Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of YouTubers (3rd nomination)

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 procedural keep with no prejudice against renomination. What I see in this discussion was a 3-0 count in favor of "delete", followed by a pile-on of "keep" voters who were canvassed to this discussion by the first keep voter. From what I can see, only "keep" voters were notified. This project is governed by consensus, and WP:CANVASS is a serious aspect of this as it prohibits users from artificially fabricating consensus via biased notification. It appears very obvious to me that that is what happened here, and there is no way I can interpret this as a genuinely-formed consensus. In other words, even if the community would have reached the same consensus without the canvassing, there is no way to judge that, given how severely the participation was apparently skewed by canvassing. There is no assumption of bad faith on the part of any notified participants, and their arguments, as well as past discussions, should be genuinely considered when considering whether to renominate. However, this discussion should not preclude such a renomination, as there is no way for the community to judge whether the apparent overwhelming "keep" consensus would have been reached if the discussion had taken place normally. Swarm ♠ 01:36, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of YouTubers[edit]

AfDs for this article:
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)

Fails WP:LISTN (set as a whole is not notable), WP:CLT (no advantages of a list) and WP:LISTPURP (no good for information, or navigation, or development). Duplicate of Category:YouTubers. wumbolo ^^^ 20:18, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak delete: I don’t see many unlinked/redlinked entries, but the list is very long and addition of non-notable YouTubers seems likely. Neither of the previous nominations mentioned WP:LISTN or the category. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 20:36, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Doesn't really add anything past what the category does, per nom — IVORK Discuss 23:50, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep as this shouldn't even be a thing. The criteria for inclusion has been discussed. The argument of "duplicate of YouTuber category" is not valid because there are lots of lists that could be considered duplicates of categories. It was mentioned in a previous deletion debate that being a YouTuber is a profession like a lot of other professions. Why should YouTube be exempt from having a notable YouTuber list? There are lots of notable lists of artists and whatnot. Just because you think it should be deleted doesn't make it correct. Further more, if an article on a YouTuber is deleted, it gets removed from the list. That's in step with what a list is for. Finally, it meets all requirements for a list. Mr. C.C.Hey yo!I didn't do it! 00:01, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Fishhead2100: It was mentioned in a previous deletion debate that being a YouTuber is a profession like a lot of other professions. Why should YouTube be exempt from having a notable YouTuber list? That would be an WP:OSE argument. wumbolo ^^^ 12:25, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, obviously. Easily passes NLIST. No list "duplicates" a category (WP:NOTDUP). No new arguments given beyond those offered when it's been kept five times in the past (including a snow keep last time). — Rhododendrites talk \\ 00:52, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep No actual reason given for deletion. You can't say it fails WP:X without citing the actual rule and showing how that rule has been broken. It is just pointing to the Bible and telling people their answer is inside. And of course every category can have a list, they serve different purposes. --RAN (talk) 01:51, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As stated before and in WP:NOTDUP, the fact that this list is closely tied to the category is perfectly fine and not a valid deletion reason. WP:LISTN is obviously satisfied; regardless of whether sources are present displaying notability of the set as a whole, they can easily be found with a search. The majority of entries on this list are for notable people who have engaged in this occupation and like any other occupation that this many notable people are employed in, a list is justified. Vanstrat ((🗼)) 01:08, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Criteria for inclusion is established here, so seems ok to me. Deathlibrarian (talk) 01:12, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Did you notice that they have to have an article in Wikipedia already? --RAN (talk) 01:51, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I didn't I'v changed my vote, all I was concerned about was the criterai for inclusion, and that's been satisfied. Deathlibrarian (talk) 00:00, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Deathlibrarian: per WP:REDACT please remember to strike your comments in order to change, rather than refactor them if someone has replied (otherwise it removes the context for that reply). — Rhododendrites talk \\ 00:21, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What he said. We had a discussion last year, which is linked at the top of the talk page and in the edit notice, that determined that only persons who alread have a Wikipedia article should be included, so this argument really doesn’t hold water. If there are any redlinked entries currently they can and shoud be removed without any need fo discussion. