Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Most Viewed On YouTube


 * 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   SNOW delete. Jennavecia (Talk)  16:40, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Most Viewed On YouTube

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

So many reasons, ... As an afterthought, this is proof enough for me that youtube needs to be put on a blacklist lol. Also this article promotes the sin of RECENTISM...How, or why, on earth have more people viewed "4 minutes" than "Thriller"? — Realist  2  20:03, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Wikipedia is not a directory. Plus, those numbers will change all the time, how will it ever stay current? Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 20:05, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Just....Wow.. Obviously, I think this must be deleted because there is no possible encyclopedic value in it and per Hammer.  More importantly, I want to see the rationale for keeping it, and I am sure someone will try to provide some.  P HARMBOY  ( TALK ) 20:08, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Total delete. Not only is this a directory, it's a piece of pure original research, and veering dubiously close to advertising. And of course, it's totally unmaintainable. –  iride scent  20:12, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm also seeing random new accounts remove AfD tag, shrug. — Realist  2  20:14, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - wow, impossible to maintain, arbitrary... yeah, definitely not appropriate for an encyclopedia. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:13, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Ummm, yeah... WP:NOT -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 20:19, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
 * DON'T DELETE - This information is important for me and many others. It is interesting and useful and i hope you and other will help to develop it - rather than just delete!! Nr9krw
 * Comment Your reasons are that it is "important", "interesting" and "useful". So, you like it then?  This is the text book example I was looking for, thank you.  And can I suggest this article for reading. P HARMBOY  ( TALK ) 20:33, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, stop it, my eyes are watering. :-) — Realist  2  20:36, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Dont Delete - I agree i found the article very interesting. I would like to see more. Jonesbr02  —Preceding undated comment was added at 20:36, 25 September 2008 (UTC).  — Jonesbr02 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Oh we know you like it, you popped out of nowhere and started blanking this page and removing the AfD tag. What drew you to this article is of interest mind...— Realist  2  20:41, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
 * — Jonesbr02 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.  Corvus cornix  talk  20:45, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Don't Delete - I too enjoyed this article - why do some of you want to delete it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.161.141.192 (talk) 20:39, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh we know you like it, you popped out of nowhere and started blanking this page and removing the AfD tag. What drew you to this article is of interest mind...— Realist  2  20:41, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment This IP is likely the IP of Nr9krw. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 20:42, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Hmmm, you think? –  iride scent  20:43, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
 * That would be sockpuppeting, would it not? P HARMBOY  ( TALK ) 20:45, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Yep, socky, Does an admin just want to close this as delete so we can go back to reality? — Realist  2  20:46, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Technically, an admin would just ban the IP and username for a couple of days, and the debate would continue. It is still a valid AFD, just a lamer trying to !vote twice.  Reporting a sockpuppet takes about 1 month to get results, however, unless an admin wanted to simply step up and fix the issue on the fly. P HARMBOY  ( TALK ) 20:49, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
 * NO it's not actually!!!! Nr9krw
 * Actually, it is exactly sockpuppeting, textbook even. P HARMBOY  ( TALK ) 21:00, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete -- (edit conflicts) Very interesting article, however my main concern is accuracy. Specifically, the list is inherently difficult to maintain and I fear that, due to wiki's high Google rating, a large number of readers may happen upon an outdated or inaccurate page. This could reflect poorly on the encyclopaedia. While this may be fine for a page of high import or encyclopaedic value, this is not the case for the article in question. Also, this is not an encyclopaedic compilation of various sources in order to provide a coherent article, it is merely sourced to YouTube which updates it weekly (according to the article). No need for us to mirror YouTube's directory. Lazulilasher (talk) 20:50, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete (and salt if need be) per nom. Totally unencyclopedic (though a wee bit interesting if I cared what people watched...I don't) and as Lazulilasher pointed out, virtually impossible to keep current and/or correct. I love the fact that it has citations though. Who compiled the stats? Pinkadelica (talk) 21:04, 25 September 2008 (UTC)


 * COMMENT Please refer to WP:Suspected_sock_puppets/Nr9krw for the sockpuppet case against User:Nr9krw, User:Jonesbr02 and 86.161.141.192 P HARMBOY  ( TALK ) 22:08, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, well, well. The lengths people will go to in order to keep an article. Hmm, I mean, innocent until proven guilty...— Realist  2  22:14, 25 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Total delete. For reasons already mentioned: The article is unmaintainable and purely original research. Tenho Karite (talk) 22:29, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete It's original research and the numbers change everyday.... It doesn't help that the creator is a suspected sockpuppeter...Ahem, innocent until proven guilty...Oh right, unencyclopedic...-- Xp54321 ( Hello! • Contribs ) 22:35, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete: Wikipedia is not for statistics. Maybe this should be a snowball delete. Schuy m 1  ( talk ) 23:03, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete I echo the above discussion, and I would have to agree that it is unencyclopedic and original research - Delete as such. Schfifty  Three  00:10, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom and Iridescent: it's a directory, it's total original research, and it's unmaintainable. Cliff smith  talk  00:38, 26 September 2008 (UTC)  Oh, and as noted above by Gogo Dodo, these are statistics.  Looks like it's about to snow.  Cliff smith  talk  00:39, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:OR and WP:NOTDIRECTORY. X MarX the Spot (talk) 08:26, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Not only is it an unmaintainable list, the article does not list what its subject says. It is not the most viewed on Youtube, it is the most viewed of three people selected based on no stated criteria.  Edward321 (talk) 14:15, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * SNOWBALL COMMENT I don't declare wp:snowball very often, but in this case, the only !votes to keep are 3 users who are all reported as sockpuppets as the same user (see above and decide for yourself). All/he is the only editor/s of the article.  P HARMBOY  ( TALK ) 14:25, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * CLEAR DIRTY TRICKS GOING ON: Aside the sock puppetry, content is being removed from the article that will and already has swapped "votes" in this AfD. — Realist  2  14:36, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Not really, all the keep votes are sockpuppets of the same person, hense the snowball declaration. P HARMBOY  ( TALK ) 14:39, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Arbitrary list with no unifying justification for selecting the particular artists presented. Also agree with prior comments of WP:OR and issue and maintainability.  --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 14:51, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - Pointless, non-notable, and constantly changing list. At most, one or two of the entries might needs a brief mention in another article. But not an entire list. Ward3001 (talk) 16:13, 26 September 2008 (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.