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.
Delete It doesn't seem to serve any purpose a category couldn't; it's not divided into occupations or anything like that as other lists of this type are.--
Gloriamarie01:09, 14 September 2007 (UTC)reply
Delete - Such a list will become jam-packed with wannabees. At least if they have to create an article for a YouTube "celebrity", it must pass muster. As a category, it should be called "Internet video celebrities" or some such so that it is not restricted to YouTube.
SolidPlaid02:10, 14 September 2007 (UTC)reply
Strong Keep. The article could be improved, but it's not listcruft. Quote from
Wikipedia:Listcruft: "In general, a 'list of X' should only be created if X itself is a legitimate encyclopedic topic that already has its own article." "YouTube celebrity" can sustain its own article, as made clear by the abundant sources. For all intents and purposes, the entire
New York Times story is a definition for the term. The article could probably take a note or two from
List of Internet phenomena, but I can't think of a reason to delete outright.
Ichormosquito02:37, 14 September 2007 (UTC)reply
Neutural: This article is really unnecessary and is causing silly debates on who is notable or not. Though with a major makeover it could be worth keeping.
Zanders5k04:32, 14 September 2007 (UTC)reply
Comment. I also want to point out that in addition to sourcing its underlying theme, the article performs at least one other valuable function a category can't: for the sake of clarity, it lists YouTube aliases next to all the entries. Articles about YouTube vloggers are hampered by the fact that while the news media calls vloggers by their real names, fans oftentimes know vloggers best by their YouTube usernames. Listing them this way avoids confusion.
Ichormosquito04:33, 14 September 2007 (UTC)reply
That is a great idea in theory but in practice it doesn't work well. This list started as a section in the main article but was broken out mostly for maintainability as it's too long to put into another long article and it's a high maintenance list. --
ElKevbo14:56, 14 September 2007 (UTC)reply
Keep - since there's not really another way to be a celebrity on the internet (most celebrities are actors/actresses), this seems like it covers the category of "internet celebrities" apart from "internet phenomena", which covers the rest. Zchris87v09:29, 14 September 2007 (UTC)reply
Comment The only reason I created this list is that it previously sat in the middle of the main YouTube article and contributed disproportionately to the length and maintainability (it's a spam magnet) of that article. I lean towards categorize or keep but I do not feel very strongly. I am happy to see and act on the input of the wider Wikipedia community. --
ElKevbo14:52, 14 September 2007 (UTC)reply
Keep or categorize The ones who have their own articles should contain sources in said articles demonstrating notability (otherwise, they should be AfD'd themselves). Those without their own articles should have a reference demonstrating notability. Those that do not fit into either of the above categories should be removed from the list. With that said, the mere lack of sourcing does not mean this is an unnecessary list. The parameters of said list fit into all guidelines, as it collects people who are all notable for the same specific reason (and not that they are all left-handed or all from the same county, but that they all gained notariety due to one culturally-significant phenomenon). I would categorize only if there are no notable (and sourced) entries that do not have their own articles; if this is the case, then the list is pointless, as it doesn't add anything that a category doesn't cover (i.e. it's simply a list of names with zero added information). --
Kicking22215:20, 14 September 2007 (UTC)reply
Comment James Provan is one such case of a performer on YouTube who, although he gained media attention for one of his videos, could probably never sustain his own article. I'm sure there are other cases.
Ichormosquito16:33, 14 September 2007 (UTC)reply
Comment Sxephil, who gets almost 1 million hits on Google but only three sentences in a
New York Times article, is another. He's also one of the 20 to 30 YouTube users in YouTube's revenue sharing program.
Ichormosquito18:39, 14 September 2007 (UTC)reply
Comment I should probably point out that something like this was deleted before:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Notable YouTube memes. The difference is that since then, YouTube's cultural significance has grown exponentially, as the sources related to "YouTube celebrity" attest. From the sound of it, the previous article did not try to assert why its topic was notable. This one does.