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:57, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Having participated in and/or started several of these discussions over the past ~5 years, it's disappointing to see this assumption when any casual look through the talk page archives or the edit notice would turn it up. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 14:11, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment: The nominator must not fully understand LISTPURP. It's straightfoward. Lists and categories are complimentary of each other at it's very basic. This article does not fail LISTPURP at all. Mr. C.C.Hey yo!I didn't do it! 03:52, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep You can not delete a list because you prefer a category. There is a specific rule about that. All entries have their own Wikipedia article and have references showing reliable sources giving significant coverage for being YouTubers. Dream Focus 03:56, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 04:41, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 04:41, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but consider a bit more cleanup and removal of people that are well notable before/outside of Youtube. For example, Psy need not be on the list; he's a musician first and foremost. Of those that should be kept, I would suggest possibly breaking the table into broad categories, such as musicians, comedians, technology-related, arts and crafts, and the like. But as long as we start with a requirement of a blue link/notable person, that helps to keep the cruft out. --Masem (t) 05:13, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment:Likewise Justin Bieber — IVORK Discuss 05:23, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete CLT is an editing guideline, so it doesn't count for notability. LISTPURP is under Manual of Style, so it isn't applicable, either. LISTN is the only applicable notability guidance. It says "a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources". I searched and I found a couple RS mentioning YouTubers as a group of people. Here's the thing: none of those are present in the article. You know why? Because the editors who contribute here are only interested in listing their favorite YouTubers. No one is concerned with describing the cohort. I could do what Vanstrat is doing and claim that sources exist so it passes, but I'm not. I'm not going to trust my anecdotal check as a pass on notability. It makes more sense to delete this list, anger some fans, and force a change whereas this list would actually pass LISTN. Let's have a conversation about notability when the sources are all presented. Just seeing that some sources exist is no reason to keep an article. Chris Troutman (talk) 06:13, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Chris troutman: SoWhy has you there. Plus it's not about adding your favourite YouTuber. That's not how it works. Instead of complaining the sources you found are not in article, add it. That's the common sense thing to do. Your argument/comments are full of holes that your vote doesn't line up with what you said. Sources you found not being in articles is a terrible reason to vote delete. Mr. C.C.Hey yo!I didn't do it! 07:20, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @SoWhy: I see you've cited some sources below. I'm not denying they exist, but I do think deletion ought to be a method of cleanup, per WP:REALPROBLEM. I'm not being dishonest about it; let an admin discount my rationale. Chris Troutman (talk) 02:29, 1 May 2018 (UTC) @Fishhead2100: I'm not fixing this article because there's zero utility in it for me. It's illogical to waste one's time cleaning up others' messes unless you enjoy it. I don't. Chris Troutman (talk) 02:29, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Chris troutman: You're complaining about stuff being wrong with this and that. As long as it is not addressed and fixed, are you're going to keep complaining about it? Don't tell me you are one of those people will only complain and not actually do something about it. That's a bad attitude to have. I don't know if it is bad faith, but not stepping to help address and fix what you perceive as an issue, it does seem like it. Mr. C.C.Hey yo!I didn't do it! 14:32, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Fishhead2100: "Don't tell me you are one of those people will only complain and not actually do something about it." Sorry, but yeah. I'm not so arrogant that I'm going to charge forward and impose my will. I recognize Wikipedia suffers from adverse selection due to a broken payoff structure. "...but not stepping to help address and fix what you perceive as an issue..." Per WP:VOLUNTEER. You've been here 13 years and you're going to lecture me that if I don't like Wikipedia it's because I'm not doing enough? Anyone that contributes to Wikipedia for free is a sucker, me included. Jimbo is laughing his way to the bank. Chris Troutman (talk) 14:48, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Chris troutman: That's the point of Wikipedia. I edit Wikipedia because I like to. Would you volunteer at a place you don't like? No. You edit here because you like to. Plus we have the power to possibly change things. Not figuring out potential solutions to things that are perceived as an issue is being passive. It doesn't fix itself. That's why taking the initiative is a good thing. WP:IDGAF doesn't work. Mr. C.C.Hey yo!I didn't do it! 03:29, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • You talk about CLT as though you're rebutting it coming up here. When part of the deletion rationale is about that guideline, it's relevant. Perhaps you are rebutting the nominator, though. The subject is so obviously, painfully notable, that it's bizarre to see an experienced editor admit a cursory search, admit it's probably notable, but go with what is either a straight up WP:JDLI or a punitive assumption of bad faith. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 14:11, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Rhododendrites: I think the nomination should have only mentioned NLIST; maybe the nominator was trying to be thorough and accidentally confused the issue. As I explain above, maybe deletion is not allowed to be a form of cleanup but it probably should be. The insufficient article we have is the result of adverse selection. There are incentives to add YouTubers to the list but there's little incentive to demonstrate that the article passes NLIST. Wikipedia:WikiCup can only incentivize improvement if someone could take this to featured list, and I doubt there's material enough to meet that goal. Unless an editor likes talking about YouTubers as a cohort, this mess will never get fixed, which is probably why it keeps getting nominated. Chris Troutman (talk) 02:29, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The List ( List of YouTubers ) should be deleted because there are many YouTuber who deserve in the list. If I have to say Mo Vlogs should also deserve the list. I mean there are many youtuber and they have there own speciality about their channel. Some of them has more views on their channel whereas some of them has subscribers. What I think is We should make the listing of youtuber with certain limitation. If I have to say I am youtuber too. But I don't think I should be listed. We make listing but with some limitation for example, List of YouTuber over 10 billion views, somethings like that. Personally, I think the listing List of YouTubers should be deleted. LuckyRacerNP (talk) 07:03, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @LuckyRacerNP: You only want it deleted because you want stricter guidelines for inclusion on the list. You could easily start another discussion on guidelines. Not every YouTuber has at least ten billion views. They may have a million subscribers, but not the views. Yes, a lot of channels don't necessarily get the views. It's not about deserving. It's about notability and having an article. If you find sources this channel or YouTuber or that channel or YouTuber, great. But as it stands, no article than they can't be added to the list. Mr. C.C.Hey yo!I didn't do it! 07:41, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@LuckyRacerNP: We are adding those Youtubers, who had Wikipedia article page. Wikipedia articles mean the Notable person. Siddiqsazzad001 <Talk/> 07:53, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The article is about YouTube personalities. After reviewing this article, I think all the youtuber are notable. All the reliable sources are enough significant coverage for Wikipedia article. More then 500 reliable sources available. But don't add singers, musician and label etc. Thank you, Siddiqsazzad001 <Talk/> 07:46, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't address the deletion rationale at all. There's no dispute that at least some of these people are notable, the question is whether a long and perennially incomplete list is the best way of collating them. Guy (Help!) 08:02, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, redundant to Category:YouTubers. When YouTube "celebrities" were rare this list had some purpose but it's now common, the list is unmanageably long and the job is better done by a category, in the orthodox way for large collections of articles. Guy (Help!) 08:01, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • We have a lot of long lists. Some of them are broken up into different pages alphabetically, some by subtopic... If a list on a valid topic grows too long, it doesn't suddenly become deleteworthy. That means it's time to either make the inclusion criteria stricter or spin off part of it. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 14:11, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Let's analyze the reasons for deletion the nominator mentioned:
    • "Fails WP:LISTN" - as Chris points out (despite !voting delete), the concept of "YouTuber" as a group is quite notable. Sure, the list might need some more references regarding this but as Chris also mentions, those references exist aplenty ("YouTuber" has been the subject of many books, scientific papers and newspaper articles).
    • WP:CLT - This guideline explicitly says "Accordingly, these methods should not be considered in conflict with each other. Rather, they are synergistic, each one complementing the others.". So just saying "Fails [...] WP:CLT" is not a convincing reason for deletion.
    • WP:LISTPURP - I'm drawing a blank here. This list meets all the purposes listed in the style guideline cited and style guidelines are, as Chris points out, not a reason for deletion anyway.
    • "Duplicate of Category:YouTubers" - See above, per WP:NOTDUP arguing that a category duplicates a list (or vice versa) at a deletion discussion is not a valid reason for deletion and should be avoided.
