Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 February 10

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.

Cojones (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats

)

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

Back in 2014, the article looked like a dictionary entry. Now, the article looks like a dictionary entry but shorter. Neither

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 00:41, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 00:41, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Spanish_profanity#References_to_the_male_genitalia where it is discussed thoroughly. PamD 10:17, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect Per PamD. Britishfinance (talk) 10:52, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per PamD, a solution much better than the current situation. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 16:03, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per PamD - the cojones meeting aside, there's nothing to say here that isn't better on
  π, ν) 18:00, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Redirect to
  Talk: Contribs) 18:10, 16 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.

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. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:10, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Conquest Air Cargo Flight 504

Conquest Air Cargo Flight 504 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 21:26, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 21:26, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 21:26, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 21:26, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not notable enough. A commercial airliner destroyed and one probable death is close but an older aircraft on a cargo flight doesn't cut it. - Samf4u (talk) 21:42, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment While I will abstain from making a recommendation as to the fate of this article, as I do not know what I am about to point out means in terms of the subject's notability and want to leave that determination to more experienced editors, I do wish to make the community aware that unlike many other comparable incidents, this event was considered noteworthy enough to merit coverage on at least one national network news show. See https://www.nbcnews.com/nightly-news/video/one-rescued-after-plane-crashes-into-ocean-off-miami-1439830083584Pizzaguy875 (talk) 22:05, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I cant see anything in this accident that makes it noteworthy for a stand-alone article, no passengers so nobody notable killed and nothing important hit, it is unlikely to involve a major change in regulations. Sad but cargo aircraft accidents are not that rare or notable. MilborneOne (talk) 16:28, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per MilborneOne. Cargo plane crashes are not so easily to find notable as are passenger airliner crashes. Edison (talk) 22:58, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Well, the C-131 still flying 63 years after the production run, over ocean is a tad interesting. However, I don't see all that much coverage for this crash and I strongly doubt there will be persisting continuing coverage. Icewhiz (talk) 07:08, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete There was one fatality, alas, but this crash lacks notability, as harsh as that may seem.TH1980 (talk) 21:15, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not notable. There were only two people inside and probably only one died. Since this was not an important plane crash, no regulations, further investigation (mostly only basic investigation), safety redevelopments, etc. were done afterwards. And there isn't really much reliable information. --Atomicdragon136 (talk) 22:38, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete- Not notable. MA Javadi (talk) 17:35, 16 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.

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. There is a rough consensus that most of the sources being cited in the pro-keep comments don't meet our guidelines for establishing notability. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:14, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Morgz

Morgz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Lacks notability. There is plenty of coverage out there about Hudson. It is either in relationship to the Polish Gambling site, which is not really about him and more a BLP1E to the extent it is, local coverage about too many fans at a mall, promotional and non-biographical coverage of an appearance tour, or about his pranks from non-RS. There's lots of this coverage but the

