Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of the most subscribed users on YouTube

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. postdlf (talk) 02:17, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of the most subscribed users on YouTube[edit]

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

Violates WP:IINFO. The article is a collection of data without third-party context. It will (by its nature) always suffer from WP:Recentism as well. Tgeairn (talk) 04:50, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note/Keep - Originally, this article was a historical listing (which is now found in the 2nd section; users who have reached peak position). In that case, I feel this is an obvious keep. As a historical listing with various references from various sources, that's a clean keep. I can see concerns for the section on top (the current most subscribed users). And while I can see the WP:Recentism coming into play for that top section, I feel that section is made in the same vain as, say, a list of NBA career scoring leaders. Now of course this isn't the smoothest comparison, but I feel it's an adequate enough one. When I first made this page, the first to subscriber milestones section wasn't as messy. I didn't imagine PewDiePie or any YouTuber hitting 34 million subscribers this quickly. I feel that section is the most vulnerable to criticism and should be trimmed. The milestones of (100K, 1million, 5million, 10million, 25million should be kept in some form or another though). Now, I feel this shouldn't have been tagged for AfD without a discussion on how to improve the article first. Without that last messy section I mentioned, this article still has a rane of 20-30 solid references, so that's why I'm voting keep. Soulbust (talk) 05:26, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:07, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:07, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - Does not violate WP:IINFO at all. The listing of youtube channels at the page is neither indiscriminate nor excessive. It's a useful historical record of which channels have achieved the status of most subscribed, the amount of time held, and which channels have achieved specific milestones first. The first section serves as a snapshot of the current climate of the site. It would violate WP:IINFO if it attempted to list a ridiculous number of channels, but the current consensus to only list the ones with over 10,000,000 subscribers is not cause for any concern. Just like how List of countries and dependencies by population gives an up-to-date representation of population around the globe, this page should provide a picture of subscribers on the site. Eventhorizon51 ^(talk) 02:50, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above. I can see where the concern is coming from, but this topic is something that gets discussed in the media on a somewhat regular basis. It's not indiscriminate in that in order to get on the list you must have a very large number of followers over a certain amount and right now the list only has 19 people on the list. It also doesn't include channels, which may have otherwise made the list somewhat unwieldy. It probably could be tightened in a few places but that's something to discuss on the article talk page. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:31, 9 February 2015 (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.