498:. 77k subs, will probably hit 100k sometime this year. I was able to prove and defend notability by showing how she ended up in 4 news accounts, was an industry specialist, and had enough subs to not be too big of a nobody. But still, she is a nobody, I bet none of you have heard of her. Because of the above reasons, I do not think combining and expanding the articles is a good idea. The chart on my user page? I made it in 30 minutes with simple YouTube searches. Now suppose I had to go dig up cites which meet WP policy for each and every channel? I’d still being do so to this minute! I mean, C-SPAN, CNN, Ford, they don’t need cites! Everyone (in America at least) knows who they are, what the do. Emma Blackery, she has millions of subs and a is a well known YTer. Having to dig around for a credible website that mentions her name is a waste of time and effort. As for effecting changes on the existing policies that define Notable YouTubers, the only change I think will work is removing every policy for notability except 2: Subscription count, and cites for 1HWs. That is: revolution. That is why I WP:AFD this. Perhaps rather than revolution, we can agree on making a list of YT Channels by sub, and letting the 2 pages coexist. Perhaps in 6 months or so we can come back and determine which one is more popular, more helpful, and better organized, and then WP:AFD the loser.
298:: In my honest opinion, I see it that this article should be kept, though it needs work. I saw your comment, and I believe you're putting too much thought into the matter. This is an informal list in need of absolutely complete reworking from my perspective. And I disagree, if we base off of sub count, then basically anyone gets an article if they "have a lot of subscribers". At this point, there are 1,000 youtubers with 1,000,000 subscribers, should every single one get an article? CGPGrey, a youtuber with less subscribers is an article and likely on the list because of his 3rd party notability. Sorry for the tangent. It's weak because this list is basically useless and has too many people,
632:. If the inclusion criteria needs to be changed, that's a matter for normal editing and discussion. Not liking the current state of an article is not a valid reason for deletion. If the list is too long, then it can be split into sublists, just as the category has subcategories. Again, a matter for normal editing and discussion to resolve; see policy at
553:, since this is akin to you voting more than once. So you should remove the bolded "Delete" and "Delete or Truce if both pages are created, not so keen on a merger" part of your above posts. You can leave the posts, but remove the bolded portions that make it appear as though there are more delete votes than there actually are.
477:
100K subs, is capable of grabbing up to 200K views on some videos, and is unlisted. The criteria is confusing and having to have 3rd party references serves what purpose? We can all go to YT and see how many subs are displayed, unless the creator has turned off public display. It's time the criteria
472:
This article should be deleted, do to the nature of its listing policy. The policies (from nearly a DECADE ago, before YT became big enough for many big corporations to realise it power in advertising, communication, and creating original content) are flawed. Not counting subs? Really? So, Smarter
493:
response: I would submit there is a difference between a List of YT Channels by Sub, and a list of
Notable YTers. Note how many one hit wonders that received millions of views on a video, because they are one-hit, they don’t receive a sizable subscriber boost. Also note, due to the lousy existing
438:
about the youtuber - if you think it should be changed you need to discuss that on the talk page and potentially some other policy-related page (I don't know where - you might ask about this in your talk page entry). There are good reasons for the current
Knowledge policies, however they're not
433:
I'd agree that the table needs a new column for number of subscribers and that many entries are missing. This is why people like you need to come in and help with such articles by simply adding such missing info or discussing the addition of said on the talk page. For the number of
474:
4Million subscribers, more than 31 states of the Union, yet he isn't on the list. HAVING SUBS IN NOTABLE. That's why YT give out multi-colored play buttons as awards. PDK productions (makers of Nerf Wars) isn't on the list, yet he has 1 Million + subs. McJuggerNuggets has :
478:
was revisited and revised. Also, why are they alphabetized by FIRST NAME???? Should be by last name, not first. tldr; Having subs should get you on the list. This list needs to be greatly expanded, or the project should be deemed beyond the scope of
Knowledge, and deleted."
665:
already exists, and has an entirely different purpose and approach from the list of
Youtubers. One recommendation I do want to make is to add a section on what being a "Youtuber" is about, and the kind of work ethic and income the profession deals with. After all,
434:
subscribers-column: that's problematic as the numbers change all the time - however I don't see a problem with it if somebody or some bot maintains it (e.g. updating it every 6 months or so). Then for the criteria of notability: that's currently existing
534:
As the other existing YouTube articles and my User chart show, the top 20 is unhelpful, as that is mostly YouTube collective channels, and Top
Musicians Vevo. We have to do at the top 200, which will get down to about ~500mil subs channels.
350:
200K" and "List of YT Channels by Subs 100-200K"? Not every single channel has to get an article, its being in a Wiki listing instead. Or, based on soemthing I read of Quora, it could be
Channels with More than 513k subs".
