Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of most-subscribed YouTube channels (2nd nomination)

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 speedy keep. While the good faith of the nominator is not in question, the rapid restarting of the discussion followed by more of the same (unanimous keeps) lends itself towards being speedy kept again. Primefac (talk) 02:18, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of most-subscribed YouTube channels

List of most-subscribed YouTube channels (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Trivial, not encyclopedic, arbitrary, listcruft, promotional, mirror of other sources and

• Keep. It seems that the nominator has not completed
  WP:SNOW speedy keep. The reasons for keeping the article still stand, and have not changed in the past four days. (see previous discussion here). MarkZusab (talk) 19:12, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Speedy keep. Rapid renomination of an article which was closed as a speedy keep borders on
  WP:DISRUPT. Ifnord (talk) 19:17, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Nominator comments: Just to clarify, I wasn't aware that it was previously nominated, so no disruption or making a point. Let's hope for valid reasoning and civil discussion. I stumbled upon Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of most-followed Instagram accounts (2nd nomination) and decided to start this as well. THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 19:23, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Now that you are aware, perhaps you would consider withdrawing the nomination? Ifnord (talk) 19:30, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's up to an admin. I would prefer fresh comments though. THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 19:35, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - we have already had a discussion on this topic, my original arguments still stand. Skirts⁸⁹ 19:53, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per
  WP:SNOW Keep. Vivexdino (talk) 01:19, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Speedy keep It may be that no disruption was intended, but nonetheless, the article should be kept as only four days have passed since the previous discussion resulted in keep. Novusuna ^talk 01:36, 18 February 2019 (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.