Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of YouTube celebrities (4th nomination)

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

The result was keep. There is overwhelming support for keep, and the deletion arguments are incredibly weak. LISTCRUFT is not policy, and the other arguments amount to asserting that it is trivial, ill-defined (people known due to their YouTube videos is not ill-defined), or preferring a category (lists and categories are not mutally exclusive). Fences&Windows 00:30, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of YouTube celebrities

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

The term "celebrity" is extremely subjective and is branded around left, right and center. This article appears to simply be a list of anyone who's appeared on YouTube and been called a celebrity by local newspapers, obscure websites, blogs etc. (Granted, some are from legit sources, but the majority fail WP:ONEEVENT and have a lack of multiple independent sources to warrent a mention). If a person is notable enough, they should have their individual article. Otherwise, this list should be deleted. WossOccurring (talk) 00:21, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom as WP:LISTCRUFT with WP:SALT, WP:SALT, and more WP:SALT. Gosox5555 (talk) 00:26, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:LISTCRUFT, etc. a category would be sufficient for entries with genuine notability. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 00:47, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:LISTCRUFT and above. Kyle1278 02:15, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:LISTCRUFT. Warrah (talk) 03:29, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Too trivial for the standards of wp... --Travis Thurston+ 07:05, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The intended function of this article is already handled by Category:YouTube_video_producers --Brunk500 (talk) 08:20, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:15, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep
1. WP:LISTCRUFT is an essay. It's not a policy based reason for deletion, no matter how often it is cited. It's surprising to see that all but one !vote in favor of deletion cite an essay and no one cites a policy or guideline (one does not even cite anything). So there is no valid reason for deletion mentioned so far.
2. The nominating user mentions WP:ONEEVENT but the guideline in question is clearly in favor of this list. Since the guideline says that articles should be avoided for such people, a list can be used to include information about them instead. WP:BLP1E uses a similar language.
3. Problems with incorrect inclusion can be addressed by editing not deletion.
4. To respond to Brunk500: Per WP:CLN, the existence of a category should not be considered a reason to delete a list. Instead, per WP:LIST such a page listing people based on a attribute they have in common and to allow inclusion of people in this way who do not warrant their own article (per 2.) above) or where no article has been created yet. A category thus cannot replace the list adequately.
As such, there are no policy-based reasons to delete this list but several reasons to keep it. Regards So Why 17:09, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - One cannot argue that the subjects of this article are notable but I think this would be better served as a category than a page itself. There's no page for Movie celebrities or Music celebrities and I even think those would be more founded than YouTube celebrities. OlYeller^Talktome 17:46, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whether the current subjects of the article are notable is irrelevant (some of them certainly are but only for one event and some of them meet WP:BIO). But the list itself serves a purpose a category cannot serve (list subjects not worthy of an article for themselves but notable nonetheless or list those worthy of an article where none has been created so far). Regards So Why 18:28, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - SoWhy pretty much said it all. The call for salting the article is rather inappropriate considering it has not been deleted and has survived 3 AfD already. delirious & lost ☯ ^~hugs~ 17:50, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Yawn. I agree with the 'category' idea, categories are more powerful than lists. --Brunnian (talk) 20:29, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As per the nom, there is no standard for what constitutes a "celebrity", and I don't see how such a standard could be developed (even allowing for some gray area that could be discussed on a one off basis). So I don't think this can be resolved through editing. Rlendog (talk) 21:03, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per WP:ITSCRUFT never being a valid reason for deletion (no matter how many numeric "I don't like it" non-arguments an article gets, the policy based reasons for keeping ultimate trump them), but add references to really notable ones, i.e. those that make Countdown with Keith Olbermann or Attack of the Show, or make a category for ones notable enough to have their own articles. The sources are notable, at least: New York Times, Entertainment Weekly, Wall Street Jorunal, etc. show that the topic has received mainstream attention. We should also keep per Wikipedia:Lists (discriminate, encyclopedic, maintainable, navigational, notable, unoriginal, and verifiable concerning only celebrities, only celebrities from the internet, and per our other policies only those covered in reliable sources). Given that you