177:
212:, arranged by subscribers, and include who runs them, what the do, and skips cites completely. I would like to know where the conversation is going to take place, here, on this article's talk page, or on the
379:: Also, on my user page, I made a small chart demonstrating what it could be. Perhaps these two ideas could exist at the same time, without any deletion? The policy should still be revised, though IMO.
423:
the deletion discussion takes place here so please move any content related to it (your talk page entry) to here. Then for what I've read on the talk page you're not actually asking it to be
439:
always the best possible or appropriate for some exceptions etc so don't feel shun off by them and make your case for changes with proper arguments and you may effect a needed change.
729:
171:
273:
130:
518:
Too many 'notable' Youtubers exist to give so many of them a spot on the list. Maybe they should be listed in subscriber rank order with only the top 20 or so shown?
709:
657:– If the issue is length, the list should simply be split. This could be done alphabetically. If the issue is that the list doesn't add anything to the
662:
137:
476:
400K subs, is capable of bringing in more than a million views on select videos in a few days, yet was added yesterday. Violette 1st has : -->
103:
98:
107:
66:
90:
636:. What is not in question is that there are enough notable people who verifiably fit the list's concept to merit a standalone list.
192:
317:
17:
159:
691:
It should be renamed something like "List of notable YouTubers" though, perhaps set up a 7 million subscriber minimum etc...
366:
153:
661:, then that would be a good complaint. I disagree, though, and believe that there is a unique value to this list.
761:
40:
741:
721:
700:
683:
649:
604:
590:
576:
562:
558:
544:
527:
507:
488:
459:
407:
403:
388:
370:
337:
311:
299:
289:
254:
225:
72:
61:
149:
586:
523:
94:
199:
757:
36:
696:
692:
677:
581:
How come I shouldn't be allowed to vote? Sorry if it was just a mistake removing my 'delete' in bold
354:
281:
265:
554:
399:
185:
56:
53:
495:
658:
625:
621:
582:
519:
455:
307:
269:
494:
policies, any YouTuber who gains enough external cites can be added to the List. Case in point:
165:
737:
717:
644:
467:
332:
321:
247:
86:
78:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
756:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
208:
Reasons I stated on the
Article's talk page. Basically, we should make a list of popular YT
671:
398:: Not sure about the proposal, but I don't think WP:AfD is the place for such a proposal.
277:
600:
572:
540:
503:
484:
384:
362:
221:
633:
629:
445:
303:
213:
733:
713:
638:
435:
326:
244:
124:
349:: How bad can it to be to make an article"List of YouTube Channels by subs : -->
596:
568:
549:
That you want this article deleted is clear due to you having nominated it.
536:
499:
480:
418:
380:
358:
238:
217:
235:- I completed the nomination. More text is available on the article talk.
667:
431:
instead. So I'm not sure why you created a deletion discussion for it.
670:" redirects here. That's not really related to the AfD, though. ~
750:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
52:. Please continue discussing these concerns on the talk page.
320:("Note that the word "famous" is considered an unnecessary "
316:"Popular" would make the list arbitrary and POV. See, e.g.,
120:
116:
112:
184:
730:
list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions
274:Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 January 1
43:). No further edits should be made to this page.
764:). No further edits should be made to this page.
710:list of Internet-related deletion discussions
198:
8:
728:Note: This debate has been included in the
708:Note: This debate has been included in the
318:Knowledge:Manual of Style/Lists#List naming
727:
707:
352:
324:" embellishment and should not be used.")
663:List of most subscribed users on YouTube
466:response: Here is what I wrote on the
7:
243:discussion should be here, please.
24:
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
1:
272:). I have transcluded it to
226:17:28, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
551:You are not supposed to vote
742:06:47, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
722:06:47, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
701:00:12, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
684:17:52, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
650:17:37, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
605:17:49, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
591:17:06, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
577:12:57, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
563:23:46, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
545:22:08, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
528:20:57, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
508:16:22, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
489:16:00, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
460:13:04, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
408:20:42, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
389:16:36, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
371:16:02, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
338:22:49, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
312:02:56, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
290:02:12, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
264:This AfD was not correctly
255:01:56, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
73:03:53, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
781:
620:as index of articles per
300:List of Popular YouTubers
753:Please do not modify it.
595:Sorry, it was a mistake.
302:should be there instead.
32:Please do not modify it.
624:and as complement to
473:Every Day has : -->
659:Youtubers category
626:Category:YouTubers
567:Sorry about that.