As for the other !votes, the list has criteria of inclusion and addition of entries not in line with those criteria can and should be handled by removing those entries, not the whole list. Regards SoWhy 08:15, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral – I am not fond of long lists of notable things that fall in the same category. I'm mostly staying neutral here because of an other-stuff-exists-like argument: This well-sourced list of notable Youtubers is much shorter and higher quality than many, many other lists we have on Wikipedia. I would love to see a bit more prose about "youtuber" as a profession/practice, but even without it I see encyclopedic value in this list. The navigational value listed in WP:LISTPURP is at least there, as I can search for terms like "vlog" or "journalist. ~Mable (chat) 08:27, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I usually find lists quite useful and adding informative value to entries which could not have their own article on Wikipedia. --Nattes à chat (talk) 09:02, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a list that only has notable entrys and is a useful index page. It has brief descriptions of what genre of youtuber each entry is which thereby provides useful information that is not in the category. Also, is referenced, not seeing any valid reason to delete it. Atlantic306 (talk) 10:17, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and move – to something like "List of notable YouTubers" or "List of YouTube celebrities" — something like that. Considering this is the article's third delete nomination, it's obviously begging for notability selection criteria of some kind(s). --GeeTeeBee (talk) 10:47, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • "List of YouTube celebrities" was the name it had before it was moved (thus it's the article's 7th nomination). The list has inclusion criteria already. I see no rule though that requires for those criteria (i.e. notability) to be included in the article's title. Regards SoWhy 11:01, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral, but... Fishhead2100 should probably be warned about WP:CANVAS if they haven't already. Even if these 129 identical messages were sent indiscriminately to all commenters on both sides of the previous AFDs (many of which are very old and date to a time when canvassing was for some reason considered acceptable as long as it was in favour of keeping articles that were at AFD, so they aren't a reliable precedent anyway), the wording of the message was blatantly non-neutral. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:37, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The list has a criteria of inclusion that ensures all the YouTubers featured on it are notable. So, I don't see any reason to delete it.--Manbemel (talk) 11:57, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep not for any and all YouTubers, only notable ones. (notified of discussion on my TP) L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 12:14, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I updated my deletion rationale. wumbolo ^^^ 12:25, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment responding to profession notability. Aren't fishermen notable as a whole? Why do we have the article Fisherman but not List of fishers or List of fishermen? wumbolo ^^^ 12:29, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST is a blue link for a reason. Regards SoWhy 13:57, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • @SoWhy: actually, I was responding precisely to OSE arguments, explaining why they are wrong. wumbolo ^^^ 15:02, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • @Wumbolo: By pointing out other stuff does not exist? How is that better? Also, who made an OSE argument anyway? Regards SoWhy 15:07, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
          • @SoWhy:
            Fishhead2100: It was mentioned in a previous deletion debate that being a YouTuber is a profession like a lot of other professions. Why should YouTube be exempt from having a notable YouTuber list?
            Vanstrat: The majority of entries on this list are for notable people who have engaged in this occupation and like any other occupation that this many notable people are employed in, a list is justified.