Note: This discussion has been included in the

talk) 20:19, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

talk) 20:19, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

talk) 20:19, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

• General comment Just noting that this article was legitimately recreated via the AfC process and was approved by Legacypac, who's highly trusted in this area, and that's why G4 doesn't apply here. ~Swarm~ {talk} 20:59, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Indeed and as I noted at his talk page the "best" coverage, while still inadequate, has occurred since that AfD making a new discussion appropriate and necessary. Best wishes, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:06, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Thanks Swarm and Barkeep49. At any rate the last AfD was in Sept 2017 which is a long time ago in Youtube fame time. It was then deleted twice shortly after based on the AfD. I'm not thrilled that a 17 year old kid can be considered notable for talking about pranks on youtube but 8+ million subscribers and over a billion views seems to support notability under our current standards for youtube personality bios. I could not come up with a strong reason to decline the page and still operate within the guidelines of AfC where we accept topics that are likely to survive an AfD. I support having a discussion and decision on this case. A key question is going to be the reliability of some of the key sources. Legacypac (talk) 21:09, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. If those numbers are correct, and they can be proven to be correct, then he is eminently notable. scope_creep^Talk 10:12, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. They are pulled in via some automated process so they are as reliable as any Youtube views and Subscriber counts. Yes you can buy views and subscribers but not that many. Legacypac (talk) 15:57, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• There's a difference between "fame" and notability. We don't have SNGs based on Youtube hits. SportingFlyer T·C 09:02, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Seems to have started promoting gambling to underage children via fat loot boxes, so thrown off the site. News articles in the London Times, Sun, and Express means the article passes
  WP:SIGCOV. Also on Kotaku. scope_creep^Talk 10:21, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Keep The
  WP:GNG has been met, plenty of reliable sources give this person significant coverage. It doesn't matter where the coverage is good or bad, that has nothing to do with the notability guidelines. Hitler has nothing but bad coverage in the media, that doesn't mean we delete his article. Dream Focus 14:39, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  Dream Focus, I am saying that the quality of the coverage is poor (bad). I am making no judgement about Morgan himself. Best wishes, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:41, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Yeah, I was about to edit my comment, having misread things. Anyway, some places give him significant coverage[1] others just brief mentions. Dream Focus 14:43, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Dream Focus The Sun is a depreciated source and so while I found that article it would not be considered reliable. The best sourcing comes recently around this gambling promotional accusation. However, that whole thing seems to suggest BLP1E more than anything, even where the coverage was SIGCOV of him and not just this incident in general. Best wishes, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:19, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Despite 5,540 articles using it, it was declared at the 9th RFC for it to not be a reliable source anymore after a lot of people voted one way or the other. Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#The Sun (United Kingdom) Anyway, the BBC briefly talks about him at [[2]] and then interviewed him with Toby Foster at [3]. Having over a billion people see his YouTube videos and 8 million subscribers, there should be more coverage of him out there. Dream Focus 19:22, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Meets GNG. Also BBC Panorama article from yesterday about Morgz' promotion of the lootbox site [4]. CoolSkittle (talk) 15:21, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete the nominator mentioned this AfD to me on my talk page during a separate conversation. The page is currently written promotionally, and his only coverage which might pass
  WP:PROMO grounds. SportingFlyer T·C 02:07, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• In this instance you remove the promotional content. The gambling aspect was at the very end of Youtube career and the coverage in the Time and Express is not trivial. There is plenty of other coverage. scope_creep^Talk 15:41, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• The Express literally just prints his name. All I can see from the Times article is that he gets name-dropped. How is that not "trivial?" SportingFlyer T·C 22:59, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Fails
  WP:GNG. For a media-BLP, not one single main UK media outlet with an article on the subject (never mind several per WP:GNG). The Sun is junk and not a suitable reference for WP. Can't even find a reference to the subject in the DailyMail (which is still low-grade, but if they are not picking up a UK-based "media celebrity", that says a lot about how little-notable he is). Youtube hits are junk (claim of a billion views and no mention even in the DailyMail – lol; I am surprised to see WP editors quoting this). The adverse press from running gambling ads on his site do not make him inherently notable, and in each case his name is just listed as an example with others. BLP's should not have to "contrive" or "reach" for sources of WP notability, especially when they are media-BLPs who therefore should have lots of good RS noting them; it should be very straightforward. For him it is not there, because he is not WP notable. Britishfinance (talk) 01:07, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment This is him on Youtube:[5]] with 8.3 million followers. This is the stats page [6] with 1.1billion views. As regarding the suppose trivial news coverage. The reason that it is not trivial, is that both the same names are mentioned in the express and times. Both the articles are in context. They are both about those two people. So they are not trivial. scope_creep^Talk 11:56, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Maybe in youtube "one billion hits" land that arguement would work. In WP it is
  WP:GNG which requires significant independent quality RS to establish notabilty. This UK-based media figure – despite his "hits" – has none in the significant UK RS (nevermind outside of the UK, despite a material % of the world's population watching him on youtube ..... according to youtube). Even in the 2nd tier media-obsessed UK RS (e.g. Daily Mail), he is a ghost (the Sun is not even 2nd tier). Youtube hits are just an advertising scam, which is why WP ignores them for the purposes of meeting WP:GNG. Britishfinance (talk) 12:07, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Comment Wikipedia doesn't ignore them. On Wikipedia any value over 250k viewers is considered notable and it has been that way for more than 5 years. He has 8.3million viewers, which is well on the way to twice of population of Scotland, easily passing
  WP:GNG.scope_creep^Talk 18:39, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Comment Scope creep Where do you get those numbers? I had looked a couple weeks ago for this kind of discussion and came up empty. Best wishes, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:53, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Unfortunately even if there were some sort of SNG about the number of Youtube hits, you would still need to demonstrate
  WP:GNG. I don't care how many views he has if the only reliable secondary sources which talk about him only mention him in passing, as do the Express and Times. I'm happy to revisit my !vote if more reliable secondary sources can be found. SportingFlyer T·C 19:06, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Comment Barkeep49 The mans YouTube page. I did as well, and it was empty. I suspect he has made a deal with Google not to promote fat loot boxes and been allowed back in. He is certainly fully functioning now. Go to Youtube and search for Morgz. Hope that helps. As regards the 250k value, I dont know. Somebody passed to me donkies ago in a similar Afd. It is worth noting, that there are several 10'000's of articles of similar social media stars on Wikipedia that are considered notable. @SportingFlyer: Are you really positing the fact that social media stars, that are part of the biggest growth industry in the world when you included companies like e.g Twitch, Instagram are taken into account, would not be included within Wikipedia notabily criteria, that huge segment of society suddenly cut out and considered not notable, even though now they are considered the most famous and sought after group of people on the planet, even more so than models. It seems a bit odd that Wikipedia would make such a fundamental and basic mistake. Of course it is nonsense. scope_creep^Talk 19:21, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment @
  WP:GNG yet. Even the BBC article barely mentions him. SportingFlyer T·C 19:26, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Comment. Followers of youtube's made-up hits never seem to reconcile the made-up youtube fame with actual mentions in media RS. Don King was the master of seeing the public didn't want to a $10k purse fight (e.g. the actual purse), they wanted to see a $10m purse fight. Youtube has perfected his scam as a way of drawing traffic to their site. The "tell" is the disconnect between youtube's "hits" and actual notability; as this subject fails so spectacularly. Britishfinance (talk) 19:28, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• There is that. You cant write an article if there is no sources to validate the content. @Britishfinance: Those hits are making a lot of people very rich, and these people only live inside social media. The don't need old media to validate them, they don't care and they don't want it. Their whole online existence is concomitant on having a social media fabric to work and live in. They tried closed system at the beginning of the internet, and they were a failure. I'll see if I can find some extra sources. scope_creep^Talk 19:47, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Old media only covers internet personalities if they slip up. They're competition. CoolSkittle (talk) 20:46, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. The UK's DailyMail (which WP does not yet consider an RS for WP), is obsessed with UK-social media stars. [7] [8] [9] [10] [11], and yet on Morgz, nothing. The issue is not old vs. new world, it is just that Morgz's notability is faked. Britishfinance (talk) 21:19, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Fair enough. The Daily Fail is not a RS as you say. I'll wait and see if Scope csn find any other sources. CoolSkittle (talk) 00:53, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. And as I said, he doesn't get a single passing reference in even the DailyMail. Not to repeat this point again, but the BLP notability criteria should not be "gamed". There are too many AfD's of BLPs where the person is not the subject of a single main article in even a 2nd tier RS; and editors are trying to cobble together scraps of "passing references", mentions in 4/5th tier sources etc. to "contrive" a case for notability (what they are really proving is "existance", not "notability"). In the world of fake news (and fake youtube hits), having a BLP in WP should mean something. It should be something that it is worth spending our collective time on. Sorry for the rant. Britishfinance (talk) 13:10, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment @CoolSkittle: I found a couple of other articles about him. One was a news article on the former BBC3 news site, but there is really not that much in it. It discusses the loot boxes and a few other things. The other one is an interview and not RS. He is notable, but there wasnt a great amount of source to validate an article. Not enough anyway. I suspect there will be more written about as he finished his march toward 2 billion view and he gets older. He is certainly up there, and we should have an article, even from a historical viewpoint. This is the first generation of these types of people, and once it is gone. The guy is a whale, but not at the moment. scope_creep^Talk 13:38, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete per Scope creep, but am open to recreation if there are more sources in the future. CoolSkittle (talk) 18:03, 16 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.

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) 00:14, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Engage (organisation)

