Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of most-followed Twitch channels


 * 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__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. I don't personally like this result, but consensus here is quite clear. Vanamonde (Talk) 23:04, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

List of most-followed Twitch channels

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Possibly violates WP:LISTN and WP:INDISCRIMINATE. There are only two sources in the article, and both are routine data collections. From looking at a Google search, there doesn't seem to be much non-routine coverage of the most followed Twitch channels from secondary sources.

See also:

Articles for deletion/List of most-liked TikTok videos

Articles for deletion/List of most-subscribed YouTube Music artists

123957a (talk) 05:58, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet and Lists. 123957a (talk) 05:58, 7 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Delete Unlike, say, a List of tallest mountains, this is likely to change every month if not every day and requires undue effort to keep updated. Wikipedia is not a news site. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 08:22, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete - This is likely to be in a constant state of flux, and is more suited for a news site or suchlike, not a Wikipedia article. --TheInsatiableOne (talk) 10:49, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete Some content can be mentioned on main article though. Azuredivay (talk) 13:57, 7 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Delete: Nigh impossible to maintain per above, and not even the only measure of a channel's popularity -- you might as well list most subscribers, etc. (Also, while this isn't a rationale for deletion exactly, it is probably a magnet for self-promotion.)
 * Gnomingstuff (talk) 18:52, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 22:37, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep listing the most popular of anything and linking to their articles, is a valid navigational list. Every article for a movie, album, game, etc, list the sales figures, and this information is outdated weekly the first months after it comes out.  The infoboxes for business list a company's revenue, that information outdated every month.  Being outdated is not a valid reason to delete information, and certainly not an entire list.  You list when the last time the information was updated at the top, and its fine.   D r e a m Focus  21:31, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep. Not indiscriminate for Wikipedia to keep—it lists the top 50 (not say, 500), so has a focus and a purpose. "Requires undue effort to keep updated", "nigh impossible to maintain"—it's not hard to keep maintained at all. There are editors who will come along and do this, and per Dream Focus above, it has a date for when it was last updated anyway. The sourcing could be better, but I don't see that as a reason to delete here because what are the most-followed Twitch channels do get news coverage, so I believe the sources are out there.  Ss  112   12:48, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete Too hard to maintain, and "most-followed Twitch channels" is not a notable topic, so it also fails LISTN. QuicoleJR (talk) 22:29, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Comment Could perhaps move to "notable Twitch channels", with proper sourcing. Otherwise, nothing we can use here. Oaktree b (talk) 23:24, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete The problem is the subscriber numbers aren't audited, can be bought and can be boosted using bots. We keeps lists of popular songs, popular movies, most subscribed-to newspapers as we have results that are audited/certified using reliable methods. The fact that you can pay someone hundreds or thousands of dollars and buy fake likes and follows means we can't use these numbers as proof of "popularity". Oaktree b (talk) 19:34, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
 * How is this not WP:JDLI? That people shouldn't pay attention to them doesn't mean they don't. &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 19:54, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I do like them, I'm explaining why we don't count number of subs for notability. Oaktree b (talk) 22:52, 22 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Keep - I'll disagree that this is too hard to maintain (or that "it's too hard to maintain [a list of 50]") is a good reason to delete. Just create a standard for the page to, say, update it once a month or something. There are plenty of easy editorial decisions to manage it, and plenty of other similar lists. Meanwhile, it's a list of the most popular accounts on the most popular streaming platform in the world, so of course there are sources to meet NLIST (just on the first page of google results there's Sports Illustrated, USA Today, GameRant, Forbes India, Espots News, The Loadout, and Insider. &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 14:44, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete. Unmaintainable, and of questionable notability as a concept. Stifle (talk) 09:11, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete Unmaintainable, and "most-followed Twitch channels" fails WP:LISTN.  // Timothy :: talk  14:40, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep: The list being "unmaintainable" is not only surmountable per WP:OUTDATED but it also describes almost all Wikipedia articles, since most things, people, and places with Wikipedia articles and/or our knowledge of them are changing constantly; the whole point is that editors are expected to update them if they so choose, and, based on the consistent updates to lists of the same ilk, the fear of this being "unmaintainable" is baseless. Per, it passes WP:LISTN. ben ǝʇᴉɯ  15:00, 17 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Comment: Not to support either side on this proposal, but if this list is on consideration for deletion due to maintaining difficulty, should these lists also not be considered as well? They're practically the same thing, just on other social media platforms.
