Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of most-disliked YouTube videos (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The result was Withdrawn by nominator. No outstanding delete votes. (non-admin closure) Nightfury 12:47, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

List of most-disliked YouTube videos
AfDs for this article:


 * – ( View AfD View log )

In short, this article fails WP:Verifiability. Under that policy, all material must be attributable to a reliable source (such source does not need to be cited within the article, but it must exist). Here, there is no source in existence that comprehensively documents the most disliked YouTube videos in live-time. (There are some static lists, but these get out of date very quickly. I'm also concerned that these sources are relying on Wikipedia for their information). A database existed for awhile, but it has long since shut down and been replaced by a spammy looking website no doubt swarming with malware and viruses. Since the database shut down, editors have maintained the list by updating counts and making manual, ad hoc adjustments. YouTube has billions of videos, with hundreds of hours of additional videos uploaded every second, so it is simply not possible for human beings to maintain such a list without the use of bots or other programing aids. Fundamentally, since the database went down, the list has transitioned to original research (and likely inaccurate original research at that).

(I am aware that WP:LISTN does not require every entry in a list to be documented in sources to meet notability requirements, but I do not believe that this was meant to do away with verifiability requirements for list articles. Even if the article technically complies with listn, there are no sources for what should be the crux of the article). Spirit of Eagle (talk) 23:29, 30 November 2020 (UTC) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 23:29, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I am withdrawing my nomination on the grounds that sources have been brought up that do seem to be keeping live track. This has been a colossal waste of everyone's time and I apologize for the blatant violation of WP:BEFORE. Trouts may be posted here. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 19:05, 1 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep - This is becoming quite the tradition, though I fail to understand why you have gone from being one of the first to !vote keep (one, two) to being the one proposing deletion. This still meets WP:LISTN, and has for the last three years. WP:V remains met, also. As you mention, lists are constantly posted by various media outlets. Regardless of whether they base their content on Wikipedia, some are reliable and are therefore referenceable . You are correct in saying that hundreds of hours are uploaded every second, but it's highly unlikely that a new video will be uploaded and become the most disliked video without some sort of media coverage. Here's an article discussing the fact that the 2018 YouTube Rewind is now the most disliked video. We do not need a database that lists disliked videos for this list to be notable.  Anarchyte  ( talk  &#8226;  work ) 04:31, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
 * This article is purporting to be an authoritative list of the 50 most disliked YouTube videos. You're right that the most disliked video doesn't change much, but what about videos 2-50? Can we really be certain that we aren't missing any from the list, that we aren't listing videos that do not belong on the list, and that the rankings are accurate? To answer my rhetorical question, no and its far, far more likely they are wrong than right (we however have no way of knowing due to the lack of sources). I agree that we have tons of sources, and an article such as "YouTube videos known for dislikes" or "Dislikes on YouTube" would meet notability requirements and other key policies. However, we are not nominating those articles, but a list article that is original research at its core. This article would need to be fundamentally rewritten to meet verifiability; in its current form, there is no way to make it comply with core content policies. To go back to my previous keep votes, this was not a nomination I wanted to make and honestly put it off for months. However, attempts at addressing these issues have fizzled out, and article is now at odds with key policy. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 17:10, 1 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep per Anarchyte. This is a topic which pretty clearly meets LISTN, the most-disliked YouTube videos are often discussed as a group, and it does not change often enough to be unverifiable. Any problems with keeping it updated is pretty simple, just add an "as of" column to the table. That way, there is no accuracy concern. Devonian Wombat (talk) 06:47, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone  09:38, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone  09:38, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone  09:38, 1 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep The fact that some information may be outdated at times does not affect notability of any article. Sources cover this.  Once notable, always notable.  No valid reason given for deletion.   D r e a m Focus  17:56, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
 * My argument is that the core of the article is original research that has no way of meeting verifiability requirements (a much lower standard than notability which nonetheless needs to be met). As for datedness, this isn't an "at times issue". Without some sort of sorter, we can expect the list to be consistently wrong and inaccurate especially outside the top two or three most disliked videos; the problem will only increase as the archived database becomes increasingly out of date. This isn't like a list of tallest buildings or oldest person; YouTube statistics change so quickly that anything besides a live count will be wrong very quickly. Also, I've reviewed many of these static sources, and they don't explain how they got their rankings. It is incredibly likely that what sources that do exist are taking their rankings straight from this article. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 19:01, 1 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep and close. Nominator has withdrawn nomination. Paintspot Infez (talk) 20:37, 1 December 2020 (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.