Engage (organisation) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Lacks WP:N due to absence of WP:RS Jontel (talk) 18:20, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. Jontel (talk) 18:31, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Jontel (talk) 18:33, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Jontel (talk) 18:35, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:24, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This appears to be a failure of
  WP:BEFORE, presumably because this organization was more active in the 2010's (I used a news archive search,) and possibly because "engage" is such a common word that it's hard to search. I made a start at sourcing it. This organization has an online journal, which is widely cited in books including Alvin Hirsch Rosenfeld, Anti-Zionism and Antisemitism: The Dynamics of Delegitimization, Indiana University Press, 2019; Boycotting Israel is Wrong: The progressive path to peace between Palestinians and Israelis, Nick Dyrenfurth and Philip Mendes, University of New South Wales Press, 2010; Dave Rich, The Left's Jewish Problem and others.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:16, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Comment. Hi E.M., Thanks for your comments. I have looked on their website to check. It only lists five issues of their Journal, all in 2006 and 2007. It has a 'What they say about us', which contains a very limited number of third party comments, all undated. The website has only one or two posts a month, and none since October 2018. Finally, the article has been around for over 12 years, and no-one has felt motivated to add reliable sources until you did. So, I think, as an organization, it is effectively dormant, and I doubt that it was ever significant. The founder, David Hirsh, has a page, though that is fairly limited, too, and perhaps Engage can be given a section on that. Jontel (talk) 21:05, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment.
  WP:HEY. The thing is, a great many old, unsourced topics turn up at AfD, where they get often get sourced, upgraded, and kept. Let's wait a few days and see what other editors find, some may be familiar with this topic.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:37, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Comment. Sure, though I see there have been two previous unrewarded prompts: the 'Stub' notice for twelve years and the 'needs updating' notice for six years. This Engage website seems to have been a relatively brief attempt to launch a publication, and I have little sense that it attracted much notice. In the relatively small world of anti-semitism/ pro Israel studies, they seem to quote each other a lot for mutual reinforcement, and you impressively found some examples of that, but I think that is it. Yes, happy to wait till the end of the week as you say. Jontel (talk) 22:29, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Seems to have continued coverage.[12][13][14]. Icewhiz (talk) 10:08, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Two of these are from 2006/7, when the organization had just been founded and was publishing a Journal. The third is current but it is a historical overview, referencing the organizations's 2005 founding. So, I think that WP:SUSTAINED is an issue, as well as WP:RS. I have looked at all of the references mentioned and those already in the article. Almost all seem to fail WP:SIGCOV because they are passing mentions, limited to a sentence. "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention". Wikipedia:Notability The single exception is the JPSR paper which describes a number of organizations in an encyclopaedic manner. Jontel (talk) 10:59, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Your argument that the publication was short-lived, is not supported by policy. We host articles on many short-lived publicaitons (cf.
  WP:SIGCOV and more can be added, including material from the several books mentioned above.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:16, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Comment Thanks for that. I think this is a useful discussion. On the topic being shortlived, the distinction I would draw is that the publications you mention were hard copy publications which appear to be aimed at a significant readership. By contrast, each of the five issues of the Engage 'Journal' is a handful of quasi academic articles added to a website. It had neither the impact of a popular publication nor the rigour of a peer reviewed journal and I suspect had limited readership. The passage in Pessin, which was just a sentence, does directly state Engage's purpose, personnel, aim and single achievement, but this is really a rare example and is about the 2005 AUT boycott decision, which is covered here Academic_boycott_of_Israel#Association_of_University_Teachers, as are some of the other mentions of Engage. Engage could be mentioned on this page. As you say other books tend to cite articles from the website rather than discuss the organization: if that was all that was necessary to be on Wikipedia, every academic book and paper would deserve its own article. It is a better article than before. I still think Engage had very limited impact, scale, activity or recognition per se and that for a short period. It never got much above being an expression of David Hirsh and I still fell that mentioning it on his page would be sufficient. Jontel (talk) 09:42, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Jontel, I see that although you began editing in 2012, you made only a handful of edits per year until 2018. It can take time to get used to this place. In particular, it is not unusual for new users to find the standards for notability at AfD confusing, I can see that you have found them so [15]. But the sources found and added to the page during this discussion on the page meet our standards for keeping an article on a niche organization and its publication.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:04, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I could see the rationale for the challenge. Good work has been done improving this since. I can see that there are plenty of current references in the UK media on David Hirsh/Engage (best way is to google for David) and the organisation is still appearing in UK major media. Britishfinance (talk) 01:22, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Hi, Thanks for participating. In the Wikipedia’s article references, the four from UK major media date from 2005 and 2006, when the organization was launched. Hirsh is still active and is quoted occasionally in the major media, but this coverage does not mention Engage. He is being interviewed as an academic and author and this activity is covered in his own article. See [16] Jontel (talk) 09:00, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Here is Guardian in 2018 referencing Engage (and more members than just Hirsh). The case is not a slam-dunk in terms of notability (e.g. your nomination is not that unfair), but nor is their case contrived. There are sufficient references in good RS that continue to recognize this group. Britishfinance (talk) 13:21, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Well found! I was looking only for combinations of Hirsh with Engage, which are rare themselves, so missed this reference. It only mentions one member, Richard Gold. I cannot find any other mainstream references of him in relation to Engage. The phrase in the source you found is “As Richard Gold, a party member active in the anti-racist Engage campaign, put it in his submission to…” so I do not think that it contributes much to notability, on the Wikipedia:Notability grounds that "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention". Gold, along with Miri Vogel, has been mentioned as a main contributor to Engage, replacing Hirsh in this role at one point, which suggests to me that few others were involved. There is little coverage of her or of Jon Pike, the other founder, in relation to Engage. I doubt that there is much, if any, coverage, in relation to others connected to Engage, if such people exist. I have tried Engage AND antisemitism, but there really isn’t anything recent. In essence, I still feel that this was a genuine but limited and shortlived Hirsh project that never did much or received much notice and should live solely on his article. Jontel (talk) 14:25, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Concern. @
  WP:COI. You need to be careful here. Britishfinance (talk
  )

  Comment I am happy to be able to reassure you on this point. You have partially misread my edit history on Corbyn, incorrectly assigning a passage to me that had simply moved due to an edit I made. Other edits you highlighted, which I did make, simply contextualised reported criticism of Corbyn: they were not advocacy. I did blank a notice on one draft article, not several, on my talk page, to keep it clear: your talk page only goes back a few days. Creating an article on a group is not supporting it: it is what Wikipedia is for. I have perfectly good neutral reasons for nominating the Engage article for deletion, as you yourself volunteered earlier today: “I could see the rationale for the challenge.“ So, for you then to disregard

  WP:ADVOCACY. I have no connection with any left wing group, if that helps. Certainly, the other contributors on this page also edit related articles, which is only natural. Jontel (talk) 18:26, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply

  ]

• Keep. The article, as it reads now, is referenced enough to meet
  WP:GNG. Ifnord (talk) 23:25, 17 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.

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. czar 18:27, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Elliot Steel

Elliot Steel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This looks like

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Tacyarg (talk) 18:07, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 20:53, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per nomination.TH1980 (talk) 21:48, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nomination. Definately too soon. Britishfinance (talk) 09:42, 17 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.

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. czar 18:26, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Leading ladies (game)

Leading ladies (game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This is not a notable game. Even a single source not founded on this page or google. Xain36 (talk) 17:19, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

{talk} 17:41, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

{talk} 17:41, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete - fails
  WP:GNG. No notable Ghits either. Kirbanzo (talk) 22:36, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete - fails
  WP:GNG per nom. User:Skirts89 22:42, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete Article has zero sources.TH1980 (talk) 21:31, 12 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.

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 merge to Halloween (franchise). The existing section Halloween II (2009 film)#Cancelled sequel might be a better merge target—if so, discuss on talk page. czar 18:25, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Halloween 3D

Halloween 3D (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats

)

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

This was a film that was never made or even started. There’s an entire plot summary that is clearly someone’s fanfic. Normally I’d just redirect it to the Halloween franchise page but when that happened before it was reverted. CyberGhostface (talk) 16:38, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

{talk} 16:46, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

{talk} 16:46, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete as per nomination.TH1980 (talk) 21:35, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to the main film franchise article. StaticVapor message me! 04:52, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Mentioning the aborted project on the main franchise page wouldn't do any harm.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:37, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to the main franchise article as not independently notable but is verified so is useful content for that article Atlantic306 (talk) 19:24, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to the main franchise article per the above. Aoba47 (talk) 19:52, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to main article. Britishfinance (talk) 12:49, 17 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.