 * List of most-followed Instagram accounts
 * List of most-followed TikTok accounts
 * List of most-followed Facebook pages
 * List of most-subscribed YouTube channels B3251 (talk) 02:19, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Relisting comment: Please note that ITSUSEFUL, ILIKEIT, and OTHERSTUFF are all considered to be poor arguments. I would like to also see a source analysis. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Guerillero Parlez Moi 14:26, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment The lists mentioned above have no problem staying up to date, while would this article be any different? Liz Read! Talk! 03:51, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep WP:COMMONSENSE Useful list that receives over 30,000 monthly views. None of the arguments rely on policy and lists like this (most-followed Instagram accounts, most subscribed YouTube channels.. etc.) exist and should not be deleted because they are "hard to maintain". As for the notability question, here are a bunch of reliable sources showing interest in the most-followed Twitch channels: NME BBC, New Yorker. If anyone wanted to illustrate how out of touch Wikipedia editors are, this deletion discussion would be perfect. Cheers! :Célestin Denis (talk) 18:52, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
 * The "Lists like this" part of your argument is WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, and I do not believe anyone wants to update this, leaving it practically useless. Pageviews are also not a valid argument for keeping an article. QuicoleJR (talk) 13:26, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
 * You don't "believe anyone wants to update this"? Then why have there been over 50 edits to the article since the start of this year, most of which are adjustments to the follower counts?  Ss  112   12:59, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep per Rhododendrites. It's not that hard to keep up to date, and more generally, it doesn't even need to be - we cover stuff like old census data or what critics thought the best movies of 1976 are.   Think WP:10YEARTEST - would it be reasonable to cover the hottest social media trends of 2013?  Absolutely, see stuff like Harlem Shake (meme).  So even if this list goes out of date, it may still be worthwhile.  Twitch streamers & Twitch are certainly newsworthy & notable enough.  SnowFire (talk) 01:59, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * There are two sources given, neither of which seem particularly notable. I can't find any additional sourcing in RS that discuss notable streamers for this platform. Oaktree b (talk) 22:54, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
 * @Oaktree b, I went and added some sources to the list that are more solid. It is challenging to find sources with some of the names but I gave it a shot.  Dr vulpes  (💬 • 📝) 00:18, 23 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Keep This article is essentially the same as List of most-followed Instagram accounts & List of most-followed TikTok accounts so there is a precedent to allow these types of lists. Grahaml35 (talk) 05:26, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep The article is a useful jumping off point for readers who are interested in learning more about streamers on Twitch. I think this is unique in that Streaming can be a little complicated if you have no idea or frame of reference about it. There are numerous other lists which have shown to be at least somewhat useful and have not been removed, this list is also at least that useful. I've gone though and added sources to support the list. One problem I saw was streamers who are listed there but don't have an article about them here. For almost all of those cases I found sources to support who they were, their name, and that they steam on Twitch. I was able to find newspaper articles to support some of the streamers which I found valuable. To bring this list in line with the general style of other similar lists I added a column for county. In cases where the streamer moved/moves between two places I added a source to support that. This was a lot harder for the last few entries on the list and I wouldn't oppose cutting that number down a bit.  Dr vulpes  (💬 • 📝) 08:00, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment, I'll do a partial source analysis tomorrow if this is still up.  Dr vulpes  (💬 • 📝) 08:21, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment Just wanted to give a short update. I've made more improvements to the article but didn't get around to do the analysis of the sources. That's on me, I just went down a rabbit hole and got tired so I took my partner out for lunch. If this is still open tomorrow I'll try my best to get that (abridged) analysis done. Normally this isn't that much work for me but in this case there are 50 people with sources in multiple language I have to go though. It's not an excuse just an explanation of the bumps in the road I've experienced.  Dr vulpes  (💬 • 📝) 09:35, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Partial Analysis of Sources: List of most-followed Twitch channels by  Dr vulpes  (💬 • 📝)

