Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of most-subscribed YouTube Music artists

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. – sgeureka ^t•c 13:58, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of most-subscribed YouTube Music artists[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

I'm not sure if this satisfies WP:LISTN. 50 of the 52 (numbers 3 through 52) references come from the primary-sourced YouTube channels themselves, Reference 2 is a routine data collection from Social Blade, and Reference 1 is not about the most subscribed-to artists on YouTube Music. A Google search returns zero sources. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of most-liked TikTok videos. 123957a (talk) 03:40, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Update I have also nominated List of most-followed Twitch channels for deletion: see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of most-followed Twitch channels. 123957a (talk) 12:37, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. 123957a (talk) 03:40, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not encyclopedic and WP:NOTEVERYTHING. My reasoning is basically a) YouTube is a commercial enterprise and there is no way to verify their published subscription numbers. So we could be spreading misinformation which favours a commercial enterprise b) the topic is dynamic in that the most subscribed artists will by definition be constantly in flux, and a level of constant WP:OR is needed to keep the page current. I don't think we need this kind of content. If people want to know about the current popularity of YouTube music video creators (or cat video creators or anything else), they can go to YouTube and find out for themselves. JMWt (talk) 07:11, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Youtube channel popularity changes constantly and it would be nearly impossible to keep this article updated with any form of accuracy.. JoseJan89 (talk) 07:58, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and Lists. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:20, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, under the condition that more sources are added. Updating subscriber counts is WP:CALC, so I don't see that as an issue. However, as was previously mentioned, the only reference on the page that is not a YouTube channel or a Social Blade link is an article about the merger of YouTube Music accounts with Vevo accounts, which does not prove notability in this case. There are several articles that allow for this to scrape by WP:LISTN, including one in Forbes Middle East and one from Audacy's news section, while NME, Billboard, Rolling Stone, and Allkpop have reported on Blackpink taking the top spot. One Variety article also addresses Taylor Swift becoming the eighth artist to surpass 50 million subscribers and lists the seven other artists to reach the milestone. benǝʇᴉɯ 04:46, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This does get news coverage, so it meets the general notability guideline. And it is acceptable to get information from primary sources for things like the current subscribed numbers. Secondary sources are needed to establish notability for this topic, and they have been found. Dream Focus 19:08, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"most-subscribed YouTube Music artists" is not a notable topic. The individuals may be notable, but they are not discussed as a group. QuicoleJR (talk) 22:30, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This goes too far into reporting on news or being a real-time stat database, both things that Wikipedia is not. Wikipedia should stick to lists that are unlikely to change drastically in short amounts of time. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 08:26, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Listing the most popular of anything and linking to their articles, is a valid navigational list. Dream Focus 21:43, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This violates LISTN and NOTDATABASE. It is not a valid navigational list, it is LISTCRUFT. QuicoleJR (talk) 22:32, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It would be too much for wiki volunteers to maintain such specific lists about most subscribed YouTube artists. It shall set precedent for a "List of most subscribed YouTube writers" which we have to avoid. Azuredivay (talk) 14:04, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This article has gotten over ten thousand pageviews in the past 20 days. Far more likely someone will update it than other a lot of other articles. There are plenty of articles where information is regularly outdated. Every article for a movie, album, game, etc, list the sales figures, and this information is outdated weekly the first months after it comes out. The infoboxes for business list a company's revenue, that information outdated every month. Being outdated is not a valid reason to delete information, and certainly not an entire list. You list when the last time the information was updated at the top, and its fine. There is no burden to maintain it. Dream Focus 21:43, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
FYI, pageviews are not an indicator of notability. See WP:ATA. QuicoleJR (talk) 22:34, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP:NOTDATABASE. InfiniteNexus (talk) 21:53, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 21:30, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete subscriber numbers aren't audited/validated, so can't be used. So it's a list of channels with no meaning. Oaktree b (talk) 21:56, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Impossible to keep updated, and subs can be bought so it is not even a good judge of popularity. QuicoleJR (talk) 22:24, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I update it occasionally but I don't think it has any encyclopaedic value. - Ïvana (talk) 03:27, 13 April 2023 (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.