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) 16:01, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of top trending Google Search queries by year

List of top trending Google Search queries by year (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · 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

Note: This discussion has been included in the

{talk} 15:54, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

{talk} 15:54, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

{talk} 15:54, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete per
  WP:NOTSTATS. All the content is based on a search result and looking at the links it is unable to obtain data from years prior to 2018. Ajf773 (talk) 19:59, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete Information can be obtained through Google and simply re-hosting that info without adding analysis or additional information makes the list pointless.
  talk) 🍁 01:31, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete Seems to be an indiscriminate listing of statistics. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:33, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per
  WP:NOTSTATS. I had half a mind to nominate the article myself when I came upon it. wumbolo ^^^ 13:46, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete I'll have to agree with the users above, this list fits the definition of a fanlist without enough reason to be. Garlicolive (talk) 19:23, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per
  primary sources that it is derived from (the original lists published by Google Trends). — Newslinger talk 14:10, 16 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.

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) 16:06, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of most-viewed Vevo videos

List of most-viewed Vevo videos (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · 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

Note: This discussion has been included in the

{talk} 15:55, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

{talk} 15:55, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete I am pretty sure this list was split off from List of most-viewed YouTube videos, but before anyone goes to delete that , YT and video counts are notable topics at least in the past. But the same attention was never made to the Vevo service. (Vevo is an official outlet that gets mirrored on YT for music publishers for official music videos; its not open content like YT. So this is just a list for list purposes with little coverage in secondary sources, so deletion is appropriate. --Masem (t) 16:10, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete per
  A10. Basically duplicates the most viewed YouTube video list. SITH (talk) 23:36, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Delete per nom. Xain36 (talk) 01:32, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This entire list is redundant as most of the most viewed videos on YouTube are Vevo music videos. Yoshiman6464 ^♫🥚 01:56, 15 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.

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. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 22:29, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of most-viewed YouTube channels

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

• Delete as CRUFT, NOTSTATS and general notably rules. Wikipedia is not a repository for real time trivia updates. doktorb _words^deeds 21:11, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

{talk} 15:58, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

{talk} 15:58, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete. Nothing has changed. wumbolo ^^^ 16:04, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. A blanket removal on these YouTube lists, especially considering their notability and page activity and views, is not a good idea. Zoom (talk page) 22:12, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep no idea why we would want to delete this. While trivial, these sorts of lists are very common for other stuff, and I see no reason why YouTube should be an exception. This list is clearly of interest to many readers (>1000 views daily) and the encyclopedia would not be improved by deleting it. It also seems to be fairly regularly updated. —
  click me!) 06:27, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep. The article is notable as the topic of most-viewed YouTube channels been widely mentioned in many reliable sources. Also, standalone list articles such as this are allowed on Wikipedia, as per
  WP:STANDALONE. And it's not at all comparable to the Hot 100, as that's a weekly chart, whereas this is a list of most-viewed channels of all time. Maestro2016 (talk) 12:07, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep Since YouTube is the internet's second most-popular website, and with the massive amount of videos uploaded to the website, to be the channel whose videos combine to be the most-viewed on YouTube is a tremendous and notable accomplishment.0737290632t2x273n (talk) 15:31, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Sources in article are enough to pass
  WP:LISTN. — pythoncoder  (talk | contribs) 23:47, 14 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.

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.

List of most-subscribed YouTube channels

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the

{talk} 15:59, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

{talk} 15:59, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

• Keep or Merge- When it comes to number of subscribers, merging does not sound like a bad idea.I understand the concerns of the proponent of the AFD, but I disagree that updating this list is too much of a chore, considering that people are passionate about youtube views this would seem like a non-issue, and in fact, when it comes to subscribers this info has to be somewhere, it if of high interest. In theory the article could be merged, but then again, the main article has a lot of info already, if the article is to be merged considering the other AFD (list of most liked youtube videos and list of most viewed youtube videos) this could add too much information to the main article. Garlicolive (talk) 20:50, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Meets
  WP:LISTN due to the widespread coverage of the topic, most recently in the form of the PewDiePie vs T-Series dispute. Matters of taste are not elements of notability, and statistics are permitted if given context and palced into tables for ease of sorting (as is done here). Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:29, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep per above. Satisfies
  WP:LISTN). Has enough secondary source coverage. Also, a big mass deletion of all these YouTube articles doesn't seem to be the best idea. Paintspot Infez (talk) 20:25, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Keep- People are very interested in these statistics, people like myself. I love these stats stuff, and pages like Wikipedia have a nicer layout than social blade, so I prefer to use it, please keep it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.97.49.176 (talk) 01:54, 12 February 2019 (UTC) — 75.97.49.176 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Keep. I use this page, and many pages similar to this, all the time. I really don't see a reason for you guys to get rid of it. These pages are extremely useful resources that keep people like me coming to Wikipedia, and there are no satisfying alternatives to these lists anywhere else on the internet. 208.66.10.137 (talk) 06:27, 12 February 2019 (UTC) — 208.66.19.137 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Keep – Unsurprisingly, the ranking of users on the internet's second most-trafficked website is a frequent topic of coverage by major news sources, especially within the past year, and certainly at a level high enough to satisfy WP:LISTN and to exceed any reasonable threshold for being encyclopedic. The
  first of Wikipedia's five pillars states that the website combines many features of almanacs, and a core component of almanacs is the inclusion of a variety of useful lists. Their presence is appropriate for Wikipedia provided that they are relevant, noteworthy, and verifiable; I believe this list meets all three conditions. The list is neither excessive—as it is limited to channels with at least 21 million subscribers—nor unexplained, and as such does not violate WP:NOTSTATS. The list is no more a compilation of "popularity data" than any other statistical ranking of mass media, such as the list of highest-grossing films or list of best-selling albums. No explanation is given as to why "maintaining these lists is not what Wikipedia is about." The comparison to the Hot 100 is unfounded; whereas each edition of the Billboard chart lists the best-performing songs in a single week, this list documents the channels that have gained the most subscribers over the entire fourteen-year history of YouTube's subscription feature. Despite the implication otherwise, I have not once in my thirteen months of overseeing the list witnessed any behavior that struck me as the product of paid editing or the work of a user with a conflict of interest, apart from low-effort spam
  —attempting to promote people's small channels—that is almost always reverted within minutes; since becoming semi-protected last summer, even those edits have completely ceased.

It should be noted that none of the reasons for deletion given by the nominator were made specifically for this article. The editor has simply copy-and-pasted the exact same paragraph to at least fifteen AfDs they have made for internet statistics-related lists, and I find this behavior to be somewhat troubling. LifeofTau 06:35, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I could explain my vote, but LifeofTau has commented virtually every reason you need to know as to why it is wrong to delete this page.0737290632t2x273n (talk) 15:22, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep. Covered extensively in reliable sources and very high-traffic article. Satisfies
  WP:LISTN as does many other articles. Managed by many users. No legit, real rationale have been brought up for deleting. And also the many points LifeofTau brought up. Vivexdino (talk) 04:17, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Strong keep per reasons above. MikeOwen ^discuss 10:43, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – References are used (from multiple cites), the data is verifiable, this is no different than most lists on Wikipedia, and there is no real reason to compare it to the Hot 100. I see no absolute reason for this article to be nominated for deletion in the first place. Dannyyankee12_{let's talk} 14:53, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Subscribe to closing this AfD as a Keep. Created this list a few a years ago, and now more than ever, the list has strong grounds to be maintained on Wikipedia. Soulbust (talk) 00:46, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per above. X-Editor (talk) 03:17, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, obviously. I guess someone is just bored. rayukk | talk 08:25, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Sources in article are enough to pass
  WP:LISTN. — pythoncoder  (talk | contribs) 23:47, 14 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.