see occasional countdown shows on VH1 and E type networks of best internet celebrities and the like, a good case could be made for widespread mainstream interest in the phenemona. Heck, South Park had a whole episode on the subject! The list also serves a navigational/table of contentsesque function as well as a well-organized gateway to other blue link articles for which millions of our reader have an interest. Indeed, over 50,000 readers come to this article a month and over 1,000 IPs and accounts have edited it for the past three years! Finally, as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of YouTube celebrities (2nd nomination) closed as "keep" and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of YouTube celebrities (3rd nomination) closed as "speedy/strong keep" consensus clearly supports this article's existence when we take into account total number of participants across an unnecessary four discussions and in multiple months. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 21:27, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
this article deserves a space just like any other wiki article! down with fascist wikipedia! every article deserves a page. fight for what wikipedia used to stand for! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.20.134.98 (talk) 21:04, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but there should be restrictions for inclusion (restrictions seem to be working at Honorific nicknames in popular music), for example, the person has to have a Wikipedia article (not just the meme, but the actual person). If the term "celebrity" is too subjective, than change the name.--kelapstick (talk) 21:45, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I agree, this is WP:LISTCRUFT. I also agree that categories would be better and more manageable. That said, however, I have had probably a dozen proposals for deletion rejected on these exact same grounds. I see no reason to make one exception here so I am voting to keep purely for the sake of consistency. JBsupreme (talk) 21:46, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note I contacted all of the editors in the last AFD (3rd) about this AFD, and a few of the major contributors to the article. For some reason the User:Erwin85Bot, described here has not contacted these editors yet. Ikip (talk) 21:55, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's a far better article than the last time it was nominated. I can't say that I agree with any part of the nomination ("extremely subjective", "local newspapers", etc.). Every item on the list is sourced-- a rare feature in a Wikipedia article-- and it's hard to accept the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, the Washington Post, etc. as local papers. And I just don't get "If a person is notable enough, they should have their individual article. Otherwise, this list should be deleted." If someone is notable enough for their own article, why shouldn't that person be on a list? Some of the delete votes indicate that they think that this is notable enough for a category, but they don't like lists. If you're a vegetarian, that's great, but please don't tell anyone else what they can eat. Mandsford (talk) 22:17, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, looks like it could use some cleanup but it is pretty well sourced. Cirt (talk) 22:23, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, having a line or two of commentary makes the list far more user-friendly than a category. The fact that some entries may be sourced to crap sources doesn't warrant the deletion of the whole thing: editorial action to remove or properly source these is what's warranted. This list, when well-maintained, is a substantially more useful way of browsing the topic than a category, and sources are provided on the face of the article in order to demonstrate inclusion-worthiness. ~ mazca ^talk 22:25, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per over-achieving in its meeting WP:STAND. Not at all trivial, being a well sourced list that meets the inclusion criteria set by WP:GNG. Not only does this list lead readers to more expansive articles, but it makes an assertion of notability and is itself properly sourced per guideline and meets the requirements of WP:LIST. Essays rarely trump guideline or policy. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:03, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lists of non-notable things or people are by definition, non-notable, whatever the ARS block vote thinks. Windhover75 (talk) 23:15, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- While that may be true, since most of the people on this list have stand alone articles, this is not a list of "non-notable people", it is a list of notable people. --kelapstick (talk) 23:25, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Struck comments of block evading sock account per [1]. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 02:02, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Too many arguments which do not focus on specific reasons for deletion. BTW, a list of non-notable items in themselves and survive AfD as being notable as an aggregate. Individual nicknames of Presidents are "non-notable" but the list is notable. I am deeply distrustful of any false consensus from canvassing in any area of WP, but the solution is to discount all !votes which simply state "per someone" as indicating that the person is more interested in the !vote than in furnishing new and possibly superior reasons for deleting or keeping an article. Let this AfD be decided on merits only -- if that means "no consensus" so be it. I have no opinion on this otherwise at all. Collect (talk) 23:29, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; In my opinion, the argument by the nom seems more appropriate if they were calling for the deletion of the individual YouTube users' articles rather than the list itself, considering that their main points are notability and WP:ONEEVENT. Even though the list is amplifying that the article's subjects are solely notable for being YouTube "celebrities," all the articles on the list (as far as I can tell) are about a subject who is either very notable because of their YouTubing, or being on YouTube has played a role in making them notable. If there are any persons on the list that aren't notable, then sure, remove them, but not everyone on the list lacks notability. If the term "celebrity" is causing a problem, a page move could fix that, but that would not be grounds for deletion in itself. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 23:41, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this list of unremarkable nobodies is, by definition, not notable. Crafty (talk) 00:19, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:JNN is not a reason for deletion, especially when not true as it has clearly been shown that these people are covered in multiple reliable sources, i.e. per the wikipedic definition actually are notable. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 00:21, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well of course you would say that. ;) Crafty (talk) 00:24, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like you're comparing a (nonnotable) apple and (nonnotable) orange :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:28, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep There's no reason to delete this page. PokeHomsar (talk) 00:23, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Several have, in fact, been given. Can you say why you think they are invalid. This is not a vote, and you've given absolutely no rationale for your opinion.--Scott Mac (Doc) 01:23, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all such subjective lists. One man's celebrity is another man's nonentity. Being called a "celebrity" by some journalist does not make you notable. Further, this looks like an unmaintainable article - that's evidence by the ugly big template telling us that it will require protection until June 2010. Hell knows what they expect to happen in 2010 that will change this - the rapture?--Scott Mac (Doc) 01:13, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Further, are these really "you tube celebrities"? Or are they really just people who've come to prominence via internet videos uploaded to variousplaces on the internet (of which youtube is obviously the most popular). I see, for example, Jay Maynard on the list, but he's actual already on the List of Internet phenomena and his "fame" seems as much due to slashdot and Fark as youtube. I'm really not sure we should give credit to a trademarked name like this - that seems to slightly skew the realities. (Although I'm sure the owners of youtube will gladly take the credit and thank us for the publicity and marketing)--Scott Mac (Doc) 01:20, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - If the individuals on the list have their own articles for their having met the inclusion criteria of WP:GNG, it does not matter what they "did" that allows them to meet notability standards. To opine otherwise seems to be stating that notability guidelines be applied subjectively rather than objectively. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:46, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Interesting point, but I didn't mention notability at all. Can you address the point I did make?--Scott Mac (Doc) 09:23, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Easily done. A person can be listed in more than one place on wikipedia. If a person has been described in a secondary source and youtube has been described as wholly or in part either the vehicle of the aforesaid fame, then the person goes in the list. Whether they are on twitter/fark or wherever else is irrelevant for the purposes of defining the list. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:25, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        If there only connection between the fame and youtube is that youtube is a secondary source, then we are indeed into WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information. Otherwise, can I create List of Daily Mail celebrities?--Scott Mac (Doc) 13:34, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        No, Daily Mail is one of a bevy of newspapers - hence that would be arbitrary. Youtube is much more a uniquely notable and definable entity. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:46, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- - Well, problems with the title can be addressed by renaming the article. "List of notable internet video artists" for example could be used instead (I understand the "YouTube" concern).
    The concern of being unmaintainable based on the protection is unfounded. By that logic we would have to delete every article that is indefinitely semi-protected since they are all "unmaintainable". No, the list is a logical target for countless YouTube personalities who are non-notable and trying to promote their non-notable videos using Wikipedia - that does not mean we cannot have a list of notable people of said kind though. The list is maintained quite well compared to many other articles we have and is well sourced.