            wumbolo ^^^ 15:11, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
            • I stand corrected. Those are of course not valid reasons to keep the article. Fortunately, there are sufficient others. Regards SoWhy 15:14, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
              • List of American fishers is linked to in the article Fisherman. Obviously since some are notable enough to have their own Wikipedia articles, they'd be in a list article somewhere. Dream Focus 15:33, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
                • @Dream Focus: actually that list (List of American fishers) is a bit different, per WP:LISTN: There is no present consensus for how to assess the notability of more complex and cross-categorization lists (such as "Lists of X of Y") ..., although non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations are touched upon in Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. wumbolo ^^^ 17:13, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Wumbolo: I said a lot more than that in my vote, but let's ignore that and pick what we only want because that's mark of a good debater. *Head shake* Mr. C.C.Hey yo!I didn't do it! 14:39, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but rename per GeeTeeBee. I would prefer something like List of people who became celebrities through YouTube. bd2412 T 13:51, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Not redundant with the category, per WP:CLN and fulfills criteria for notability. I think the profession is also probably notable if you started an article for it.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 13:54, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Reliable sources abound that not only discuss what a "YouTuber" is, but who various YouTubers are. WP:LISTN is met. Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and navigation templates contain redundancies by design. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:09, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Is usable as a list, and no new arguments for deletion are really of any weight. Collect (talk) 14:27, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep rename it if you want, set strict criteria if you want, split it into various subject specific articles if you want, extended confirmed protect it if you want. Right or wrong, there are notable people on YouTube, and people who are notable for their work on YouTube, there is no reason to not list them. --kelapstick(bainuu) 14:30, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Regarding WP:LISTN, zero reliable sources have been provided so far. Regarding WP:LISTPURP, it can be used as an argument against deletion (according to LISTN), and that is why I mention it in my rationale. wumbolo ^^^ 15:25, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Have you looked for some per WP:BEFORE and if so, how? Regards SoWhy 15:38, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • [Insert expression of cockeyed WP:BEFORE-related incredulity here] — Rhododendrites talk \\ 15:59, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • The article has 597 references already. Dream Focus 16:19, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • To be fair, those are about the individual entries, not about the concept of a YouTuber in general. However, as Chris indicated, just googling the term "YouTuber" yields thousands of sources that discuss the group in general (see OZOO's link below for an example), so I'm genuinely interested in what Wumbolo did in their WP:BEFORE not to find them (we did have users claiming in the past that certain country-specific filters hid sources from them, so I won't rule out that they really did not find any). Regards SoWhy 16:26, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • @SoWhy: I only found articles about "top 10 YouTubers" or about a select few YouTubers. Probably should've dug deeper to find sources like the one below. wumbolo ^^^ 17:28, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Above 46,500 monthly views. That means people/readers/editors are looking at it. How can it be of no use here? Rename it, modify it, do whatever can be done but don't delete it, I would suggest. Dial911 (talk) 15:43, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Advantages of a list over a category - annotations (i.e. listing of channels, mini summary) . Thus provides more Information than a category. And here is a reliable source discussing YouTubers as a whole. OZOO (t) (c) 16:06, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • @OZOO: thank you! wumbolo ^^^ 17:28, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • Here's some more sources, courtesy of Google Scholar (citations created using Citoid):
        • Jerslev, Anne (2016-10-14). "Media Times - In The Time of the Microcelebrity: Celebrification and the YouTuber Zoella". International Journal of Communication. 10 (0): 19. ISSN 1932-8036.
        • Holmbom, Mattias. "The YouTuber: A Qualitative Study of Popular Content Creators". DIVA. Retrieved 2018-04-30.
        • Riley, Megan Nicole (2014-05-01). The YouTube Celebrity: Common Factors of Successful YouTuber Channels. Academic Year 2013-2014 – via repository.asu.edu.
        • HIDALGO-MARÍ, Tatiana; SEGARRA-SAAVEDRA, Jesús (2017-12-01). "El fenómeno youtuber y su expansión transmedia. Análisis del empoderamiento juvenil en redes sociales". Fonseca, Journal of Communication. 15 (15): 43. doi:10.14201/fjc2017154356. ISSN 2172-9077.
        • Eun Lee, Jung; Watkins, Brandi (2016-12-01). "YouTube vloggers' influence on consumer luxury brand perceptions and intentions". Journal of Business Research. 69 (12): 5753–5760. doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2016.04.171. ISSN 0148-2963.