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.

List of most-viewed YouTube videos

List of most-viewed YouTube videos (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · 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

Note: This discussion has been included in the

{talk} 16:00, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

{talk} 16:00, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

• Merge parts of this list with YouTube. A smaller part of this list, preferably a “Top 10”, is useful since it reflects trends on the site (supported by secondary sources). I vote for merge over “Keep” because most of the information is original research and original statistics that are meaningless to most readers. For example, who actually cares about the Top 10 videos of 2005? Most of the videos are music videos that never became the most viewed video at any time on the site. Yoshiman6464 ^♫🥚 16:10, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I changed my vote to Keep. I listed my opinion on the matter in the comment below. Yoshiman6464 ^♫🥚 19:16, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep but trim. This used to only cover the top 30 videos, which reflected how mainstream sources covered that. YouTube video counts are still significantly covered in the news, so a short list of the top videos make sense. But unfortunately, editors want to take this out to huge numbers which is just beyond what we should be doing. --Masem (t) 16:13, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep but reducing the list from 100 to 50 videos and delete the list "by year of release"--Luke Stark 96 (talk) 16:16, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as it is. I would not reduce the number of videos—please not! and I would keep the "By year of release"—the most interesting part of the article in my view! Eventually, I would transform it in "List of most-viewed YouTube music videos". --Checco (talk) 20:00, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I would need to see more arguments against notability in order to support this AfD. I think the subject does pass notability standards. Skirts89 (talk) 21:14, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - In theory the article could be merged, but then again, the main article has a lot of info already, if the article is to be merged considering the other AFD (list of subscribers) this could add too much information to the main article, and considering that this information is notable by itself, I am against the deletion. Garlicolive (talk) 20:40, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep but upgrading the list from 100 to 200 videos. Dieter Mueller (talk) 00:41, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The article subject has recieved substantial media coverage, and meets
  WP:LISTN. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:35, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep meets
  WP:LISTN. It has plenty of secondary source coverage. Wikiman5676 (talk) 05:46, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• KEEP as is. Meets
  WP:LISTN. Has plenty of secondary source coverage. Don't reduce. Paintspot Infez (talk) 18:38, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Comment - I have changed by vote to Keep. Gathering from previous comments, I agree that parts of the list, especially the top couple of videos, certinately meets
  WP:LISTN; especially through the quote "The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability". However, I would argue on either condensing the list or simply not expanding it, as adding more to the list would be incredibly overwhelming to certain readers. In addition, I still hold on to my previous argument to remove the "Top 10 videos" per year section, though. BUT, I like the Historical most-viewed videos since it is well sourced and graphed. Yoshiman6464 ^♫🥚 19:16, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• I agree with you to reduce the list--Luke Stark 96 (talk) 11:20, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - As someone who analyzes YouTube statistics, the article has been a useful tool that contains important information which I have found difficulty looking for on other websites. I see no problem with a top 100. The top 5 most-viewed videos by year table is useful because earlier years do not have any videos on the top 100, so it is informative to see what videos are being watched throughout all of YouTube's history. The historical most-viewed videos table is important to include because of what a tremendous accomplishment possessing the most-viewed YouTube video has become. 0737290632t2x273n (talk) 14:42, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree with keeping the historical most viewed videos, but disagree with keeping the “Top 5 most-viewed videos by year.” One has historically significant videos, but the other (for the most part) doesn’t. Yoshiman6464 ^♫🥚 20:32, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• I agree with "keep". I suggest adding "Top 5 most-viewed videos by upload year". That would provide insight on content creation more than content consumption. The current "Top 5 most-viewed videos by year" is historically important insight on content consumption instead of content creation. This way we could have both aspects. As mentioned in earlier discussion, these statistics are time-consuming to gather, but all verifiable, so any misconduct is addressable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.149.195.59 (talk) 19:48, 13 February 2019 (UTC) — 212.149.195.59 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Keep The subject meets
  WP:LISTN and has a large number of trusted second sources. 89ezagonoszkommunistanacionalista64 (talk) 16:14, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep but per some of the comments above, trim the list. I suggest the removal of all videos with fewer than 2 billion views, with perhaps an exception for non-music videos. For videos with fewer than 2 billion views, but a minimum of 1 billion views, prose and/or a category page can be used for summary. --LABcrabs (talk) 04:51, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as is. These videos are at the forefront of one of the most visited websites in the world. It allows people to see the most popular online content over time and some of the most popular videos on the internet ever. Keep the top 100 as it is and keep this as its own page. The page has very useful information. Don't trim it back to 30. Why delete useful information from Wikipedia? 15:41, 13 February 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.52.203.131 (talk) — 104.52.203.131 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

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. Well that was easy. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:20, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of most-viewed YouTube music videos

List of most-viewed YouTube music videos (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · 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

Note: This discussion has been included in the

{talk} 16:01, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

{talk} 16:01, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

{talk} 16:01, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete - Most of this is identical to the “List of most-viewed YouTube videos”, since most of the most viewed videos on YouTube are already music videos. Yoshiman6464 ^♫🥚 16:15, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Duplicate page per above, CSD A10 can almost apply here. funplussmart (talk) 23:31, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete per
  A10. Duplicate of the main list. SITH (talk) 23:34, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete or at best merge into List of most-viewed YouTube videos, as it is an unnecessary replica of that page. Wikiman5676 (talk) 05:48, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge - I see no reason this should be deleted. However, this can easily be merged with List of most-viewed YouTube videos. This duplicate can be better suited on that page. Dannyyankee12_{let's talk} 03:58, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Redundant with list of most-viewed YouTube videos. — pythoncoder  (talk | contribs) 23:46, 14 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.

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) 00:22, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of most-liked YouTube videos

List of most-liked YouTube videos (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · 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