    The list has two inclusion criteria: a.) All people on it need to be notable (which includes people notable for one event which by policy are allowed to be mentioned on other articles if they do not warrant their own article (and most of them do)) and b.) their notability needs to come from internet video sites. If people are on it incorrectly, it can be addressed through editing. If the name is incorrect, it can be addressed through moving it to a better name. But nothing you mention is a reason for deletion. Regards So Why 12:12, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - If we are going to rename it to remove the youtube bit, then why not merge with List of Internet phenomena?--Scott Mac (Doc) 12:51, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Because that would be too big and too nebulous. Sorry, I like my 'pedia with a bit more depth to it. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:21, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Fair enough. But do you want to respond to the substantive point that these are not "youtube" celebrities - they are, at best, people who have become famous variously through internet video exposure. "Youtube" is simply the best-known platform for those videos - and indeed with some of the entries, although they have videos on youtube, the reason for their "notability" is merely tangential to youtube.--Scott Mac (Doc) 13:26, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Casliber is right, also List of Internet phenomena would be fitting for the videos but not really for the artists. But I am not opposed to renaming the article to something like List of internet video artists if this closes as keep. When the article was created in 2007, YouTube was pretty much the only popular site and other portals were only just emerging. Things move fast on the web and I agree that today it's not appropriate for the name of such an article anymore. But that we can discuss on the article itself, it's not a reason for deletion. Regards So Why 13:37, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        I think my question is: is this a list of people who are celebrities because (or mainly because) of youtube, or people who are celebrities who happen to be on youtube (as anyone famous for an internet video will be). Is the existence of youtube significantly connected to their fame, or is it just that youtube was an essential media at the same level as their videos were probably uploaded from a MS Windows system. If the article is taken to be the first (more restrictive) definition, then I withdraw my deletion suggestion. But I suspect most of the content of the article would also be questionable. I suppose if it is the first view, then people made famous by the Daily Mail would be an equally legitimate, is probably quite short list. If it is the more open version, then I'd say the list is an indiscriminate collection - as it is really a list of "internet celebrities" where youtube happens to be a source of the spread of a video, but indeed the individual's noteriety results from the video and in no real sense from youtube. However, this is now an interesting debate.--Scott Mac (Doc) 14:11, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's legitimate to say that most, if not all, entries on the list are people who are notable because of videos they uploaded to internet video sites, mostly YouTube and the references are verifying that their notability comes from this activity. As said above, the name "YouTube" itself is open to debate as is almost anything but I think there is not much doubt that "people who are notable because of their contributions to internet video websites" is not a indiscriminate list. For example, the first reference on the list explicitly talks about how the videos on YouTube made their uploaders famous (and nothing else), i.e. that their notoriety is a result of this kind of video distribution. Regards So Why 14:31, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, might need trimming though. But there is no reason to delete it, and almost every person in this list has an article of it's own. No reason to delete. > RUL3R^>trolling_>vandalism 01:20, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I've just given some above. Care to respond to them?--Scott Mac (Doc) 01:21, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The nom's rationale is no different than the delete arguments given in the previous AfD's, and all the article needs is clear inclusion criteria, such as every entry having a stable article. A nobody who uploaded one video certainly does not qualify as a "celebrity." -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 02:13, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Afd is not cleanup. The content issues are easily fixed, the nom even suggests the best starting idea, listing only people with an article (which is what Lists of People actually says). A category is no replacement either, it removes info and doesn't even solve the main issue - agreeing on the inclusion criteria after you restrict it to only wiki notables. MickMacNee (talk) 02:22, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. No reason to delete it, just needs a little work! smithers - talk - sign! 02:45, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Because of the fact that not all named on the list would have their own pages (and in some cases, I believe, would never have more than a stub page), a category does not work. Regarding other users that mentioned about this article surviving previous AfD's, this is a prime example of that not being a valid reason for keep... Oh, you want my position? Keep - even if the list needs trimming, it shouldn't have to be restarted. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 03:30, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if the list parameters are (a) appearance in 2 secondary sources and (b) youtube appearance is their claim to fame, then the list is definable and manageable. article quality is not a reason for deletion. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:48, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Most of the things on the list have their own article. So notability is established. Listing everyone who is notable through YouTube, is a perfectly fine Wikipedia list. Dream Focus 04:18, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Keep per concensus.--Sky Attacker the legend reborn... 05:08, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Keep. --Milowent (talk) 05:53, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Keep well referenced and notable, meets all requirements for a list. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 08:58, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why on earth would this discussion be speedily closed, when a number of concerns have been expressed which keep voters have not addressed. Neither the referencing nor the "notability" have been called into question - so that's not relevant. Can you please address the issues that have been raised. I'll give you that you've done a little better than the two useless contibutions above (and the "delete listcruft" non-arguments too).