Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Notable YouTube users

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. Proto::► 10:42, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Notable YouTube users

Notable YouTube users (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

A similar article to this, Notable YouTube memes, was deleted via AfD in October. This article actually pre-dates that one, so it doesn't really qualify for CSD G4. Tried tagging it anyway, but it was removed by an admin, so I'm bringing it here. Essentially, having a list article like this isn't necessary, as there already exists a "Notable YouTube users" list in the main YouTube article, and it isn't large enough to require splitting-off. And I contend that the AfD decision made for the later Notable YouTube memes list article applies to this one as well. WarpstarRider 09:54, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete There ain't no such animal. OK, maybe there is, but where is the objective definition? Guy (Help!) 09:58, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as mentioned by the article, these are only for those that have a wikipedia article. It is a way to consolidate them to save from having the lists interlinking in each article. Inexperienced editors continually add non-notable youtubers to the individual lists in the articles, this is one method of keeping them central and easily watchable. There is nothing wrong with any of those on the list - or there wasnt when I looked at the page earlier today, the articles are referenced etc. I see no reason to delete. Viridae^Talk 10:06, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
  • The point behind this AfD is that the an article with the exact same purpose was deleted through AfD already; this should've been picked up and deleted along with that one. Also, as I mentioned, there is a central list in the YouTube article already. The lists in the individual articles have all been removed and pointed to that section. WarpstarRider 11:01, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Thats a good compromise as far as I am concerned. Change to Delete. (I was going to get someone with skills to create a template to achieve the same thing as this article, equally mitigating the constant inserting of non-notables.) Viridae^Talk 11:07, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WarpstarRider. --ElectricEye (talk) 11:30, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. It only lists people who have been deemed notable through other means (WP:BIO, WP:MUSIC, etc). Seems perfectly fine to me. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:15, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, better served by categories. A list will only encourage the accumulation of unverifiable trivia. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 12:34, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and form category because it seems they are all worthy of articles, I think Night Gyr's idea of a category would be good suitable. James086^{Talk | Contribs} 12:58, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
  • We already have Category:YouTube, and with 11 entries it doesn't seem to be overloaded, so anything youtube-related and article-worthy can go in there. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 13:04, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Way too indiscriminate. MER-C 13:09, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete very small list of four people, all of whom have their own articles. Makes more sense as a category, and indeed we already have one. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:10, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• Comment (and Keep) The list was deleted in August when it was replaced by a category. After the category was deleted, the list was restored. Since then, no one knew this existed, so it is out of date. Instead, many users have edited the individual articles of YouTube users to include lists of people (up to 15 or so I think) in the individual articles of each YouTube user with an article. This has led to constant excessive reverts as articles which are soon speedied are added then removed from each page. I was the one who pointed to this again last night, raising the awareness, and therefore opening up for the new deletion request. I had hoped that people would instead update the list and that the main article could point to this as well, leading to only one place where changes occurr. The nominator redirected all of the links to the main YouTube article specifically to the section with the list. The section was renamed shortly thereafter, which will now require changing all of the links again. It seems that a separate list article is warranted to me... (sorry if this is too much of a ramble.) --Siradia 15:10, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I didn't realize Category:YouTube existed. I assumed after the previous category was deleted, we were out of options. I've updated items in that category. --Siradia 15:23, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete maintaining this would be a mess Dragomiloff 18:50, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. YouTube use is going to become less and less notable as time goes on. If evidence is found that George W Bush or the Pope use it, that would be notable. A list of notable people who happen to use YouTube is not. WJBscribe 20:07, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: I find the basic premis of this list to be "People who have becomed notable because of thier interaction with YouTube." That seems reasonable. If the content is in the main article because it's small... that's fine. If it gets split into a side article due to size, that's fine too. Keep the content but keep a careful eye on it for spam. ---J.S ^(T/C) 21:41, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• Strong and Speedy Delete: per Dragomiloff, and until YouTube start confirming the copyright of videos properly, it has the potential for assisting contributory infringement through linking to copyright violating material, something WikiMedia foundation attorney Brad Patrick can confirm if you ask him. Kind Regards - Heligoland | Talk | Contribs 21:44, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the copyright problems of YouTube.com has to do with this debate? Should we delete "YouTube" on the same grounds? ---J.S ^(T/C) 23:09, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

• • As inappropriate as I consider this page to be, your argument is entirely off base. All of the people who became youtube celebrities did so through creating original content, so links to their content are not contributing to infringement. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 01:37, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

• So this list will purely be people who were non notable before using YouTube, not a list of celebs who may or may not use YouTube. In which case, if the users are notable enough to be on this list, they would be notable enough to have their own articles and therefore a category, if they aren't notable enough to have their own articles, then the list as a whole doesn't satisfy WP:N and WP:BIO so and as such requires deletion. Either way, the article shouldn't exist. If we're talking about celebs who use YouTube, I have concerns over copyright violations too, do we really want a list of Notable YouTube users comprising every celeb who has had a sex video on the site.Kind Regards - Heligoland | Talk | Contribs 16:55, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

• Catigorize pages. This page says nothing besides their orignal pages so just makee them catagories. Cnriaczoy42 22:37, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Sharkface217 05:23, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Should have gone away with the previous deletion. Watchsmart 06:32, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Keep -only because arguments put forth so far for delete are unimpressive. Too short? It can be expanded, especially as more notable users pop up. The category exists? We have other such lists, and this article isn't just a list: it has text. Too indiscriminate? No, it says notable, and only links to Youtube with articles. Copyright issues? that's just silly: like J.S. said, unless we want to nuke Youtube as well. -Patstuart^talk|edits 14:02, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment Why can't we just make a category for these four. THeir is nothing that can really be said that isn't said on individual pages. Cnriaczoy42 22:31, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

• Keep and Rewrite per my vote (Mister.Manticore's, actually) on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of notable LiveJournal users. Danny Lilithborne 22:26, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Cruft magnet. Truly notable individuals do not require a wikipedia article substantiating their notability. We don't have articles for "Notable Businesspeople" or "Notable Philosophers," rather Henry Ford's or Plato's notability is self-evident. The YouTube category, which already exists, suffices. Pop Secret 21:02, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

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.