Regards SoWhy 18:32, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as this a list without a clear criteria of inclusion. Vague lists such as these should be avoided. There are thousands of "Youtubers" and even the list doesn't really make it clear who should be considered an youtuber. Apparently Psy (who is actually a mainstream Korean singer) is listed as a youtuber. Randy Pausch is also an youtuber apparently. Yet Adam Saleh doesn't seem to qualify. Anita Sarkeesian is a youtuber but Lauren Southern is not. Not to mention the fact that somehow there very little representation of youtubers outside Europe/America. Lists such as these are not useful for an encyclopaedia. More importantly, these lists can become way too long. I don't see any value in this list.--DreamLinker (talk) 16:32, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Problems with inclusion criteria can and should be addressed by editing, not deletion. "I don't see any value in this list" basically means "I don't like it" and is thus not a valid reason for deletion. Regards SoWhy 17:44, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @SoWhy: Some people would rather complain than address the issue and fix it. DreamLinker, Lauren Southern didn't start on YouTube. She gained notoriety before launching her own channel. She was a candidate in the 2015 Canadian federal election, she worked for The Rebel Media and had her own show there as well as a reporter. She is a YouTuber now, but she didn't get her start on YouTube nor become notable because of it. That's the point of this list. It's people who became notable because of YouTube. That's how the list works. You don't just add people who have channels as they may have gotten their start elsewhere. Justin Bieber is a mainstream pop singer, but you are not complaining he is listed yet you're complaining Psy is listed. I would hazard a guess that you didn't know who Psy was before YouTube. Psy became notable because of YouTube. If you have an issue with Adam Saleh not being on the list, than fix it. Not hard. As SoWhy stated, WP:IDONTLIKEIT isn't a valid reason for deletion. Mr. C.C.Hey yo!I didn't do it! 19:04, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Fishhead2100: I believe you did not understand my comment. Let's look at some of your rebuttals
  1. Some people would rather complain than address the issue and fix it. - I see. Nice ad hominem with no explanation about why this article should be kept.
  2. That's the point of this list. It's people who became notable because of YouTube. - That point isn't obvious anywhere. Youtuber =/= someone who became notable because of Youtube. Randy Pausch clearly didn't become notable because of Youtube. If the aim of this article is to only show people who became notable because of youtube, it should clearly state it. It doesn't.
  3. Justin Bieber is a mainstream pop singer, but you are not complaining he is listed yet you're complaining Psy is listed. - I picked out a bunch of inconsistent examples, not all examples. Yes, Justin Beiber would also be someone who is not exactly an youtuber.
  4. but you are not complaining he is listed yet you're complaining Psy is listed. I would hazard a guess that you didn't know who Psy was before YouTube. PSY became notable because of YouTube. - Wrong. I have been listening to Korean Music since the days when SES was popular. PSY was a mainstream singer and was notable in South Korea long before Gangnam style blew up.}}
  5. If you have an issue with Adam Saleh not being on the list, than fix it. Not hard. - I am already doing that, but I can guarantee you that if I start adding people, the list will go into thousands. This list is about as useful as a "List of Scientists". Too much information and hard to maintain.--DreamLinker (talk) 18:29, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@DreamLinker: Chris Crocker is no longer a YouTuber, but he is listed. He became notable because of YouTube. If it wasn't for YouTube, Justin Bieber would have not have gotten signed because he wouldn't have been noticed. He at one time was a YouTuber. I can say for certain that you wouldn't have known who Psy was if it wasn't for YouTube. There are lots of YouTubers, but they are not notable. You wouldn't add them. Therefore, it is obvious that notability is necessary. Mr. C.C.Hey yo!I didn't do it! 03:13, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Fishhead2100 Again, I don't think you even cared to read my comment. Particularly when you say "I can say for certain that you wouldn't have known who Psy was if it wasn't for YouTube.". I already told you that I knew who PSY was years before Gangnam Style blew up. What I am saying is that this list is about as useful as a "List of Scientists" or "List of Journalists". These lists can become infinitely long and ultimately doesn't serve the purpose of an encyclopaedia. Please at least read my comment properly.--DreamLinker (talk) 16:50, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, undisputedly passes WP:NLIST and WP:GNG. Valoem talk contrib 17:28, 30 April 2018 (UTC
