- 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. Primefac ( talk) 16:04, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
List of most-liked online posts
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- List of most-liked online posts ( | 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 Following this criteria shouldn't all "List of.." articles be removed? I fail to see why this article is singled out.
Nixinova
T
C 18:27, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
- It wasn't as there are others nominated for the same reasons. I gave policy reasons for deleting and you gave none to back up your keep or address my points.
— Berean Hunter (talk) 19:08, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
- It wasn't as there are others nominated for the same reasons. I gave policy reasons for deleting and you gave none to back up your keep or address my points.
- Delete. As I mentioned on the article's talk page, it is incomplete because it probably doesn't include enough posts from TikTok/Douyin. Also, TikTok posts are hard to cite because the Like counts are only viewable through the app. – Monkeyfume ( talk) 18:47, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
- Delete. Original research, unverifiable and ever changing stats. Also a very poor example of cross categorisation. WP:LISTCRUFT Ajf773 ( talk) 12:35, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
- Delete I've found no evidence that the overarching category is notable. There are many sources for the most liked YouTube video, Instagram post, etc., but nothing for the most liked posts across all websites. Additionally, there is no way to cleanly compile all internet posts into a single list like it is with posts on a single website, so this list will by definition require original research to fill out. Additionally, there are an utterly massive number of websites across the world where its possible to "like" a post (some of which are more accesable than others), so I have serious doubts that this original research will be particularily accurate. TL;DR: the article violates WP:LISTN, WP:OR, WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:V. Spirit of Eagle ( talk) 19:44, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
- Comment: if this discussion results in "delete" could I have it moved back into my userspace instead? Nixinova T C 22:18, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
- I don’t think that would be an appropriate use of userspace, since the article has little chance of meeting the various policies I previously cited. Regardless of our policy though, this was interesting to read and I’m sure there is somewhere on the internet that will accept it. If you can find a suitable location, I’d happily change my vote to Transwiki. Maybe check Everipedia: they currently lack this article and don't have our notability requirements . Spirit of Eagle ( talk) 06:06, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
- Delete - "Liking" an entire video on YouTube is different than "liking" a simple Instagram post. Yoshiman6464 ♫🥚 01:58, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
- Delete. Yeah, unlike the other existing "List of..." articles, this format is a much more unusual construction that I don't see being used very often at all. It's kind of like comparing apples and oranges. From a cursory google search of "most popular posts on the internet of all time", I can find reliable sources discussing the most-liked Instagram posts, most-popular Reddit posts, most-popular Tweets, most-popular Tumblr post, most-viewed BuzzFeed posts, most-popular Imgur posts, most-popular Facebook posts (in that order), but none that compare posts across multiple sites. I could find this Mental Floss article, but it compares websites like Lifehacker and BuzzFeed, not the usual social media suspects. There was this BuzzFeed article that talks about a service that compares images across Reddit, Twitter, Instagram, Tumblr, and Flickr, but it doesn't actually list them in that article. So I don't think this article would pass WP:LISTN. Ahiijny ( talk) 04:44, 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 delete. Primefac ( talk) 16:04, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
List of most-liked online posts
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- List of most-liked online posts ( | 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 Following this criteria shouldn't all "List of.." articles be removed? I fail to see why this article is singled out.
Nixinova
T
C 18:27, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
- It wasn't as there are others nominated for the same reasons. I gave policy reasons for deleting and you gave none to back up your keep or address my points.
— Berean Hunter (talk) 19:08, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
- It wasn't as there are others nominated for the same reasons. I gave policy reasons for deleting and you gave none to back up your keep or address my points.
- Delete. As I mentioned on the article's talk page, it is incomplete because it probably doesn't include enough posts from TikTok/Douyin. Also, TikTok posts are hard to cite because the Like counts are only viewable through the app. – Monkeyfume ( talk) 18:47, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
- Delete. Original research, unverifiable and ever changing stats. Also a very poor example of cross categorisation. WP:LISTCRUFT Ajf773 ( talk) 12:35, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
- Delete I've found no evidence that the overarching category is notable. There are many sources for the most liked YouTube video, Instagram post, etc., but nothing for the most liked posts across all websites. Additionally, there is no way to cleanly compile all internet posts into a single list like it is with posts on a single website, so this list will by definition require original research to fill out. Additionally, there are an utterly massive number of websites across the world where its possible to "like" a post (some of which are more accesable than others), so I have serious doubts that this original research will be particularily accurate. TL;DR: the article violates WP:LISTN, WP:OR, WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:V. Spirit of Eagle ( talk) 19:44, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
- Comment: if this discussion results in "delete" could I have it moved back into my userspace instead? Nixinova T C 22:18, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
- I don’t think that would be an appropriate use of userspace, since the article has little chance of meeting the various policies I previously cited. Regardless of our policy though, this was interesting to read and I’m sure there is somewhere on the internet that will accept it. If you can find a suitable location, I’d happily change my vote to Transwiki. Maybe check Everipedia: they currently lack this article and don't have our notability requirements . Spirit of Eagle ( talk) 06:06, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
- Delete - "Liking" an entire video on YouTube is different than "liking" a simple Instagram post. Yoshiman6464 ♫🥚 01:58, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
- Delete. Yeah, unlike the other existing "List of..." articles, this format is a much more unusual construction that I don't see being used very often at all. It's kind of like comparing apples and oranges. From a cursory google search of "most popular posts on the internet of all time", I can find reliable sources discussing the most-liked Instagram posts, most-popular Reddit posts, most-popular Tweets, most-popular Tumblr post, most-viewed BuzzFeed posts, most-popular Imgur posts, most-popular Facebook posts (in that order), but none that compare posts across multiple sites. I could find this Mental Floss article, but it compares websites like Lifehacker and BuzzFeed, not the usual social media suspects. There was this BuzzFeed article that talks about a service that compares images across Reddit, Twitter, Instagram, Tumblr, and Flickr, but it doesn't actually list them in that article. So I don't think this article would pass WP:LISTN. Ahiijny ( talk) 04:44, 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.