At the start of this AfD this page had two sources, it now has eighty five. As a result I'm not going to go over every source but I'll go over the "best", the "worst", generally good sources, and some important articles.. I identified these sources using the CiteHighlighter script by Novem Linguae, WikiProject Video games, New page patrol source guide, Newspaper of record, and WP:RSP. Since this is a list the sources are almost all used to just verify a fact such as a streamers name, the game they play, and their location. A few explain what twitch is, and a couple explain why a streamer is no longer streaming on Twitch. This might not be complete, there might be mistakes, I did my best.

Generally reliable

Source for determining reliability

WikiProject Video games


 * Hobbyconsolas, Large Spanish video game magazine.
 * Dot Esports. This is the most used source in the page
 * Shacknews
 * IGN
 * The Verge
 * Polygon
 * Kotaku
 * GamesRadar
 * PC Gamer

New page patrol source guide


 * BBC News
 * ESPN
 * Sports Illustrated
 * New Musical Express (NME)
 * The Hollywood Reporter
 * Variety
 * Los Angeles Times
 * Washington Post
 * Associated Press
 * Bloomberg

Newspaper of record


 * Los Angeles Times
 * Washington Post

Marginally reliable or no consensus

New page patrol source guide


 * CNBC WP:NEWSORG but concerns have been raised about their promotion of non-notable crypto.
 * This source is used once to establish a streamers name.
 * Daily Mirror (Tabloid)
 * This source is used once to establish a streamers name and the game they best known for streaming.

Generally unreliable, deprecated, or blacklisted


 * Twitter as per WP:USERGENERATED and WP:RSPTWITTER this source is generally unacceptable for use.
 * This source is used once in a pair of references to note that a streamer is no longer streaming on Twitch. The streamer that this is used for is Harley Fresh (Fresh), he is low on the list ranked 45th most followed on Twitch. The combination of being low on the list and located in Australia result in him not having a lot of press coverage. If he were located in Europe or the Americas this would not have been a problem. Twitter should never be used for any claim of a third party person and this tweet came from Fresh and was about himself.

WikiProject Video games and New page patrol source guide

Sources that are generally fine
 * Dexerto has poor editorial control and is known to have errors in reporting. In a RfC on this source it was decided to not deprecast it.
 * This source is used once to support the previous tweet by Fresh and is the best secondary source about that tweet.

Sources that are generally fine

Books


 * Fletcher, Gordon; Adolphus, Noel (2022). Creating a successful digital presence : objectives, strategies and tactics. Noel Adolphus. Abingdon, Oxon: Taylor & Francis
 * Book published by an academic publisher that notes that Pokimane is the most popular female streamer.
 * Furgang, Adam (2019). Saidian, Siyavush (ed.). Tyler Ninja Blevins : Twitch's Top Streamer with 11 Million+ Followers (1st ed.). New York, NY: Rosen Publishing Group. ISBN 978-1-7253-4602-4.
 * Book published about Ninja and that he is the most followed streamer on Twitch. Checked the publisher and this is a real publishing house and not a self-publishing service.

Peer Reviewed Articles


 * Thorne, Sarah (January 29, 2023). Murray, Brittany (ed.). "#Emotional: Exploitation & Burnout in Creator Culture". CLCWeb: Comparative Literature and Culture. Purdue University Press. 24 (4). doi:10.7771/1481-4374.4088
 * Peer reviewed article that notes Ninja is the most popular male streamer.
 * Sjöblom, Max; Törhönen, Maria; Hamari, Juho; Macey, Joseph (2019). "The ingredients of Twitch streaming: Affordances of game streams". Computers in Human Behavior. 92: 20–28. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2018.10.012
 * Peer reviewed article that notes Twitch is a live streaming platform and includes an analysis of the social functions of a group of streamers.

Local and National Newspapers.