Note: This discussion has been included in the

{talk} 16:05, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

{talk} 16:05, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete I agree with Berean Hunter--Luke Stark 96 (talk) 16:30, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Very interesting list! People look at Wikipedia exactly for this kind of stuff. --Checco (talk) 20:06, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:INTERESTING is not a suitable reason for keeping an article--Luke Stark 96 (talk) 16:49, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Keep - I would have to see more convincing reasons to delete an article like this. Whether or not it's a magnet for COI editors is not an issue - we need to make a consensus based on notability. Skirts89 (talk) 21:13, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I understand the concerns of the proponent of the AFD, but I disagree that updating this list is too much of a chore, considering that people are passionate about youtube views this would seem like a non-issue. In theory the article could be merged, but then again, the main article has a lot of info already, if the article is to be merged considering the other AFD (list of most liked videos and list of most subscribed) this could add too much information to the main article, and considering that this information is notable by itself, I am against the deletion. Garlicolive (talk) 20:45, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Updating this list is not a problem because I update this list every day, but if I stop who will update this list?--Luke Stark 96 (talk) 22:54, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Whoa, I took a look and yes, you update the list a lot, a timid thanks in the name of Wikipedia (I am only an unknown user). You update many times per day, I would say that even if the list was updated once a week it would be already good enough, but I'll have to acknowledge the hard work you did, yes, updating the list can be a ton of work, but I would still vote against the deletion. You don't need to update so often, I always thought that people had some algorithm or bot to help them get the numbers (I admit, we are in 2019). You are definitely overwhelmed. How was it before you took over, did it pass weeks without anyone doing any edit? Garlicolive (talk) 21:45, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • Looking at the history yes, the list was updated only sometimes and maybe not very well--Luke Stark 96 (talk) 00:24, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Wikipedia has plenty of lists like this, and people often go to Wikipedia to find this kind of information easily. Wikiman5676 (talk) 05:38, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I suspect the list can be automatically generated from the Api and there are undoubtedly several companies who publish the information, and several utilities that will be able to collect it. So what your left with is a dynamic list which needs continually updated with daily maintenance and when the maintainer leaves, the list is going to be out of date with days or even hours. Seems to be an entirely wasteful effort to create something that can be created on the fly. scope_creep^Talk 10:06, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Sorry that was a bit crass. Perhaps the person doesn't know that. Apologies. scope_creep^Talk 10:10, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above. Per
  WP:LISTN. Has enough secondary source coverage. Paintspot Infez (talk) 18:42, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep - As per above, Wikipedia has several lists like this so I don't see why this specific list needs to be removed. It's notable enough to stay and there's no issues with it that can't be fixed.
  talk) 18:57, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete: original research and an impossible-to-maintain dynamic list. Also, the criteria is unclear -- most liked of all time right now? At a point in time? I don't see how the presence of this list benefits the reader. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:28, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I believe we should keep these lists because like many have stated it includes enough references and sources. BrDen (talk) 11:49, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Wikipedia is not a respiratory for every ranking chart you can think of, and also I suspect there's
  WP:OWN problems going on here too. Ultimately this is not encyclopedic content and goes against notability policies. doktorb _words^deeds 11:16, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comments: Since it is all about money every way imaginable has to be used to generate it. Let's get Wikipedia to make "lists" {YouTube, facebook, etc..) that editors may in good faith like and support so keep the most watched videos very up to-date. People will click on the videos through Wikipedia and Google (YouTube) can then make money on the generated advertising revenue. In 2015 YouTube was expecting to make $2 1/4 billion on advertising ($4 billion in 2018) so maybe higher by now? A video, to considered as have been watched, according to standards set by the Media Rating Council and the Interactive Advertising Bureau, "when at least half of its pixels are visible on screen for at least two consecutive seconds.". Pretty smart if you ask me. All editors in good faith need to do is keep the list dynamic and up to date, and it seems it would generate more money through Wikipedia. If that is true then add the other lists probably being kept "up to date". I could be off-base but it is worth considering if Wikipedia is actually striving to be free of commercialism. Maybe others have input on this? Otr500 (talk) 16:36, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep When a YouTube user likes a YouTube video, he/she is indicated that they enjoyed it. Since YouTube is the second-most-popular website on the internet, possessing a video that millions of people have voiced their approval of is a tremendous accomplishment. The relevance of YouTube and the importance of liking a video on the site make the article informative. The list of most-liked YouTube videos. as well as other lists relating to YouTube, allow Wikipedia to serve as an almanac. Therefore, lists like these are what Wikipedia can be about. It is appropriate for Wikipedia as it is limited to relevant videos (4 million likes or more), and verifiable because the citations contain links to each video. The claim that the list is nothing more than popularity data is invalid as the same applies to List of highest-grossing films and List of best-selling albums which are both exceedingly informative articles, as is this one. The comparison of this list to the Billboard Hot 100 is also invalid as that chart is based on data collected each week, while this list is based on data collected from YouTube's entire history, thereby making it a historical one. The Billboard Hot 100 is also determined by data that it's own company does original research into. Had this article been based on original research, it would be deleted. Since it is based on data collected by another source (YouTube), there is no issue. 0737290632t2x273n (talk) 20:07, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And lots of people make money, except Wikipedia. However, three editors arguing that

other stuff exists is not supposed to be valid reasoning. In the over sixty-five references to YouTube, not with any substance but a link to the Videos themselves after watching or skipping the ads, would seem to be a problem. I am not sure why there is any concerns of copyright violations considering this. Otr500 (talk) 01:17, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

• Redirect because unlike the list of most-disliked YouTube videos, having a list of the most-liked videos is easier and more predictable. The top 40 list consists solely of music videos, while the ten non-music videos listed have fewer likes, and would best be summarized with prose. (For example: PewDiePie versus Mr. Beast having a like wars, YouTube Rewind, etc.) Billboard now has the Streaming Songs chart, which includes YouTube data in its methodology. We can use that list or the SocialBlade list instead of relying on Wikipedians frequently updating an article. --LABcrabs (talk) 04:44, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep Per
  routine calculation requiring no independent thought, so I don’t think it violates our no original research policy. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:56, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep: It's a hot topic related to one of the Internet's most popular website. There's no reason to get rid of it. --Posted by Pikamander2 (Talk) at 15:35, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: if the result will be "keep" I propose to reduce the list to the top 30, like List of most-viewed YouTube videos--Luke Stark 96 (talk) 23:57, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above. Very useful article which recieves a large amount of daily visits. TheMasterGuru (talk) 17:29, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Sources in article are enough to pass
  WP:LISTN. — pythoncoder  (talk | contribs) 23:44, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep. What if someone needs to view this for quick information. If it's deleted, then where are they gonna get the information? This article also sees a lot of attention, especially by me.
  talk) 23:56, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep per
  WP:NOTSTATS is not a concern because the context is properly explained, and YouTube likes are hardly a complex statistic anyhow. Ahiijny (talk) 04:28, 17 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.

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.

List of most-disliked YouTube videos

List of most-disliked YouTube videos (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · 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