Ichormosquito16:47, 14 September 2007 (UTC)reply
Merge (but only information that can satisfy WP:V and WP:RS) with
List of Internet phenomena - lists are both on the same subject and I don't see why YouTube celebrities in particular need their own separate list. Anyone on YouTube is going to be elsewhere too.
Wikidemo21:19, 14 September 2007 (UTC)reply
Comment If we were to merge all the verifiable stuff,
List of Internet phenomena would quadruple in size. I think the sources indicate that "YouTube celebrity" is a notable enough quantity in and of itself. And they are not the same subject. See these recent articles for evidence of the increasing popularity of online video and YouTube in particular:
[1][2] There's no reason why we should have only the most general coverage of such a huge field.
Ichormosquito21:27, 14 September 2007 (UTC)reply
Delete I don't really see how even a single 'YouTube celebrity' can assert their notability, never mind a whole list of them. Anyone sufficiently notable to be called a celebrity is likely to be known for more than just making youtube videos, and is therefore likely to feature in other articles, lists, categories etc. That just leaves people who whatever reason have a lot of page views on youtube, which doesn't seem like a very good argument for inclusion in an encyclopaedia. Short version: the list exaggerates the importance of some entries and downplays the importance of others, and does justice to no-one. Therefore it should be removed --carelesshxtalk01:27, 15 September 2007 (UTC)reply
Notability is asserted through sourcing, and YouTube celebrities are judged by the same criteria as any celebrity in any other forum.
Dhaluza04:45, 15 September 2007 (UTC)reply
'Keep The above arguments show quite a mix of invalid deletion rationales: 1/ "listcruft" 2/ not as good as it might be 3/ might become fllled with spam, 4/ "per above" 5/ unnecessary 6/ "I found the list useless" 7/ only some of the items have been sourced 8/ no youtube celebrity is notable, or can ever be. A nice compendium of arguments to avoid in deltion discussions. The only valid argument is that a category might be sufficient, but several reasons have been given why the added information here is valuable. DGG (
talk)
02:01, 15 September 2007 (UTC)reply
Keep or categorise - I think this list could work equally well as a category, but one way or another, it should exist. Since we have articles on most of these people already, it makes sense to have a list/category that collects them all in one place. It could be expanded into an article on 'YouTube fame' in general, but even if it were, this list would probably still take up about 90% of the page.
Terraxos03:25, 15 September 2007 (UTC)reply
Comment on categorization: The list contains entries for people covered in RS, but not in sufficient detail for a stand-alone article. So categorization is not a substitute for a list in cases like this.
Dhaluza04:48, 15 September 2007 (UTC)reply
Comment - Every entry is backed up by reliable sources. "Popularity" has nothing to do with it. If it did, daxflame, Kevjumba and What the Buck would be listed.
Ichormosquito22:21, 15 September 2007 (UTC)reply
Strong Keep today, the internet is as much a place as any country, this page deserves to be here as much as a page about American Celebrities or French Actors or anything. At least keep it as a category.
Gaiacarra11:18, 16 September 2007 (UTC)reply
Keep. Very notable subject. If it's worthy of coverage by the New York Times, for pete's sake, that pretty much covers any notability requirements. Obviously needs to be policed to make sure those listed actually are considered celebrities, etc. Start with the ones cited by New York Times, and work from there. I agree the words "List of..." should be removed from the title, as that's an AFD magnet these days.
23skidoo17:18, 16 September 2007 (UTC)reply
Keep. The concept of "YouTube celebrity" is a worthwhile encyclopedic topic. 23skidoo offers sage advice on how to revise this article.
RFerreira19:02, 16 September 2007 (UTC)reply
Keep, but improve - I see where 23skidoo is coming from on this. That said, the list must be gone through with a fine comb, to ensure that ONLY people who have been mentioned in the New York Times (etc.), and who "earn ad revenue in YouTube's partnership program", are actually on the list. No cruft = keep. Dihydrogen Monoxide (
H2O)
04:42, 18 September 2007 (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.