262:Automated comment:
744:
724:
468:List of YouTubers
373:
357:comment added by
292:
288:
257:
87:List of YouTubers
79:List of YouTubers
772:
755:
680:
674:
422:
284:
283:Talk to my owner
279:
260:
252:
242:
231:
203:
202:
188:
140:
128:
110:
69:
64:
59:
34:
780:
779:
775:
774:
773:
771:
770:
769:
768:
762:deletion review
751:
678:
672:
416:
415:: first of all
287:
282:
248:
236:
145:
136:
101:
85:
82:
67:
62:
57:
48:The result was
41:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
778:
776:
767:
766:
746:
745:
725:
704:
703:
686:
652:
614:
613:
612:
611:
610:
609:
608:
607:
579:
555:Flyer22 Reborn
531:
530:
512:
511:
491:
463:
462:
441:
440:
432:
410:
400:Flyer22 Reborn
392:
391:
374:
343:
342:
341:
340:
293:
280:
258:
206:
205:
142:
81:
76:
46:
45:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
777:
765:
763:
759:
754:
748:
747:
743:
739:
735:
731:
726:
723:
719:
715:
711:
706:
705:
702:
698:
694:
690:
687:
685:
681:
675:
669:
664:
660:
656:
653:
651:
647:
646:
641:
640:
635:
631:
627:
623:
619:
616:
615:
606:
602:
598:
594:
593:
592:
588:
584:
583:Oliverrushton
580:
578:
574:
570:
566:
565:
564:
560:
556:
552:
548:
547:
546:
542:
538:
533:
532:
529:
525:
521:
520:Oliverrushton
517:
514:
513:
509:
505:
501:
497:
492:
490:
486:
482:
479:
469:
465:
464:
461:
457:
453:
452:
448:
443:
442:
437:
430:
426:
420:
414:
411:
409:
405:
401:
397:
394:
393:
390:
386:
382:
378:
375:
372:
368:
364:
360:
356:
348:
345:
344:
339:
335:
334:
329:
328:
323:
319:
315:
314:
313:
309:
305:
301:
297:
294:
291:
285:
278:
275:
271:
267:
263:
259:
256:
253:
251:
246:
240:
234:
230:
229:
228:
227:
223:
219:
215:
211:
201:
197:
194:
191:
187:
183:
179:
176:
173:
170:
167:
164:
161:
158:
155:
151:
148:
147:Find sources:
143:
139:
135:
132:
126:
122:
118:
114:
109:
105:
100:
96:
92:
88:
84:
83:
80:
77:
75:
74:
70:
65:
60:
55:
51:
44:
42:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
752:
749:
689:Keep, but...
688:
654:
643:
637:
617:
550:
515:
496:Allie Knight
471:
470:talk page: "
450:
446:
428:
424:
412:
395:
376:
353:— Preceding
346:
331:
325:
295:
268:to the log (
261:
249:
232:
209:
207:
195:
189:
181:
174:
168:
162:
156:
146:
133:
49:
47:
31:
28:
622:WP:LISTPURP
296:Weak Oppose
266:transcluded
172:free images
693:Sandiego91
510:has spoken
758:talk page
734:• Gene93k
714:• Gene93k
37:talk page
760:or in a
668:Youtuber
367:contribs
355:unsigned
304:JerrySa1
210:channels
131:View log
39:or in a
639:postdlf
429:changed
425:deleted
396:Comment
327:postdlf
322:peacock
286::Online
233:Comment
178:WP refs
166:scholar
104:protect
99:history
54:King of
634:WP:ATD
630:WP:CLN
516:Delete
270:step 3
214:WP:AFD
150:Google
108:delete
673:Mable
451:uture
436:WP:RS
193:JSTOR
154:books
138:Stats
125:views
117:watch
113:links
16:<
738:talk
718:talk
697:talk
679:chat
655:Keep
645:talk
628:per
618:Keep
601:talk
597:L3X1
587:talk
573:talk
569:L3X1
559:talk
541:talk
537:L3X1
524:talk
504:talk
500:L3X1
485:talk
481:L3X1
456:talk
427:but
419:L3X1
413:Keep
404:talk
385:talk
381:L3X1
363:talk
359:L3X1
333:talk
308:talk
276:. —
245:ansh
239:L3X1
222:talk
218:L3X1
186:FENS
160:news
121:logs
95:talk
91:edit
50:keep
475:-->
377:For
347:For
250:666
200:TWL
129:– (
740:)
732:.
720:)
712:.
699:)
682:)
648:)
603:)
589:)
575:)
561:)
543:)
526:)
506:)
487:)
458:)
449:ix
444:--
406:)
387:)
369:)
365:•
336:)
310:)
224:)
216:.
180:)
123:|
119:|
115:|
111:|
106:|
102:|
97:|
93:|
71:♠
736:(
716:(
695:(
676:(
666:"
642:(
599:(
585:(
571:(
557:(
539:(
522:(
502:(
483:(
454:(
447:F
421::
417:@
402:(
383:(
361:(
330:(
306:(
241::
237:@
220:(
204:)
196:·
190:·
182:·
175:·
169:·
163:·
157:·
152:(
144:(
141:)
134:·
127:)
89:(
68:♣
63:♦
58:♥
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.