--Scott Mac (Doc) 09:20, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Because calling it cruft doesn't mean anything, there is no way to respond to it. Do you want me to say it isn't cruft? All Wikipedia cares about is notability and verifiability and those issues are met. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 09:29, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are right to ignore the "cruft" argument. However, I raised other concerns above that are not about notability and verifiability - they are about relevance and accuracy, things I also hope we care about.--Scott Mac (Doc) 09:34, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If that "cruft" argument has little weight, then the article is clearly at a "keep" consensus. Again, I am not !voting. Collect (talk) 12:13, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Em, consensus is judged at the end of the debate, when we've looked at the issues - it is not a rationale for a !vote. I have presented some concerns with this article, it is a pity few are willing to address them. Actually, this whole debate one of the worst AfD's I've seen in a long time. We are getting rubbish rationales on both sides - and few, if any, are engaging with the real concerns that (some) delete voters have expressed. The closing admin would be entitled to discount most of the contributions here are being irrelevant.--Scott Mac (Doc) 12:51, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Including your point above scott which is pretty easily remedied. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:27, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think your remedies don't stack up but ymmv. However at least you and I are having something of a debate, which is what this afd should be about. People express concerns, and we see whether they can be met or not. My dismissal is not of such attempts (even if I disagree with them) it is with people on both sides that !vote in quite meaningless ways - "delete listcruft" "keep it's notable" rather than trying to understand what the concerns of other users are and address them. Deletion arguments based on "cruft" are unworthy of debate, keep arguments which respond to things no one is arguing are similarly pointless. "Keep per consensus" or "delete per consensus" are simply begging the question.--Scott Mac (Doc) 14:11, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(indent reset) Which is why I stated above that even if the list needs to be trimmed for it to be maintainable, there are reasons to include some. Their individual articles may not have enough information - and that is exactly why we put them on a list. Or are you saying that all those individual articles need to go? By the way - one person's celebrity may be another person's nonentity, but that does not mean that notability isn't established. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 14:19, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think notability is the point. The individuals may be "notable", the question is, is that notability specifically related to youtube, and, if you want to make it about notability (whatever the Hell notability means), then the question would be is that connection, in itself, notable. However, a better question would be is the connection between the items on the list sufficient to avoid the charge of being "indiscriminate"? I might be persuaded to agree that it might be, if the list were trimmed to those specifically related to youtube, or broadened by the removal of youtube from the title.--Scott Mac (Doc) 15:57, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Even if your point is correct, that's out of the bounds of AfD, normally. Trimming, etc, is left to the talk page and really not suitable for here. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 04:23, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'm neutral about the article's mood. But if it'll get deleted, all of the people listed on the article should be listed in a suitable category (I know that it's already available but the category should be more active). Onur T^contribs 11:28, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unmaintainable list. Using "look at the freak!" Feature articles to show that individuals are celebrities as opposed to embarassed by their fame or their notoriety is transparently a violation of BLP. Hipocrite (talk) 12:41, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Keep Very useful list and obviously highly notable per sources. Don't see any members that dont seem to be courting fame and therefore there is no intrusion on privacy. Any exceptions can be individually removed. As for the noms suggestion that celebrity is subjective, that's true but on the same level so is notability itself (it ultimately depends on human choice, not on objective fact like 2 + 2 = 4 ). For our purposes though neither are subjective as per our policies we merely report what the sources say. FeydHuxtable (talk) 16:31, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename and Clean-up the nominators comments are completely true. The term 'celebrity' used in the article title, and the fact that most things on the list are lacking more than one source. Both issues need to be addressed, otherwise relist for deletion again. Nominator should've attempt to address these two issues themselves first. Most of the keep arguments seem to be from here.--Otterathome (talk) 17:59, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep on grounds of illogical AFD nomination. Individuals that are not notable or fail one event should be removed but has no bearing of the article which clearly does have multiple notable individuals. If you want to rename article then discuss in the talk. SunCreator (talk) 23:47, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have to agree with SoWhy on this one. Jeffrey Mall (talk • contribs) - 15:51, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per User:SoWhy.Teeninvestor (talk) 13:20, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Celebrity is a subjective term and how do we "judge" which youtube account is notable enough? Sorry but in my own view such lists have no place in an encyclopedia. It is such lists which indicate we collect every single bit of entertainment trivia imaginable. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 11:42, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- How about using the guideline we have to judge whether someone is notable? It's not as if anyone suggested using a different standard for that list than for all other articles. And of course, as said above, the term "celebrity" can be discussed and changed without deletion. Regards So Why 13:07, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per User:SoWhy. --82.171.70.54 (talk) 15:38, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Article needs cleanup, most definitely, and possibly renamed to remove problematic 'celebrities' title. But if the individuals listed are notable enough for articles of their own I can see no logic to deciding that a list of the same people isn't notable and should be deleted. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 17:22, 21 December 2009 (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.