- 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 no consensus. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:39, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- List of most-liked Facebook pages ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This is basically an unfinished listicle that will be ever-changing and is essentially copied from the sources. Also WP:LISTN. Praxidicae ( talk) 18:19, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:45, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:45, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
Draftify - Only created this afternoon so needs time for creator to add more content. Matt14451 ( talk) 19:15, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
- Draftify should not be used for content that is not and will not ever be encyclopedic, as is the case here. Praxidicae ( talk) 19:20, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
- Delete. If people don't think this comes under WP:NOT, in particular WP:NOTSOCIALMEDIA and WP:NOTGOSSIP and WP:NOTDIRECTORY then I despair. Draftifying is pointless; it won't change the basic nature of this page. Spinning Spark 19:27, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
- Hey you forgot one!
WP:NOR!
Praxidicae (
talk)
19:28, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
- As it's sourced, I presumed it wasn't OR, but if you say so. Spinning Spark 19:32, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
- Hey you forgot one!
WP:NOR!
Praxidicae (
talk)
19:28, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
Delete - Not encyclopedic, will bring Facebook fancruft and Gossip driven confrontation with WP:NOTNP-- Adamstraw99 ( talk) 19:31, 2 October 2018 (UTC)- Delete. Dynamic nature of list (if it existed) would make it unmanageable. Plus we aren't a directory of social media accounts, not encyclopedic one bit. Ajf773 ( talk) 22:20, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
- Keep Facebook is one of the most important social networks. Figures are available directly from the them and not disputable. Many sites compile similar lists of the most popular facebook pages; surely we could use them as sources. The argument about frequent updates makes little sense, when precision of the follower count is by the million: By the same token, we maintain List of most-viewed YouTube videos, List of most-followed Instagram accounts, List of most-subscribed YouTube channels, List of most-retweeted tweets, List of most-followed Twitter accounts, List of most streamed artists on Spotify, List of most streamed songs on Spotify, List of most-viewed Vevo videos, List of most-viewed online videos in the first 24 hours, List of most-viewed online trailers in the first 24 hours, List of most-liked YouTube videos, List of most-disliked YouTube videos which is informative or trivial depending on your WP:POV.- Akhiljaxxn ( talk) 23:42, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
- Weak Keep - after reading above reasoning and finding
this, I Am changing my vote to weak keep at best . --
Adamstraw99 (
talk)
00:21, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
- Isn't that an WP:OTHERSTUFF argument? Spinning Spark 00:39, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
- Maybe, but i didn't know twitter follower list was worthy enough to be included in Wikipedia, If twitter allowed why not FB? perhaps many people do search these most followers kind of things so maybe kept..
Adamstraw99 (
talk)
00:50, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
- Imho, List of most-followed Twitter accounts is not "worthy enough to be included". If it came up at AfD, I would vote for deletion of that one as well. Spinning Spark 16:16, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
- Maybe, but i didn't know twitter follower list was worthy enough to be included in Wikipedia, If twitter allowed why not FB? perhaps many people do search these most followers kind of things so maybe kept..
Adamstraw99 (
talk)
00:50, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
- Keep In my opinion, we need to keep this article since the list of most subscribed youtube channels and most followed Instagram accounts are present. Facebook doesn't have much change when considering from user point of view. Adithyak1997 ( talk) 15:33, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
- Keep per Akhiljaxxn. If there can be articles for twitter, Instagram , YouTube followers and subscribers, then why not for the largest social media site. Knightrises10 ( talk) 08:59, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
- These are all literally "other stuff" arguments. Perhaps we should delete those, too. Wikipedia isn't for listicles and the dynamic nature of these make it relatively unencyclopedic as well as subject to WP:OR. In particular, this article isn't even a list! Praxidicae ( talk) 10:36, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
- Delete: "Figures are available directly from the them and not disputable." They certainly are disputable, the article itself acknowledges that there plenty of ways to artificially inflate these numbers. I see this as
WP:OR and
WP:NOT. In addition,
WP:LISTN.
Waggie (
talk)
14:06, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
- That's disputing the legitimacy of the figures, not that the figures themselves are verifiable. Iffy★ Chat -- 12:30, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
- Keep as the phenomenom of most liked facebook pages has been discussed by reliable sources. Iffy★ Chat -- 12:36, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
- Comment The article is also well sourced. This topic has received coverage in news sources. So I don't think it is necessary to delete this. Knightrises10 talk 12:41, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
- Keep - article is sourced and there is a precedent of having such articles, as shown above. This could be easily discussed on the talk_page or by RfC. Störm (talk) 13:22, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
- Delete. I appreciate the dynamic keep argument, but I am not yet convinced that WP should spend energies on this type of material (as argued above). Perhaps the creators should justify their work better. In addition, I see little difference between this article and this other one. Yet, both are nominated for deletion, but only one is being snow-deleted. Am I missing something? Den... ( talk) 22:38, 9 October 2018 (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.
