- 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 keep per WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) Jalen D. Folf (talk) 23:50, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- List of most-subscribed YouTube channels (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) 15:42, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 15:59, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 15:59, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep or Merge- When it comes to number of subscribers, merging does not sound like a bad idea.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, and in fact, when it comes to subscribers this info has to be somewhere, it if of high interest. 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 youtube videos and list of most viewed youtube videos) this could add too much information to the main article. Garlicolive (talk) 20:50, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Meets WP:LISTN due to the widespread coverage of the topic, most recently in the form of the PewDiePie vs T-Series dispute. Matters of taste are not elements of notability, and statistics are permitted if given context and palced into tables for ease of sorting (as is done here). Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:29, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per above. Satisfies WP:LISTN). Has enough secondary source coverage. Also, a big mass deletion of all these YouTube articles doesn't seem to be the best idea. Paintspot Infez (talk) 20:25, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep- People are very interested in these statistics, people like myself. I love these stats stuff, and pages like Wikipedia have a nicer layout than social blade, so I prefer to use it, please keep it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.97.49.176 (talk) 01:54, 12 February 2019 (UTC) — 75.97.49.176 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Keep. I use this page, and many pages similar to this, all the time. I really don't see a reason for you guys to get rid of it. These pages are extremely useful resources that keep people like me coming to Wikipedia, and there are no satisfying alternatives to these lists anywhere else on the internet. 208.66.10.137 (talk) 06:27, 12 February 2019 (UTC) — 208.66.19.137 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Keep – Unsurprisingly, the ranking of users on the internet's second most-trafficked website is a frequent topic of coverage by major news sources, especially within the past year, and certainly at a level high enough to satisfy WP:LISTN and to exceed any reasonable threshold for being encyclopedic. The first of Wikipedia's five pillars states that the website combines many features of almanacs, and a core component of almanacs is the inclusion of a variety of useful lists. Their presence is appropriate for Wikipedia provided that they are relevant, noteworthy, and verifiable; I believe this list meets all three conditions. The list is neither excessive—as it is limited to channels with at least 21 million subscribers—nor unexplained, and as such does not violate WP:NOTSTATS. The list is no more a compilation of "popularity data" than any other statistical ranking of mass media, such as the list of highest-grossing films or list of best-selling albums. No explanation is given as to why "maintaining these lists is not what Wikipedia is about." The comparison to the Hot 100 is unfounded; whereas each edition of the Billboard chart lists the best-performing songs in a single week, this list documents the channels that have gained the most subscribers over the entire fourteen-year history of YouTube's subscription feature. Despite the implication otherwise, I have not once in my thirteen months of overseeing the list witnessed any behavior that struck me as the product of paid editing or the work of a user with a conflict of interest, apart from low-effort spam—attempting to promote people's small channels—that is almost always reverted within minutes; since becoming semi-protected last summer, even those edits have completely ceased.
- It should be noted that none of the reasons for deletion given by the nominator were made specifically for this article. The editor has simply copy-and-pasted the exact same paragraph to at least fifteen AfDs they have made for internet statistics-related lists, and I find this behavior to be somewhat troubling. LifeofTau 06:35, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I could explain my vote, but LifeofTau has commented virtually every reason you need to know as to why it is wrong to delete this page.0737290632t2x273n (talk) 15:22, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep. Covered extensively in reliable sources and very high-traffic article. Satisfies WP:LISTN as does many other articles. Managed by many users. No legit, real rationale have been brought up for deleting. And also the many points LifeofTau brought up. Vivexdino (talk) 04:17, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep – References are used (from multiple cites), the data is verifiable, this is no different than most lists on Wikipedia, and there is no real reason to compare it to the Hot 100. I see no absolute reason for this article to be nominated for deletion in the first place. Dannyyankee12let's talk 14:53, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Subscribe to closing this AfD as a Keep. Created this list a few a years ago, and now more than ever, the list has strong grounds to be maintained on Wikipedia. Soulbust (talk) 00:46, 14 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.