) 22:54, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Whoa, I took a look and yes, you update the list a lot, a timid thanks in the name of Wikipedia (I am only an unknown user). You update many times per day, I would say that even if the list was updated once a week it would be already good enough, but I'll have to acknowledge the hard work you did, yes, updating the list can be a ton of work, but I would still vote against the deletion. You don't need to update so often, I always thought that people had some algorithm or bot to help them get the numbers (I admit, we are in 2019). You are definitely overwhelmed. How was it before you took over, did it pass weeks without anyone doing any edit? Garlicolive (talk) 21:45, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • Looking at the history yes, the list was updated only sometimes and maybe not very well--Luke Stark 96 (talk) 00:24, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Wikipedia has plenty of lists like this, and people often go to Wikipedia to find this kind of information easily. Wikiman5676 (talk) 05:38, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I suspect the list can be automatically generated from the Api and there are undoubtedly several companies who publish the information, and several utilities that will be able to collect it. So what your left with is a dynamic list which needs continually updated with daily maintenance and when the maintainer leaves, the list is going to be out of date with days or even hours. Seems to be an entirely wasteful effort to create something that can be created on the fly. scope_creep^Talk 10:06, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Sorry that was a bit crass. Perhaps the person doesn't know that. Apologies. scope_creep^Talk 10:10, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above. Per WP:LISTN. Has enough secondary source coverage. Paintspot Infez (talk) 18:42, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - As per above, Wikipedia has several lists like this so I don't see why this specific list needs to be removed. It's notable enough to stay and there's no issues with it that can't be fixed. AwesumIndustrys (talk) 18:57, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: original research and an impossible-to-maintain dynamic list. Also, the criteria is unclear -- most liked of all time right now? At a point in time? I don't see how the presence of this list benefits the reader. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:28, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I believe we should keep these lists because like many have stated it includes enough references and sources. BrDen (talk) 11:49, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Wikipedia is not a respiratory for every ranking chart you can think of, and also I suspect there's WP:OWN problems going on here too. Ultimately this is not encyclopedic content and goes against notability policies. doktorb _words^deeds 11:16, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comments: Since it is all about money every way imaginable has to be used to generate it. Let's get Wikipedia to make "lists" {YouTube, facebook, etc..) that editors may in good faith like and support so keep the most watched videos very up to-date. People will click on the videos through Wikipedia and Google (YouTube) can then make money on the generated advertising revenue. In 2015 YouTube was expecting to make $2 1/4 billion on advertising ($4 billion in 2018) so maybe higher by now? A video, to considered as have been watched, according to standards set by the Media Rating Council and the Interactive Advertising Bureau, "when at least half of its pixels are visible on screen for at least two consecutive seconds.". Pretty smart if you ask me. All editors in good faith need to do is keep the list dynamic and up to date, and it seems it would generate more money through Wikipedia. If that is true then add the other lists probably being kept "up to date". I could be off-base but it is worth considering if Wikipedia is actually striving to be free of commercialism. Maybe others have input on this? Otr500 (talk) 16:36, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep When a YouTube user likes a YouTube video, he/she is indicated that they enjoyed it. Since YouTube is the second-most-popular website on the internet, possessing a video that millions of people have voiced their approval of is a tremendous accomplishment. The relevance of YouTube and the importance of liking a video on the site make the article informative. The list of most-liked YouTube videos. as well as other lists relating to YouTube, allow Wikipedia to serve as an almanac. Therefore, lists like these are what Wikipedia can be about. It is appropriate for Wikipedia as it is limited to relevant videos (4 million likes or more), and verifiable because the citations contain links to each video. The claim that the list is nothing more than popularity data is invalid as the same applies to List of highest-grossing films and List of best-selling albums which are both exceedingly informative articles, as is this one. The comparison of this list to the Billboard Hot 100 is also invalid as that chart is based on data collected each week, while this list is based on data collected from YouTube's entire history, thereby making it a historical one. The Billboard Hot 100 is also determined by data that it's own company does original research into. Had this article been based on original research, it would be deleted. Since it is based on data collected by another source (YouTube), there is no issue. 0737290632t2x273n (talk) 20:07, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And lots of people make money, except Wikipedia. However, three editors arguing that other stuff exists is not supposed to be valid reasoning. In the over sixty-five references to YouTube, not with any substance but a link to the Videos themselves after watching or skipping the ads, would seem to be a problem. I am not sure why there is any concerns of copyright violations considering this. Otr500 (talk) 01:17, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect because unlike the list of most-disliked YouTube videos, having a list of the most-liked videos is easier and more predictable. The top 40 list consists solely of music videos, while the ten non-music videos listed have fewer likes, and would best be summarized with prose. (For example: PewDiePie versus Mr. Beast having a like wars, YouTube Rewind, etc.) Billboard now has the Streaming Songs chart, which includes YouTube data in its methodology. We can use that list or the SocialBlade list instead of relying on Wikipedians frequently updating an article. --LABcrabs (talk) 04:44, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep Per WP:LISTN list articles are appropriate when there are secondary sources covering the general category; not every entry needs to be covered in these sources. Here, there are several media sources giving coverage to the most liked YouTube videos. While this article has citations to a quite frankly obnoxious amount of YouTube videos, there are a number of secondary sources spread out over a few years. The sourcing is however a bit weaker than other recently nominated list of… articles, so I’m only voting weak keep. Also, I’m not concerned with original research, since at worst the article is sorting numbers from largest to smallest. This is a routine calculation requiring no independent thought, so I don’t think it violates our no original research policy. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:56, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: It's a hot topic related to one of the Internet's most popular website. There's no reason to get rid of it. --Posted by Pikamander2 (Talk) at 15:35, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: if the result will be "keep" I propose to reduce the list to the top 30, like List of most-viewed YouTube videos--Luke Stark 96 (talk) 23:57, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above. Very useful article which recieves a large amount of daily visits. TheMasterGuru (talk) 17:29, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Sources in article are enough to pass WP:LISTN. — pythoncoder  (talk | contribs) 23:44, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. What if someone needs to view this for quick information. If it's deleted, then where are they gonna get the information? This article also sees a lot of attention, especially by me. BashurMan (talk) 23:56, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:LISTN. YouTube is one of the most popular sites in the world, so I don't think this article will have any problems being kept up to date. A testament to this should be this AfD discussion having the most replies of all the recent "List of most..." AfD nominations. Besides, Wikipedia is WP:NOTPAPER, so I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with an article needing to be updated frequently. Why not take advantage of the digital format to keep information up to date? Additionally, the all like counts should be updated at the same time editnotice and the "as of" date indicator at the bottom of each table helps keep this a rather high-quality article, and certainly encyclopedic in my view. Much nicer than the disorganized messes over at List of virtual communities with more than 1 million users and List of virtual communities with more than 100 million active users. WP:NOTSTATS is not a concern because the context is properly explained, and YouTube likes are hardly a complex statistic anyhow. Ahiijny (talk) 04:28, 17 February 2019 (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.