  • Snow Keep. The source provided by OZOO and the sources provided by SoWhy demonstrate notability of "YouTuber", and therefore, "List of YouTubers". wumbolo ^^^ 19:12, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Yes the list is long, but everyone here is notable, and the list is very notable, as all these people have broken records or have beccome significant in culture. Still, you wouldn't delete List of U.S. Presidents or List of Suicides just because it's "long," would you?-K-popguardian (talk) 19:34, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: Being a YouTube personality has become a noteworthy form of entertainment at this point, and the subject certainly warrants having a dedicated list. Granted, the article has a boatload of issues- for instance, organization is all jacked up- personalities should be sorted by their Net personas/channel names as opposed to their actual names, as there are some channels which are run by more than one person and that makes it confusing as to which person's name their alphabetically sorted by. And as people said above, the guidelines as to who is and isn't a "YouTuber" haven't really been defined in any sort of way. Still, these certainly don't disavow the list's existence, and can be fixed easily. Just because it's a long list doesn't mean it should be deleted- it means that there are a lot of YouTubers on Wikipedia. This seems like a very unwarranted nomination in my opinion. ~~Tristan ("TheDisneyGamer") 19:53, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The subject is notable, however the list needs to have a requirement of a blue link already so it doesn't link to anyone that has ever make a YouYube video. Also, people that have videos on YouTube like Psy but doesn't produce unique YouTube videos does not belong. He was already famous in South Korea before his billion+ viewed video. --Frmorrison (talk) 22:19, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Frmorrison: When you edit the page, you'll see the page notice that says only add people with an article. Those that don't are removed. Saying blue links only is redundant. Saying Psy doesn't produce videos is irrelevant. Justin Bieber doesn't produce videos anymore. Nothing has been uploaded to his channel in two years. It's not about producing content regularly. If that was the case than this list would be way bigger and longer than it is. This list is people who became notable because of YouTube. That's what it comes down too. Mr. C.C.Hey yo!I didn't do it! 23:05, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Snow keep per reasons above (WP:NOTDUP, WP:NLIST). Also, everyone on this list has an article page, and are notable enough to have one (or else their page would be deleted). Paintspot Infez (talk) 02:43, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - even per delete voters such as Chris Troutman, the list meets our notability guidelines, and I see no valid rationale given to delete it. Rlendog (talk) 16:44, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Snow keep per above - No evidence of notability - Meets NLIST as well as GNG. –Davey2010Talk 20:11, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep notable entries, but possibly not as a group, but may be case of IAR as can search by pseudonym. What's changed from previous AfDs? Widefox; talk 09:19, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There is evidence of notability and passes the guidelines mentioned by the nominator. Anarchyte (work | talk) 11:15, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, problems suggested seem primarily theoretical. This is the kind of list that could easily become terrible with poor inclusion criteria, but by restricting it to people with actual Wikipedia articles the notability question is conveniently passed off to the various individual pages. I fundamentally disagree with all aspects of the nomination: the concept of a YouTuber is clearly notable as a whole based on links provided, and the ability to provide brief summaries as to the nature of individual YouTubers makes this superior to a category in that it allows levels of in-page browser searching for keywords. Providing it is adequately maintained, this clearly provides a useful navigation tool even if it is a little unwieldy. ~ mazca talk 20:53, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep was my vote over eight years ago on the 4th AFD. Here were are on the 7th AFD. I am generally not a fan of YouTube performers but I found SoWhy's points in 2009 to be compelling and SoWhy's points raised here have me thinking some people really hate YouTube performers. The nominator was two fortnights late in this April Fools' Day joke. If the timing is right perhaps I will nominate it in 2019 for its 10th AFD. Seriously, it looks like people are testing to see how many AFD nominations this article can withstand. I asked google to tell me about "youtubers" and it gave me almost 40 million results. I am pretty sure a referenced introduction could be crafted if one really is arguing that the group as a whole lacks notability. delirious & lost ☯ ~hugs~ 11:25, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • The last point is important here, since YouTuber redirects to the list, it should definitely contain some general overview of the group as a whole. I will attempt to draft some text but it's probably for people more skilled than me to create a good intro. Regards SoWhy 12:20, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I see no reason to delete it due to the reasons said above. DatGuyonYouTube (talk) 13:37, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep I'm not active a AfD, so I don't know which way the wind blows these days, but I never have agreed with the rationale of "duplicates a Cat". Cats and lists serve different functions and lists can contain more comprehensive than cats. Any list has the potential to attract NN and spam. They just require upfront inclusion criteria and judicious weeding.--Dlohcierekim (talk) 17:29, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • admin note to closer The issue of canvassing has been raised at AN/I-- Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Opinion_about_AfD_notification. Will try to update the perma link if needed.--Dlohcierekim (talk) 17:31, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep although the fact that I scrolled down the list and immediately saw some garbled info that has been sitting here for over two years suggests that maintenance of this list is going to be problematic. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 19:39, 4 May 2018 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_YouTubers_(3rd_nomination)&oldid=1138299466"