 * Krishnan, Joe (January 25, 2019). "Gaming Twitch Stars are Gaming's A-List". Evening Standard. London, Greater London, England. pp. A54.
 * Perugini, Nicholas (August 15, 2019). "Local Gamer Wins Big: Teen Plays in Fortnite World Cup". Town Times News. Southbury, Connecticut.
 * Hegarty, Aaron (October 14, 2018). "Omaha gamer DrLupo plays 'Fornite', meets about 400 fans at Nebraska Furniture Mart". Omaha World-Herald. Omaha, Nebraska. p. 22
 * Cifuentes, Nora (October 10, 2020). "Cuando ser un impostor esta de moda". El Nuevo Herald. pp. A5
 * Saad, Nardine (October 3, 2022). "Popular YouTuber and 'Minecraft' gamer Dream reveals his face to followers". Los Angeles Times.
 * Twitch star DrLupo signs exclusive YouTube deal, now 'secure for life'". Washington Post.
 * Harwell, Drew (December 2, 2021). "Up all night with a Twitch millionaire: The loneliness and rage of the Internet's new rock stars". Washington Post.

Stories in newspapers that are reprints from syndicated news services or another news paper.


 * Drake, 'Ninja' play 'Fortnite' break a record". Fresno Bee. Associated Press. March 17, 2018. pp. B8
 * Kharif, Olga (May 13, 2021). "Female streamers are conquering Twitch". Valley News. West Lebanon, New Hampshire. Bloomberg.
 * Browning, Kellen; Hill, Kashmir (July 31, 2022). "A hidden price of fame". Citizens' Voice. New York Times. pp. A14
 * Amenabar, Teddy; Lee, Jonathan (September 30, 2023). "'Fortnite' turns 5". The Santa Fe New Mexican. Santa Fe, New Mexico. Washington Post.

Important Articles

Three streamers move to Andorra for tax reasons.

These articles were all in Spanish so I included a quote to support the claim and the translated quote in the reference


 * This newspaper labels itself as a progressive daily newspaper and has had connections with the socialist party in Catalonia. The coverage is brief but the source is only used to establish that the streamer Auronplay had moved to Andorra.
 * Argentinian news channel, source is only used to establish the streamers move to Andorra.
 * Argentinian news channel, source is only used to establish the streamers move to Andorra.
 * Argentinian news channel, source is only used to establish the streamers move to Andorra.
 * Argentinian news channel, source is only used to establish the streamers move to Andorra.

Two streamers born in Mexico now stream in the United States.

These two articles were only used to support the location of the streamer as they have streamed in both places.



