Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of YouTubers (2nd nomination)

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 per WP:SNOW. -- Tavix ^(talk) 14:18, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of YouTubers[edit]

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

Non-enyclopedic, steadily changing, tendentious entries. Goes against Wikipedia's goals. *thing goes (talk) 20:43, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:58, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:58, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Given how many times this has been nominated for deletion but kept, I think this nomination should be considered incomplete and inadequate until it addresses and responds to those past discussions. postdlf (talk) 21:35, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, groups notable entities by defining characteristic. Siuenti (씨유엔티) 21:40, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
keep I'd even say it could be argued that a WP:SPEEDYKEEP is in order due to the multiple glaring flaws in the nomination. My initial reaction when coming upon this article was WP:IDONTLIKEIT as well, but what I did was to start an RFC that succeeded in narrowing the scope to include only those persons who already have a Wikipedia article. Any person whose article is later deleted is removed from the list. This is therefore a list of related, notable subjects, which is perfectly in step with what lists are for. "Steadily changing" and "tendentious entries" are manifestly not reasons to delete an article. We'd have to scrap millions of articles if those were valid arguments. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:18, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clear list criteria of people who satisfy the BLP notability requirements. Ajf773 (talk) 23:36, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Links to people with their own page, so by definition and by wikipedia standards, they should be notable. but may be change title"Notable youtubers? Deathlibrarian (talk) 08:55, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per all the above and a very poor nom - Goes against Wikipedia's goals - please explain that one. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 08:59, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Encyclopedic, steadily updated. Tenditious nomination, goes against Wikipedia's goals. Peacock (talk) 10:38, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep You-tubing is now a professional just like other professions. There should be a list of notable YouTubers just like List of artists and other lists. --Elton-Rodrigues (talk) 13:57, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (WP:SNOW) and a trout for the nom. It's been nominated many times before, and this one doesn't even include specific reasons. "Non-enyclopedic" and "goes against Wikipedia's goals" are more or less the same, and equally vague. "steadily changing" is perfectly fine. "tendentious entries" - the inclusion criteria is fairly clear. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:02, 27 May 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.