Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of most watched YouTube videos


 * 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) — Theo polisme  01:27, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

List of most watched YouTube videos

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Unencyclopedic and unmaintainable trivia. Delete. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 22:15, 25 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep: As the creator of the article, I'm not sure if I'm allowed to vote "keep", but anyway: Wikipedia has "unencyclopedic trivia" such as List of most watched television broadcasts, List of most watched sporting events in 2004 and List of films that most frequently use the word "fuck". See also Category:Superlatives. Toccata quarta (talk) 22:24, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
 * To answer your question... yes, you are most certainly allowed to indicate your preference to Keep. (We don't actually "vote" on Wikipedia; we build consensus. See also WP:!VOTE.) --76.189.101.221 (talk) 15:27, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Well... the only problem is that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS isn't really a way to argue for inclusion because sometimes people show articles that aren't notable or are sourced properly, etc. You can state that there is precedence with lists that collect data such as "most viewed ____", but it also comes down to you being able to show that it passes WP:NLIST. I do think that there is potential for an article of this sort since many of the videos listed here are ones that have been recorded for having notable amounts of YT viewings, but it's also a list that would potentially be dynamic in that it could change frequently and would need someone to monitor this. Of course things changing rapidly isn't always a reason to delete. In any case, I recommend sourcing each of the videos with a source independent of the video or YT channel, etc. As can be seen in the case of Rebecca Black's Friday, sometimes people take their videos down and the hits are almost always reset when/if they are uploaded again, so it's good to have an outside RS that observes the amount of viewings.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 22:44, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I understand what you are saying, but there is a fair amount of coverage of this phenomenon right now; YouTube has a new "most watched video", and it is receiving plenty of coverage (go to Google News and type in "most watched youtube"). Toccata quarta (talk) 22:51, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Which is why it's so incredibly important to source the article, which is sort of the point I was trying to get across. A list of this nature can be notable, but it's a good idea to source it with RS that discuss the amount of YT views. That way you can easily show the notability for each one. I've linked to each article, but it'd be a good idea to source each one. All it'd take is one source for each one, I think.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 22:56, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment: Seems to be it would be more useful (and much easier) to recast the article as something more along the lines of List of YouTube videos with more than 500 million hits. Something like that ... Faustus37 (talk) 09:26, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Strong keep - I completely disagree with the nominating edtior who said the article is "Unencyclopedic and unmaintainable trivia". IMO, it is most certainly encyclopedic, easily maintainable, and not trivial at all. YouTube is an Internet icon, and arguably a cultural icon. Why is this article any different than, let's say, this great one: List of best-selling music artists, which has sections based on number of sales? Both are undoubtably notable and very important in their genres. What would disqualify this article that does not disqualify the music artists one? Or hundreds of other similar Lists on Wikipedia? This YouTube list is easily sourced via YouTube Charts and is the online equivalent to the music artists list when it comes to video sites. Unless someone can point to a specific guideline that clearly disqualifies this list, it should stay. I think it's great and, frankly, I'm shocked it wasn't created a long time ago. Btw, the article title should definitely be changed to "List of most viewed YouTube videos", not "watched". YouTube stats are based on views, not watches. --76.189.101.221 (talk) 15:10, 26 November 2012 (UTC) 23:23, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete as is. It's just taken from a YouTube chart that's always going to be changing and will never be adequately sourced (for example, the Gangname Style is already 2 million more than what's posted). However, the phenomena is real as the Gangnam Style video proves, so it needs more of a cultural impact slant. There's better ways to present this, not just numbers. -- Star cheers peaks news lost wars Talk to me 04:35, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:14, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:14, 27 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep and improve, but perhaps move page name to address cultural impact and surrounding phenomenon, which is easily confirmed and discussed in literally numerous secondary sources. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 20:02, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
 * My impetus for creating this list was the article Social impact of YouTube, where documentation of the "most watched YouTube video" phenomenon has been taking place recently. Would you therefore propose merging? Toccata quarta (talk) 20:11, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Again, YouTube videos are "viewed", not "watched". The title needs corrected. ;) --76.189.101.221 (talk) 20:59, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep with reservations and proposed modifications. I had hoped to find an encyclopedic article that would show the history of #1 videos on YouTube, but nothing like that exists. As new #1 videos often get at least cursory news coverage, that should be something able to be recreated and maintained into the future, and address notability. As is this is just a recapitulation of a list that at best makes the information easier to find (YouTube themselves actually don't make it super obvious), constantly changing. But list of historical #1s would be similar to other music lists and lists such as successor holders of a tallest building title. --Dhartung | Talk 19:13, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep I suggest adding more columns (rank, title, artist, language, year released, views) and making them sortable. Stuartyeates (talk) 04:02, 1 December 2012 (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.