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.
Delete It doesn't seem to serve any purpose a category couldn't; it's not divided into occupations or anything like that as other lists of this type are.--
Gloriamarie01:09, 14 September 2007 (UTC)reply
Delete - Such a list will become jam-packed with wannabees. At least if they have to create an article for a YouTube "celebrity", it must pass muster. As a category, it should be called "Internet video celebrities" or some such so that it is not restricted to YouTube.
SolidPlaid02:10, 14 September 2007 (UTC)reply
Strong Keep. The article could be improved, but it's not listcruft. Quote from
Wikipedia:Listcruft: "In general, a 'list of X' should only be created if X itself is a legitimate encyclopedic topic that already has its own article." "YouTube celebrity" can sustain its own article, as made clear by the abundant sources. For all intents and purposes, the entire
New York Times story is a definition for the term. The article could probably take a note or two from
List of Internet phenomena, but I can't think of a reason to delete outright.
Ichormosquito02:37, 14 September 2007 (UTC)reply
Neutural: This article is really unnecessary and is causing silly debates on who is notable or not. Though with a major makeover it could be worth keeping.
Zanders5k04:32, 14 September 2007 (UTC)reply
Comment. I also want to point out that in addition to sourcing its underlying theme, the article performs at least one other valuable function a category can't: for the sake of clarity, it lists YouTube aliases next to all the entries. Articles about YouTube vloggers are hampered by the fact that while the news media calls vloggers by their real names, fans oftentimes know vloggers best by their YouTube usernames. Listing them this way avoids confusion.
Ichormosquito04:33, 14 September 2007 (UTC)reply
That is a great idea in theory but in practice it doesn't work well. This list started as a section in the main article but was broken out mostly for maintainability as it's too long to put into another long article and it's a high maintenance list. --
ElKevbo14:56, 14 September 2007 (UTC)reply
Keep - since there's not really another way to be a celebrity on the internet (most celebrities are actors/actresses), this seems like it covers the category of "internet celebrities" apart from "internet phenomena", which covers the rest. Zchris87v09:29, 14 September 2007 (UTC)reply
Comment The only reason I created this list is that it previously sat in the middle of the main YouTube article and contributed disproportionately to the length and maintainability (it's a spam magnet) of that article. I lean towards categorize or keep but I do not feel very strongly. I am happy to see and act on the input of the wider Wikipedia community. --
ElKevbo14:52, 14 September 2007 (UTC)reply
Keep or categorize The ones who have their own articles should contain sources in said articles demonstrating notability (otherwise, they should be AfD'd themselves). Those without their own articles should have a reference demonstrating notability. Those that do not fit into either of the above categories should be removed from the list. With that said, the mere lack of sourcing does not mean this is an unnecessary list. The parameters of said list fit into all guidelines, as it collects people who are all notable for the same specific reason (and not that they are all left-handed or all from the same county, but that they all gained notariety due to one culturally-significant phenomenon). I would categorize only if there are no notable (and sourced) entries that do not have their own articles; if this is the case, then the list is pointless, as it doesn't add anything that a category doesn't cover (i.e. it's simply a list of names with zero added information). --
Kicking22215:20, 14 September 2007 (UTC)reply
Comment James Provan is one such case of a performer on YouTube who, although he gained media attention for one of his videos, could probably never sustain his own article. I'm sure there are other cases.
Ichormosquito16:33, 14 September 2007 (UTC)reply
Comment Sxephil, who gets almost 1 million hits on Google but only three sentences in a
New York Times article, is another. He's also one of the 20 to 30 YouTube users in YouTube's revenue sharing program.
Ichormosquito18:39, 14 September 2007 (UTC)reply
Comment I should probably point out that something like this was deleted before:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Notable YouTube memes. The difference is that since then, YouTube's cultural significance has grown exponentially, as the sources related to "YouTube celebrity" attest. From the sound of it, the previous article did not try to assert why its topic was notable. This one does.
