- 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. Ad Orientem ( talk) 00:26, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
List of most-liked Facebook pages
[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)
List is not encyclopedic content and we are not the Hot 100. Looks like listcruft and
WP:NOTSTATS. List is nothing more than poll/popularity data that is subject to rapid changes and maintaining these lists is not what Wikipedia is about. These lists are magnets for UPE/COI promotional editors. See also
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of most-followed Instagram Business accounts.
—
Berean Hunter
(talk) 15:37, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 16:07, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 16:07, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
- Keep This info is mentioned in secondary sources and is in line with WP:LISTN Wikiman5676 ( talk) 05:40, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
- Keep The article itself cites numerous secondary sources that were published over a span of a decade. The article complies with WP:LISTN. Spirit of Eagle ( talk) 07:01, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
- Delete. Not one source verifying the validity of the list and order. A few secondary sources about some of the pages is nothing without this and considered original research. Ajf773 ( talk) 00:15, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
- Keep. Sources in article are enough to pass WP:LISTN. — pythoncoder ( talk | contribs) 23:41, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
- Keep. Sources in the article demonstrate WP:LISTN. With respect to WP:NOTSTATS, the article does provide context and explanation (there's actually some interesting content here about the phenomenon of fake likes), so I don't think that's an issue here. Problems with original research or improper citing are not grounds for deletion. Ahiijny ( talk) 04:04, 17 February 2019 (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 keep. Ad Orientem ( talk) 00:26, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
List of most-liked Facebook pages
[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)
List is not encyclopedic content and we are not the Hot 100. Looks like listcruft and
WP:NOTSTATS. List is nothing more than poll/popularity data that is subject to rapid changes and maintaining these lists is not what Wikipedia is about. These lists are magnets for UPE/COI promotional editors. See also
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of most-followed Instagram Business accounts.
—
Berean Hunter
(talk) 15:37, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 16:07, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 16:07, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
- Keep This info is mentioned in secondary sources and is in line with WP:LISTN Wikiman5676 ( talk) 05:40, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
- Keep The article itself cites numerous secondary sources that were published over a span of a decade. The article complies with WP:LISTN. Spirit of Eagle ( talk) 07:01, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
- Delete. Not one source verifying the validity of the list and order. A few secondary sources about some of the pages is nothing without this and considered original research. Ajf773 ( talk) 00:15, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
- Keep. Sources in article are enough to pass WP:LISTN. — pythoncoder ( talk | contribs) 23:41, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
- Keep. Sources in the article demonstrate WP:LISTN. With respect to WP:NOTSTATS, the article does provide context and explanation (there's actually some interesting content here about the phenomenon of fake likes), so I don't think that's an issue here. Problems with original research or improper citing are not grounds for deletion. Ahiijny ( talk) 04:04, 17 February 2019 (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.