- 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 no consensus. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:39, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- List of most-liked Facebook pages ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This is basically an unfinished listicle that will be ever-changing and is essentially copied from the sources. Also WP:LISTN. Praxidicae ( talk) 18:19, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:45, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:45, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
Draftify - Only created this afternoon so needs time for creator to add more content. Matt14451 ( talk) 19:15, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
- Draftify should not be used for content that is not and will not ever be encyclopedic, as is the case here. Praxidicae ( talk) 19:20, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
- Delete. If people don't think this comes under WP:NOT, in particular WP:NOTSOCIALMEDIA and WP:NOTGOSSIP and WP:NOTDIRECTORY then I despair. Draftifying is pointless; it won't change the basic nature of this page. Spinning Spark 19:27, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
- Hey you forgot one!
WP:NOR!
Praxidicae (
talk)
19:28, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
- As it's sourced, I presumed it wasn't OR, but if you say so. Spinning Spark 19:32, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
- Hey you forgot one!
WP:NOR!
Praxidicae (
talk)
19:28, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
Delete - Not encyclopedic, will bring Facebook fancruft and Gossip driven confrontation with WP:NOTNP-- Adamstraw99 ( talk) 19:31, 2 October 2018 (UTC)- Delete. Dynamic nature of list (if it existed) would make it unmanageable. Plus we aren't a directory of social media accounts, not encyclopedic one bit. Ajf773 ( talk) 22:20, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
- Keep Facebook is one of the most important social networks. Figures are available directly from the them and not disputable. Many sites compile similar lists of the most popular facebook pages; surely we could use them as sources. The argument about frequent updates makes little sense, when precision of the follower count is by the million: By the same token, we maintain List of most-viewed YouTube videos, List of most-followed Instagram accounts, List of most-subscribed YouTube channels, List of most-retweeted tweets, List of most-followed Twitter accounts, List of most streamed artists on Spotify, List of most streamed songs on Spotify, List of most-viewed Vevo videos, List of most-viewed online videos in the first 24 hours, List of most-viewed online trailers in the first 24 hours, List of most-liked YouTube videos, List of most-disliked YouTube videos which is informative or trivial depending on your WP:POV.- Akhiljaxxn ( talk) 23:42, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
- Weak Keep - after reading above reasoning and finding
this, I Am changing my vote to weak keep at best . --
Adamstraw99 (
talk)
00:21, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
- Isn't that an WP:OTHERSTUFF argument? Spinning Spark 00:39, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
- Maybe, but i didn't know twitter follower list was worthy enough to be included in Wikipedia, If twitter allowed why not FB? perhaps many people do search these most followers kind of things so maybe kept..
Adamstraw99 (
talk)
00:50, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
- Imho, List of most-followed Twitter accounts is not "worthy enough to be included". If it came up at AfD, I would vote for deletion of that one as well. Spinning Spark 16:16, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
- Maybe, but i didn't know twitter follower list was worthy enough to be included in Wikipedia, If twitter allowed why not FB? perhaps many people do search these most followers kind of things so maybe kept..
Adamstraw99 (
talk)
00:50, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
- Keep In my opinion, we need to keep this article since the list of most subscribed youtube channels and most followed Instagram accounts are present. Facebook doesn't have much change when considering from user point of view. Adithyak1997 ( talk) 15:33, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
- Keep per Akhiljaxxn. If there can be articles for twitter, Instagram , YouTube followers and subscribers, then why not for the largest social media site. Knightrises10 ( talk) 08:59, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
- These are all literally "other stuff" arguments. Perhaps we should delete those, too. Wikipedia isn't for listicles and the dynamic nature of these make it relatively unencyclopedic as well as subject to WP:OR. In particular, this article isn't even a list! Praxidicae ( talk) 10:36, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
- Delete: "Figures are available directly from the them and not disputable." They certainly are disputable, the article itself acknowledges that there plenty of ways to artificially inflate these numbers. I see this as
WP:OR and
WP:NOT. In addition,
WP:LISTN.
Waggie (
talk)
14:06, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
- That's disputing the legitimacy of the figures, not that the figures themselves are verifiable. Iffy★ Chat -- 12:30, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
- Keep as the phenomenom of most liked facebook pages has been discussed by reliable sources. Iffy★ Chat -- 12:36, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
- Comment The article is also well sourced. This topic has received coverage in news sources. So I don't think it is necessary to delete this. Knightrises10 talk 12:41, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
- Keep - article is sourced and there is a precedent of having such articles, as shown above. This could be easily discussed on the talk_page or by RfC. Störm (talk) 13:22, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
- Delete. I appreciate the dynamic keep argument, but I am not yet convinced that WP should spend energies on this type of material (as argued above). Perhaps the creators should justify their work better. In addition, I see little difference between this article and this other one. Yet, both are nominated for deletion, but only one is being snow-deleted. Am I missing something? Den... ( talk) 22:38, 9 October 2018 (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.