Ichormosquito16:47, 14 September 2007 (UTC)reply
Merge (but only information that can satisfy WP:V and WP:RS) with
List of Internet phenomena - lists are both on the same subject and I don't see why YouTube celebrities in particular need their own separate list. Anyone on YouTube is going to be elsewhere too.
Wikidemo21:19, 14 September 2007 (UTC)reply
Comment If we were to merge all the verifiable stuff,
List of Internet phenomena would quadruple in size. I think the sources indicate that "YouTube celebrity" is a notable enough quantity in and of itself. And they are not the same subject. See these recent articles for evidence of the increasing popularity of online video and YouTube in particular:
[1][2] There's no reason why we should have only the most general coverage of such a huge field.
Ichormosquito21:27, 14 September 2007 (UTC)reply
Delete I don't really see how even a single 'YouTube celebrity' can assert their notability, never mind a whole list of them. Anyone sufficiently notable to be called a celebrity is likely to be known for more than just making youtube videos, and is therefore likely to feature in other articles, lists, categories etc. That just leaves people who whatever reason have a lot of page views on youtube, which doesn't seem like a very good argument for inclusion in an encyclopaedia. Short version: the list exaggerates the importance of some entries and downplays the importance of others, and does justice to no-one. Therefore it should be removed --carelesshxtalk01:27, 15 September 2007 (UTC)reply
Notability is asserted through sourcing, and YouTube celebrities are judged by the same criteria as any celebrity in any other forum.
Dhaluza04:45, 15 September 2007 (UTC)reply
'Keep The above arguments show quite a mix of invalid deletion rationales: 1/ "listcruft" 2/ not as good as it might be 3/ might become fllled with spam, 4/ "per above" 5/ unnecessary 6/ "I found the list useless" 7/ only some of the items have been sourced 8/ no youtube celebrity is notable, or can ever be. A nice compendium of arguments to avoid in deltion discussions. The only valid argument is that a category might be sufficient, but several reasons have been given why the added information here is valuable. DGG (
talk)
02:01, 15 September 2007 (UTC)reply
Keep or categorise - I think this list could work equally well as a category, but one way or another, it should exist. Since we have articles on most of these people already, it makes sense to have a list/category that collects them all in one place. It could be expanded into an article on 'YouTube fame' in general, but even if it were, this list would probably still take up about 90% of the page.
Terraxos03:25, 15 September 2007 (UTC)reply
Comment on categorization: The list contains entries for people covered in RS, but not in sufficient detail for a stand-alone article. So categorization is not a substitute for a list in cases like this.
Dhaluza04:48, 15 September 2007 (UTC)reply
Comment - Every entry is backed up by reliable sources. "Popularity" has nothing to do with it. If it did, daxflame, Kevjumba and What the Buck would be listed.
Ichormosquito22:21, 15 September 2007 (UTC)reply
Strong Keep today, the internet is as much a place as any country, this page deserves to be here as much as a page about American Celebrities or French Actors or anything. At least keep it as a category.
Gaiacarra11:18, 16 September 2007 (UTC)reply
Keep. Very notable subject. If it's worthy of coverage by the New York Times, for pete's sake, that pretty much covers any notability requirements. Obviously needs to be policed to make sure those listed actually are considered celebrities, etc. Start with the ones cited by New York Times, and work from there. I agree the words "List of..." should be removed from the title, as that's an AFD magnet these days.
23skidoo17:18, 16 September 2007 (UTC)reply
Keep. The concept of "YouTube celebrity" is a worthwhile encyclopedic topic. 23skidoo offers sage advice on how to revise this article.
RFerreira19:02, 16 September 2007 (UTC)reply
Keep, but improve - I see where 23skidoo is coming from on this. That said, the list must be gone through with a fine comb, to ensure that ONLY people who have been mentioned in the New York Times (etc.), and who "earn ad revenue in YouTube's partnership program", are actually on the list. No cruft = keep. Dihydrogen Monoxide (
H2O)
04:42, 18 September 2007 (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.