 Dr vulpes  (💬 • 📝) 22:17, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment what the above shows is that this list fails LISTN, and the idea of "most followed" is a highly fluctuating target. Wikipedia is not a Twitch leaderboard.  // Timothy :: talk  21:48, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm not following what you mean by the above list shows that this article fails WP:LISTN @TimothyBlue, if you could lay it out a little more for me I would appreciate it. Here is how I'm seeing things and if I'm wrong or off base please let me know, I promise I'm not being a jerk or am being sarcastic. According to the sources in the article the list is notable based on multiple sources including newspaper articles, peer reviewed journal articles, and online news providers. Because the topic is notable everyone that is listed in the article does not have to be independently notable. At least that's what I think it says in WP:LISTN.
 * I get that the topic of "lists of most XYZ" is a polarizing topic in AfD. It's one of the more interesting aspects of consensus in AfD, since we have to do these sort of articles on a case by case basis you get a patchwork of decisions. I've noticed some push back at AfD when articles are nominated here that cover streamers. It's a topic that is a little newer and harder to always establish notability for reliable sources, trust me I just hunted for sources for this article and it wasn't super easy.
 * Lets just go over some of the "lists of most XYZ" that have been in AfD.
 * List of most prolific porn stars ❌ Delete
 * Was deleted due to not really having a useable definition of "most prolific"
 * List of most-played video games by player count ❌ Delete
 * Was deleted due to the list trying to make an apples to oranges comparison for different games
 * List of most-streamed songs on Spotify ✅ Keep
 * Noted that the list was useful and good content that people wanted to see ~169,000 views last 30 days
 * List of most-subscribed YouTube channels ✅ Speedy Keep
 * Widespread coverage of the topic ~278,000 views last 30 days
 * List of most-subscribed YouTube channels (2nd nomination) ✅ Speedy Keep
 * Nominator didn't WP:BEFORE
 * List of most-viewed YouTube channels ✅ Keep
 * Keep as topix was deemed notable ~33,000 views last 30 days
 * List of most-viewed YouTube channels (2nd nomination) ✅ Keep
 * Article deemed notable and to pass WP:LISTN
 * List of most-followed Twitter accounts ✅ No consensus
 * Similar arguments for delete that we see here that the list will fluctuate and that Wikipedia isn't a list of statistics ~ 82,000 views per 30 days
 * List of most-followed Twitter accounts (2nd nomination) ✅ Keep
 * List deemed reliable and important as the topic of most followed people on twitter was notable, list passes WP:LISTN.
 * List of most-retweeted tweets ✅ No consensus
 * Similar arguments that we have here, list isn't notable doesn't pass WP:LISTN. Other side saying that sources support the articles support it passing WP:LISTN~ 9,000 views per 30 days
 * List of most-retweeted tweets (2nd nomination) ✅ Keep
 * Passes WP:LISTN article is not WP:NOTSTATS
 * So lets ask some questions about this article
 * Does List of most-followed Twitch channels pass WP:LISTN?
 * Yes, we have multiple sources which would pass WP:GNG that make note of the importance that this has in the general public. Multiple types of sources, in depth reporting over a long period of time, and across multiple languages and cultures all support this list as being notable.
 * Does the fluctuating nature of the List of most-followed Twitch channels article raise a concern about it's maintenance or notability?
 * No, lists of things change we have already established that both most-subscribed and most-viewed YouTube channels are notable even in the face of fluctuating numbers. WP:UPTODAT isn't a good argument here, this is Wikipedia if something is out of date just fix it. If this is a serious issue that the community is concerned with we can just ask for someone to write a bot to update it every now and then.
 * Does the List of most-followed Twitch channels article have a standard metric for establishing most-followed?
 * Yes, unlike in the AfD for List of most prolific porn stars we have a metric which is quantifiable, stable, and verifiable. Just like YouTube.
 * Does the List of most-followed Twitch channels article compare followers across different platforms or groupings?
 * No, unlike in the AfD for List of most played video games by player count we see that the list is only listing followers from one platform where a follower is equal for all streamers on the platform. In practice this means that the value of one follower is always one follower, being a paying follower does not give that streamer ten followers etc.
 * That's at least how I'm seeing this AfD and article. I see a lot of parallels with the AfDs for the YouTube and Twitter lists.  Dr vulpes  (💬 • 📝) 23:32, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete: WP:ILIKEIT and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS don't work. Not every Twitch channel can pass the notability. CastJared (talk) 15:16, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
 * In WP:LISTN it says lays it down fairly clearly that "Because the group or set is notable, the individual items in the list do not need to be independently notable..." so just because some of the entries on the list would not have enough sources to be notable does not make the list not notable.
