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


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

The result was   keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:07, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Criticism of YouTube
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

An indiscriminate ragbag of unrelated complaints under a title which frames the treatment to be implicitly hostile contrary to core policy. The previous AFD for this article did not result in consensus and the latest dispute may have led to some progress. Deletion would also tend resolve the dispute per the Gordian knot. Note that Criticism of The New York Times was deleted on similar grounds so there is good precedent. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:23, 14 August 2010 (UTC) Nomination completed by CIreland (talk) 12:26, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - No reason given by the nominating user as to why this article shouldn't excist. Sources are clearly evident throughout the article. I also find it very bad form to nominate this article while the article is under full protection, as this prevents the article from being improved upon, so as to address concerns that may be brought up here.--Jojhutton (talk) 12:52, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
 * My thinking was to strike while the iron is hot. Any suggested improvements can be recorded here or made using the editprotected method, as the nomination was.  As for the reason to delete, the essential point is that the article frames the content to be critical in a negative way which is contrary to core policy.  Per WP:SOAP, we are not in the business of providing a forum for complaints or other hostile advocacy. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:06, 14 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep - There are sources throughout and I don't see enough problems with the article to warrant deletion. MPEG . la 13:02, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
 * the problem is not so much the sourcing but the structure and title of the article. By dedicating an article to negative comments about YouTube, we tend to give undue weight to them in an unbalanced way. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:10, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
 * How about renaming the article to Public Perception of Youtube, and then creating balanced sections to off set the negative ones, such as Praise, or whatever? That should adress concerns.--Jojhutton (talk) 13:16, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
 * It seems best not to invent our own categories for coverage of YouTube but to stick to those of reliable sources. For example, the extent to which there has been copyright violation on YouTube and the related Viacom suit seem quite notable and so might form an well-defined subtopic.  We should create subtopics in such a specific way to avoid the article becoming a WP:COATRACK for all manner of minor and unrelated complaints. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:29, 14 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep Needs a cleanup, and some people involved in edit warring need to have their heads banged together at the moment.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 16:21, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - While it would be good to have more hands and eyes working this over, this seems like a legitimate sub-page of YouTube. And that's what this is — a topical discussion with its own page to keep the main article from becoming too unwieldy. This is not an indiscriminate hit job, but a conscious splitting of an overlong article... Carrite (talk) 16:25, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Well-refenced article, and part of the larger scheme Category:Criticisms of companies.  Lugnuts  (talk) 17:03, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:06, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Snowball keep, reasonable subpage, part of a similar series of "criticism of X" articles. Well-referenced, doesn't look like synthesis. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 17:34, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. Mildly obnoxious and moderately obvious WP:POINT nomination made to give the nominator a soapbox to rail against another AfD that didn't seem to go his way. The difference between this and the NYT article is the difference between a few rabbit turds in the Pacific Ocean and the Cuyahoga. Badger Drink (talk) 19:37, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I attend numerous AFDs and have long since learnt not to expect too much of them. I am not sure which other AFD you are referring to but I have none in mind beyond the NYT case which I cited and which was successful.  Please address the nomination more directly as your rabbit turd metaphor seems too obscure. Colonel Warden (talk) 21:08, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The NYT AfD is the one which I refer to. I apologize - profusely - for the obscurity of my metaphor regarding rabbit turds. I am aware of the potential for confusion, given the Leporidae's tendacy to, in layman's terms, eat its own shit. The gist of the metaphor relates to the potential of the water contained within the Pacific Ocean (the largest body of water currently in existence on Earth) to be rendered unpotable (that is to say, undrinkable by humans, or at least markedly foul) by the existence of "a few" (to put a more precise quantification in play, let's say three to six) rabbit stools (a relatively small-sized stool, about a quarter-inch in diamater ) within said body of water. To restate in a more direct, vox populi manner: The article has a few things wrong with it, but these few things are neither so numerous nor so extreme as to warrant deletion, a situation which seems to have not been the case for the NYT criticism article your opening statement seems to draw upon for inspiration. I hope this has proved illuminating - if further elucidation is required, I will be only too happy to oblige. Badger Drink (talk) 02:45, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The Criticism of The New York Times article no longer exists and you did not participate in its AFD. Your comments seem to be just a surmise which begs the question.  I have seen both articles and consider that there is little substantive difference.  The NYT and YouTube are both media organisations and so the parallel seems close. Colonel Warden (talk) 06:28, 16 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Although I agree that the article should be kept, let's remember to WP:AGF here, and stick to good arguments rather than attacking the nominator. Robofish (talk) 17:58, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - relatively good, generally well-referenced article collecting several significant criticisms. I don't agree that this is indiscriminate or inherently POV. Comparisons to other articles are not helpful - I didn't see Criticism of The New York Times, so I can't say how it compares to this article, but this one is a fair compilation of negative reactions to an important recent establishment. If we're going to compare it to something, compare it to Criticism of Wikipedia - this article is at least as good as that one. I suggest a WP:SNOW close of this AfD. Robofish (talk) 17:56, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Consider renaming, as "Controversies of YouTube". Avoiding the highly negative word "criticism" could help balance the scope of text inside the article. For example, I suspect there are other controversies, in a rather postive view, that YouTube has "changed the way the world sees videos" and perhaps some groups are concerned that YouTube has affected their customers in some major upset, or perhaps prompted legislation to be changed about copyright issues of items seen in a video and how long is "too long" for a flash of product to appear onscreen, when panning the horizon, etc. NOTE: There could be a redirect as "Criticism of..." to maintain compatibility with articles named in that style; however, the word "Controversies" has become favored to broaden the coverage and allow for positive upsets, such as being so successful that other groups had to react quickly to the positive avalanche of benefits provided by YouTube. Such a renaming (as "Controversies of") would diffuse the cited grounds for this AfD, while also helping to shift the NPOV-balance of the article's text. -Wikid77 (talk) 02:54, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Because you might as well delete the Google one as well. Come on, this is a great article.  AboundingHinata   talk  20:14, 19 August 2010 (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.