Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of YouTube celebrities (2nd nomination)

:{{la|List of YouTube celebrities}} – (View AfD)(View log)

• Delete Wikipedia is not a directory of people, therefore this should be deleted. The Helpful One ^{(Talk) (Contributions) (Review Me!)} 20:35, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

• Keep. It is not too out of control that it's unsalvageable, but it needs a bit of trimming. Entries without their own articles should probably be removed, whether there's an outside reference or not. Keep it to only people who have actual articles on Wikipedia, and then it becomes a simple list for navigation on Wikipedia. Then it won't be a directory, based on my understanding of Wikipedia is not a directory of people. • Anakin

^{(contribs • complaints)} 20:50, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

:*Comment. If this is the case, would you be willing to trim down the list, or would anybody as a matter of fact? The Helpful One ^{(Talk) (Contribs) (Review)} 12:47, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

::*Comment. I would. Some people even if they have articles are not celebrities. The Whogasm girls are one entity recently removed from the list for example. Rather than celebrities that was more of a viral video popular in one month of last year. Maybe there are other reasons why people should/should not be on the list also. • Anakin ^{(contribs • complaints)} 13:05, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. I disagree with the above comment: this article does have the potential to grow out of control. Youtube celebrities change from day to day and if we are just including anyone who someone considers a Youtube celebrity, this becomes ridiculous and void of notability. I would not be opposed to a category for celebrities who are notable enough for their own article, such as Chris Crocker. Redfarmer (talk) 21:28, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep "Wikipedia is not a directory of people" doesn't apply here. As the sources point out, these particular YouTube persons have attained media attention, out of the thousands of videos on there. YouTube is notable, and some features on it are more notable than others. No matter how one feels about YouTube, one can't deny its existence. Mandsford (talk) 23:47, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. If the items on the list are notable, the list itself can be notable, as well. Those entries who are not notable enough to warrant their own articles should probably be removed. RJC ^Talk 00:35, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. I agree, it should be limited to only those people who have established notability also. --Revanche (talk) 01:43, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. Per Mandsford and my arguments from the last AfD. I'm pretty sure it abides by WP:SAL; but if you have any suggestions for improvement, feel free to voice them. Ichormosquito (talk) 03:49, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NOT, this list will never be completed. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 06:55, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
• Comment Where does WP:NOT state we shouldn't have dynamic lists? Should we delete all of these? Ichormosquito (talk) 08:44, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
• Comment Sorry, I was referring to the nom's argument. I don't believe YouTube celebrities pass Wikipedia:Notability. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 18:05, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete I don't think there are too many people who care about YouTube celebrities. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 10:18, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
• :Sounds like a WP:IDONTCARE.--Seriousspender (talk) 14:22, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep I would be happy to go with Anakin's decision with deleting all the 'celebrities' that don't have articles. I think this list would is here instead of there being a category for it, which is probably the better option.--Seriousspender (talk) 14:22, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
• Comment I'm not sure that's the best option. Michael Buckley and Daxflame both have huge followings, but each is the subject of only one mainstream news profile - not enough to support a Wikipedia article. This is the only way for us to cover them. Ichormosquito (talk) 03:43, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

::*Comment. Ah now that is a good point. Some people aren't notable enough for articles, but are worthy of a mention to any rounded article on the subject of YouTube celebritism ^(word?), which for better or for worse, seems to gather media attention. Perhaps I was wrong to suggest "write the article first" was a good policy for this page. Perhaps a sentence/very short paragraph on each entry in the list establishing notability, with references (separate article or not), would be better. It would make for a fuller article, more valuable than a "list", and allow some things of fringe notability a passing mention. (Surely better than needing an ugly stub article for those things, or ignoring them.) Then again it may prompt people to want it deleted with even greater vigour. It's just an idea; take it as you will. • Anakin ^{(contribs • complaints)} 13:36, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

:::*Comment. I think that's a great idea. Ichormosquito (talk) 16:28, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

• Keep While it does need clean-up, it does have good references and notability. See:WP:ATD Noah¢s (Talk) 20:40, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep--Dillio411 (talk) 19:41, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. Well-sourced and encyclopedic enough, but I wouldn't object to making this into a category instead...-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 23:17, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

:The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.