 * Let's use a few examples to establish that this list is notable and lets not use the sources that are in the article. Here are two that I liked from Newspapers.com an article in the Ottawa Citizen talking about some of the top chess streamers on Twitch and a local paper talking about the top streamers in North Carolina. Both articles talk about followers and that in their niche (Chess, North Carolina) they are the top streamers. The topic of "List of most-followed Twitch channels" is notable and subdividing into smaller groups will most likely also be notable. I know that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS isn't a good argument, in my previous post I was pointing out the evolution of lists like this where the first time similar lists are brought to AfD they don't hit consensus and then later at another AfD they are kept. WP:ILIKEIT or WP:IDONTLIKEIT are both irrelevant, based on the notability guidelines and sources provided the list holds up on it's own.
 *  Dr vulpes  (💬 • 📝) 19:33, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete: As per nomination Samuel R Jenkins (talk) 06:06, 30 April 2023 (UTC) Blocked sock. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 03:39, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment - AfD is not a vote. Has anyone here actually evaluated the multiple sources provided which give significant coverage to the topic "as a group or set" before expressing this argument that it fails WP:NLIST? Seems most of the people voting delete here have yet to do a thorough examination of the sources Dr. Vulpes cited, and are still claiming that the keep votes are merely voting so because "they like it" or "other stuff exists". So far I have yet to see anyone actually refute that the sources provided aren't reliable and/or significant enough to make this topic pass the guidelines. 2601:645:C57F:FD80:E825:8167:505A:397 (talk) 18:30, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
 * - WP:ILIKEIT and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS doesn't work. Agreed. CastJared (talk) 14:17, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep. WP:NLIST is well satisfied here. The concept of Twitch streamers and their number of followers clearly generate coverage and the WP:LSC appears to currently be the top 50 streamers which is unambiguous and suggests to me we don't need to be concerned with the notability of each individual streamer in the list. I don't think Dr. vulpes's analysis of previous similar AfDs is OSE in this case, since it's specifically looking at past AfDs for conceptually similar pages to see if there's broad consensus to keep pages like this, which it seems like there is. I think there are some issues with the page itself (linking to Twitch instead of Wikipedia pages in the table's first column, including people who no longer have Twitch channels which would seem like a disqualifier, etc), but the article is worth having. Dylnuge  (Talk • Edits) 15:52, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep and I'm not particularly thrilled to be here as this doesn't feel encyclopedic to me. But that's IDON'TLIKEIT; the sourcing is perfectly fine to support the relative rankings on the list members, and there are ample references to "one of the most popular channels on Twitch" as noted above, so I don't think NLIST is implicated. It legitimately can function as a navigational aid, so usefulness is a perfectly reasonable argument. Unless we uncover some good reason to believe Twitch is playing fast and loose with follower counts, and until we reach a sitewide consensus through an RfC on how to handle all of these types of lists, I think this one can stay.Xymmax So let it be written   So let it be done  03:34, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep Here are the first few results of a quick web search: . None are perfect, however it is enough to suggest to me that the topic has sufficient coverage. However, I am open to changing my !vote (or finding more sources, since these were just the first few) if most of these are found to be unreliable. MrsSnoozyTurtle 12:21, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
 * - WP:ILIKEIT and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS doesn't work. Agreed. CastJared (talk) 14:17, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep. WP:NLIST is well satisfied here. The concept of Twitch streamers and their number of followers clearly generate coverage and the WP:LSC appears to currently be the top 50 streamers which is unambiguous and suggests to me we don't need to be concerned with the notability of each individual streamer in the list. I don't think Dr. vulpes's analysis of previous similar AfDs is OSE in this case, since it's specifically looking at past AfDs for conceptually similar pages to see if there's broad consensus to keep pages like this, which it seems like there is. I think there are some issues with the page itself (linking to Twitch instead of Wikipedia pages in the table's first column, including people who no longer have Twitch channels which would seem like a disqualifier, etc), but the article is worth having. Dylnuge  (Talk • Edits) 15:52, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep and I'm not particularly thrilled to be here as this doesn't feel encyclopedic to me. But that's IDON'TLIKEIT; the sourcing is perfectly fine to support the relative rankings on the list members, and there are ample references to "one of the most popular channels on Twitch" as noted above, so I don't think NLIST is implicated. It legitimately can function as a navigational aid, so usefulness is a perfectly reasonable argument. Unless we uncover some good reason to believe Twitch is playing fast and loose with follower counts, and until we reach a sitewide consensus through an RfC on how to handle all of these types of lists, I think this one can stay.Xymmax So let it be written   So let it be done  03:34, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep Here are the first few results of a quick web search: . None are perfect, however it is enough to suggest to me that the topic has sufficient coverage. However, I am open to changing my !vote (or finding more sources, since these were just the first few) if most of these are found to be unreliable. MrsSnoozyTurtle 12:21, 2 May 2023 (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.