Note: This discussion has been included in the

{talk} 16:06, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

{talk} 16:06, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

• Keep per
  WP:LISTN, a stand-alone list meets notability requirements if the set (but not necessarily every indivdiual component) has recieved coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject, something which has clearly been met here as evident by the lede sumamry. Additionally, this article was nominated for deletion two years ago to the day. The decision was to keep based on these grounds. Further, the list has become even more notable sicne 2017 due to the 2018 YouTube Rewind fiasco. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 21:36, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep - Very well said, Spirit of the Eagle, concerning the fiasco and the notability of it deleting this article is unwise. There are no issues in updating this article, no lack of notability. I won't even touch merging because considering the other ADFs it would clog the main article, an additional article like this is needed. Garlicolive (talk) 20:53, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as above.
  talk) 01:51, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep per above. Even if YouTube actually removes the dislike button, we should still have this. SemiHypercube 02:29, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Leave this up, it's important information! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.126.96.42 (talk) 10:21, 11 February 2019 (UTC) — 216.126.96.42 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Keep as above. Cypp0847 (talk) 10:42, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above. Per
  WP:LISTN. Has enough secondary source coverage. Paintspot Infez (talk) 18:43, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep per
  WP:LISTN, and 174,475 pageviews from 22 January to yesterday shows that this page is important. CoolSkittle (talk) 17:06, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep but add more prose, such as year-based "History" sections, that better explains historically disliked videos. Also, explain that "~YouTube Worst Video of All Time~ vote 1 star, leave comment" refers to the star-based rating, which was later changed to thumbs up/down. --LABcrabs (talk) 04:35, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: It's a hot topic related to one of the Internet's most popular website. There's no reason to get rid of it. --Posted by Pikamander2 (Talk) at 15:35, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above. Very useful article which recieves a large amount of daily visits. TheMasterGuru (talk) 17:25, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Sources in article are enough to pass
  WP:LISTN. — pythoncoder  (talk | contribs) 23:42, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep. The sheer amount of dislikes to a YouTube video has been noted by many popular sources. These include the Rebecca Black's Friday, the controversial Call of Duty trailer, and the most recent YouTube Rewind. Yoshiman6464 ^♫🥚 01:55, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I think this is important, and notable — Preceding unsigned comment added by DPS2004 (talk • contribs) 00:43, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Why the heck do you want to delete this page!? The amount of dislikes came from popular sources and they are constantly updated. There's no way it could be wrong, unless if it was, but does not mean that this is pointless.ROBLOXGamingDavid (talk) 05:58, 16 February 2019 (UTC)ROBLOXGamingDavid[reply]
• Keep per above. This topic has plenty of media coverage and is quite popular on the Internet right now. Saucy^{[talk – contribs]} 08:05, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per
  talk) (contributions) 12:43, 16 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.

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)[reply]

List of most-liked Facebook pages

talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · 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

Note: This discussion has been included in the

{talk} 16:07, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

{talk} 16:07, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

• Keep This info is mentioned in secondary sources and is in line with
  WP:LISTN Wikiman5676 (talk) 05:40, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• 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)[reply
  ]
• 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)[reply]
• Keep. Sources in article are enough to pass
  WP:LISTN. — pythoncoder  (talk | contribs) 23:41, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep. Sources in the article demonstrate
  not grounds for deletion. Ahiijny (talk) 04:04, 17 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.

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)[reply]

List of most-liked online posts

List of most-liked online posts (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · 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

Note: This discussion has been included in the

{talk} 16:07, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

{talk} 16:07, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply
  ]
• 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:V. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 19:44, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• Delete - "Liking" an entire video on YouTube is different than "liking" a simple Instagram post. Yoshiman6464 ^♫🥚 01:58, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• 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)[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.

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)[reply]

List of most-retweeted tweets

List of most-retweeted tweets (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · 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

Note: This discussion has been included in the

{talk} 16:08, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

{talk} 16:08, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

• Keep - I am against the deletion considering that this article passes the notability criteria. There was another list of the most liked tweets that was deleted because BTS and Obama dominated the list, making it a BTS-Obama fan list, but this article does not suffer from those issues. People come to this article with interest (surely even I, who disliked that I lost the timing and was outside the lottery of the japanese billionaire, can acknowledge that, let's be reasonable, just because he paid with money does not make his tweet any less valuable, you can't always win in life, right?)Garlicolive (talk) 21:00, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - The
  WP:NOTSTATS rule prohibits excessive and unexplained statistics. This page is not excessive and every entry is explained rather thoroughly. 20:10, 12 February 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.176.208.136 (talk) — 67.176.208.136 (talk) has made few or no other edits
  outside this topic.

• Keep - Wikipedia is the source of information. Some time ago I actually wondered what are the most liked or retweeted tweets and there is this perfect article showing how it is, without sources and explanation. Not only does it meet notability criteria but it's also an intersting piece of information. Keep, keep, keep. Ptok-Bentoniczny (talk) 13:20, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Just stumbled across this AfD from googling "what is the most liked tweet of all time". The concept of most retweeted tweets meets
  WP:NLIST. I don't see why the list of most-liked Tweets was deleted either; I'd think that these two would easily meet NLIST, especially for a social media site as popular as Twitter e.g. [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22]). Compare List of most-viewed YouTube videos, List of most-liked YouTube videos (currently also up for AfD), List of most-disliked YouTube videos. Ahiijny (talk) 03:40, 17 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.

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) 00:27, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of most-viewed online videos in the first 24 hours

List of most-viewed online videos in the first 24 hours (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · 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

Note: This discussion has been included in the

{talk} 16:09, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

{talk} 16:09, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

• Keep While the list obviously changes perpetually... there are MORE than enough reliable sources and significant coverage for it. And in this decade, hate to break it to you, this kinda stuff is encyclopedic. That’s the way the entertainment industry is these days. That’s why respectable publications constantly report on it. Trillfendi (talk) 20:00, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Have you checked
  WP:LISTN? I would need to see a stronger argument in order to support this AfD. Skirts⁸⁹ 22:45, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep I agree with Trillfendi, regardless of personal objections, the list has importance in the entertainment industry, linking news articles about it would be easy, the more views a video has, the more publicity it receives (and breaking records of the most viewed in the 24 first hours counts a lot) the more it spreads by the youtube algorithm. No one would claim that a video being on trending was unimportant. Garlicolive (talk) 21:14, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The list meets
  WP:LISTN. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 07:03, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Redirect to a disambiguation page: one that links to List of most-viewed YouTube videos, and another that redirects to a section on a Facebook article. As Vevo now redirects to YouTube, the most-viewed YouTube article suffices for that purpose. --LABcrabs (talk) 04:54, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect or Delete: This is a redundant list as long as
  synthesis? Otr500 (talk) 18:44, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of most-viewed online trailers in the first 24 hours was started at the same time. One of the options is merging to the list discussed here. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:39, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Clearly passes
  WP:LISTN. — pythoncoder  (talk | contribs) 23:34, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep. This page is very useful in organizing the most viewed viral videos within the first 24 hours, especially when many valid sources comment on that trend. Yoshiman6464 ^♫🥚 01:53, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Per reasons given above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.71.141.232 (talk) 10:30, 15 February 2019 (UTC) — 116.71.141.232 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Keep: I don't understand the "rapid changes" the deletion nominator is talking about. This list is totally different than a "most followed" or "most-viewed" page. It is NOT updated daily... These stats are permanent until a video amasses a larger amount of views in 24 hours, and that seems to be pretty uncommon. This list will certainly not be updated daily or rapidly. Maintenance wouldn't be a problem— especially with reliable sources reporting about it. Heartfox (talk) 03:12, 16 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.

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 merge to List of most-viewed online videos in the first 24 hours. There appears to be a rough consensus against keeping this page. Within that camp the preferred course, albeit narrowly, is to merge. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:29, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of most-viewed online trailers in the first 24 hours

List of most-viewed online trailers in the first 24 hours (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · 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

Note: This discussion has been included in the

{talk} 16:10, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

{talk} 16:10, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

• Merge into List of most-viewed online videos in the first 24 hours. Trailers are a subset of videos. SITH (talk) 23:38, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Original research, no sources to confirm this is an accurate ordered list. Ajf773 (talk) 10:49, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. New entries get many news reports, see e.g. Google search Avengers: Endgame 289 million. Also large reader interest with 435000 views in the last 90 days.[23] Otherwise merge to List of most-viewed online videos in the first 24 hours. It would practically be a keep and move since 19 of the current top-20 would be trailers, and the exception is also a promotional video before a film release. Individual view counts are sourced. Ajf773's concern might be addressed with {{Inc-up}} or a note. PrimeHunter (talk) 02:29, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. merge with a list of top videos is not useful, I search a lot of information related only to movies and this list is always useful, for example, now i wanted to compare the trailer of frozen 2 with the most viewed the first 24 hours, that's why i was looking for this information — Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.176.122.154 (talk) 19:28, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment
  WP:VALINFO Jalen D. Folf (talk) 19:37, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Merge into List of most-viewed online videos in the first 24 hours. - Brojam (talk) 20:31, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment as the creator of this page, I wanted to seperate the more commercial trailers from the videos that mainly become popular online (such as music videos and original viral videos). If this page were to merge into "List of most-viewed online videos", then all of the top videos would all come from movie trailers. On the one hand, it organizes all of the most viewed movie trailers of all time. On the other hands, all of the views from the music videos would be hidden by more popular film trailers. Yoshiman6464 ^♫🥚 01:52, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge: Merge into Trailer (promotion). That page already has a list of most viewed total and most liked on YouTube. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.71.141.232 (talk) 10:34, 15 February 2019 (UTC) — 116.71.141.232 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

  Not a terrible idea, but it's easy enough to just

  transclude it onto the page Primefac (talk) 15:55, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply

  ]

• Merge into List of most-viewed online videos in the first 24 hours. However, I think the merge should result in both tables being kept as-is; neither page is large, and given the huge discrepancy between the two lists (only one non-trailer has more views than the lowest trailer) it should be important to keep the trailers separate from the non-trailers to keep the information from being lost. In other words, there's not much point in arbitrarily having two similar lists on two different pages. Primefac (talk) 15:55, 17 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.

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.

List of most-followed Twitter accounts

List of most-followed Twitter accounts (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · 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

Note: This discussion has been included in the

{talk} 16:11, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

{talk} 16:11, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

• Keep - I think this passes even basic notability standards such as
  WP:GNG. Skirts89 (talk) 21:15, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Skirts89, Notability isn't sufficient even by what you cite...check the last bullet point, "perhaps because it violates what Wikipedia is not, particularly the rule that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information".
     — Berean Hunter (talk) 22:07, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I will have to see some more convincing arguments for deletion in order to support the AfD. Skirts89 (talk) 22:33, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep A large number of studies have been performed on Twitter accounts and interaction, many of which have focused on the most followed Twitter accounts. Additionally, there has been a bit of news coverage (although its far less impressive than the journal articles). I beleive that
  WP:LISTN has been satisfied. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:52, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep per above. Satisfies
  WP:GNG). Has enough secondary source coverage. Paintspot Infez (talk) 20:22, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep – Top Twitter accounts have been the subject of significant and longstanding RS coverage and analysis. Maintenance of this particular list is rather light, checking once a month on current rankings. Finally I have seen no evidence of UPE/COI editing here, and there is no edit warring to speak of. Nomination reeks of WP:I just don't like it. — JFG ^talk 15:12, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Passes
  WP:LISTN. This is not a top-quality source check, but I found [24], [25], [26], and especially [27] (just kidding) — pythoncoder  (talk | contribs) 23:25, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep as appears to satisfy
  Talk: Contribs) 11:05, 17 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.

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) 16:02, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of most-followed Instagram Business accounts

List of most-followed Instagram Business accounts (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · 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

Note: This discussion has been included in the

{talk} 16:13, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

{talk} 16:13, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete per
  WP:NOTSTATS. Only source appears to be a self published one. Ajf773 (talk) 19:55, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep: Very interesting list! People look at Wikipedia exactly for this kind of stuff. --Checco (talk) 20:02, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:INTERESTING is not a suitable reason for keeping an article. Ajf773 (talk) 20:06, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Speedy delete per
  A10. Duplicates the main Instagram list. Would not be averse to a redirect. SITH (talk) 23:43, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete Agree with above, the main list already serves its purpose, one this specific is trivial listcruft.
  talk) 🍁 01:27, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete Listcruft, arbitrary list. talk to !dave
• Delete per
  WP:NOTSTATS. --K.e.coffman (talk) 23:30, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete because it is a mirror of SocialBlade, and also because Instagram changed its data collection policy to exclude non-business accounts for public statistics. Where are Selena Gomez, Justin Bieber, the Kardashians, the Jenners and more? Since they use personal (not business) accounts, we see NatGeo, Nike, Victoria's Secret and more getting higher ranks on this "top accounts" list. Just scrap the list, and confine this to a small paragraph on Instagram's page. --LABcrabs (talk) 04:30, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – The category of Instagram "business accounts" is an arbitrary one; there is no need to track them separately from regular accounts. — JFG ^talk 15:17, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete—seemingly arbitrary distinction. — pythoncoder  (talk | contribs) 23:09, 14 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.

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. czar 18:13, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Marie McCray

Marie McCray (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Subcategory award insufficient to meet PORNBIO andd interviews and non rs do not count.

Note: This discussion has been included in the

{talk} 15:08, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 16:07, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:23, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:24, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:24, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Lacks significant coverage by reliable sources to pass
  WP:BASIC/WP:GNG. Agree with nominator on failing WP:PORNBIO. • Gene93k (talk) 18:41, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete as cannot find any no evidence of notability, Fails PORNBIO & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 19:54, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete does not meet the general notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:23, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per nom. Britishfinance (talk) 12:02, 17 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.

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. czar 18:12, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Eugenia Diordiychuk

Eugenia Diordiychuk (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Glamour model who does not meet the GNG. Interviews or nkn-RS are not enough to source a BLP

Note: This discussion has been included in the

{talk} 15:10, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:58, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:45, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:46, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as cannot find any no evidence of notability, Fails PORNBIO & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 19:54, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: does not meet the relevant notability guidelines. --K.e.coffman (talk) 20:01, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete a non-notable model.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:21, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Britishfinance (talk) 12:03, 17 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.

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. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:30, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sayed Noorullah Jalili

Sayed Noorullah Jalili (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Declined at afc possible paid editing, fails

Note: This discussion has been included in the

{talk} 13:10, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete - I came across this article while new page patrolling and was just considering how best to proceed with it when you nominated it for deletion. It currently has almost no reliable sources, is promotional in tone and reads like an election advertisement. He may well be notable so I had decided to reduce the article to a single sentence stub. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:33, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

talk) 20:02, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

talk) 20:02, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete. People are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because they're running as candidates in elections they haven't won — he has to win the election to be deemed notable as a politician, and otherwise qualifies for an article only if he can be shown to have already gotten over a notability criterion for some other reason that would already have gotten him an article anyway. But this is not referenced anywhere close to well enough to demonstrate that — four of the seven references are YouTube clips or Facebook posts, which are never
  WP:NPOL by winning. Bearcat (talk) 17:59, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete per nomination and comments above. Mccapra (talk) 04:28, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nothing RS of note; highly promotional article. Britishfinance (talk) 12:54, 17 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.

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.