Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/YouTube Top 100


 * 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   redirect to Billboard Social 50.  MBisanz  talk 00:03, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

YouTube Top 100

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Chart violates WP:SINGLEVENDOR, which is, itself, a consequence of WP:NOTADVERTISING. Charts which do not combine sales or plays by multiple vendors or outlets serve only to promote the single outlet that they rank. There are dozens of such charts which are routinely removed from articles, and this is just one more. &mdash;Kww(talk) 15:28, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm just expanding my nomination rationale to emphasise that the nomination doesn't focus on notability. There's a general problem with careful chart tracking, in that charts, at their core, serve as advertisements. They aren't simple numeric measures: they are carefully weighted, with eligibility requirements, timing requirements, rules about reentry, etc., in an effort to market and promote different genres and artists. That puts tracking any of them close to running afoul of WP:NOTADVERTISING. It would be impossible to cover the music industry without mention of charts, though. Even though it's marketing, it's the foundation of the way the business operates. The compromise we've come up with over the years is WP:SINGLEVENDOR: we cover charts that cross multiple channels and outlets because, despite all their faults, they provide meaningful information about the success of the individual songs on the charts. Charts that cover only a single outlet really serve to promote the outlet, not the things on the chart itself, so carefully tracking them in this manner serves no purpose except to promote the outlet.&mdash;Kww(talk) 15:26, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
 * And your accusations of this article being an "advertisement" are totally unfounded. Whether a newly created article "violates" WP:NOTADVERTISING or not depends entirely on how the article was originally written, not on the topic of the article itself. WP:SINGLEVENDOR may or may not have been a suitable guideline for the past few years, but the fact is that times have changed and YouTube now plays a vey important role in the music industry. If the WP:SINGLEVENDOR guideline does not want to take this into consideration, then this rigid and outdated rule thoroughly deserves to be "violated" per WP:IGNORE. Repeated accusations of "WP:NOTADVERTISING" only goes to show one's lack of understanding (and misinterpration) of WP:NOT. -A1candidate (talk)-A1candidate (talk) 17:38, 22 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. - eo (talk) 21:10, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
 * YouTube Top 100 right now is the only realiable worlwide chart that shows current music trends. It gives a information about most played videos in last week. I can say that it'll be (even it is now) the most important chart in music industry. Try to look also on billboard.com--Spacejam2 (talk) 20:30, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep - Before using such words like "violating" a rigid, outdated Wikipedia rule, do pause for a moment to consider the increasingly important role YouTube has played in the music industry in 2012 alone. It does not make sense to discredit a corporation's official tracking list just because it does not "combine sales (or views)". If there is a good reason to delete this, then I would agree with you if this isn't a notable article. But like it or not, the YouTube charts are notable, and they are frequently cited by countless media networks. -A1candidate (talk) 22:22, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Arguments based on WP:N don't apply if there is a WP:NOT issue involved.&mdash;Kww(talk) 23:03, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Please avoid misinterpreting Wikipedia's guidelines; Which part of WP:NOT is this article ever a "violation" of?. You might as well delete Communism because it clearly "violates" WP:NOTOPINION. -A1candidate (talk) 07:36, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Tracking a single vendor chart serves only to promote that vendor. I'm not arguing that YouTube shouldn't be mentioned on Wikipedia, or that the existence of the YouTube chart shouldn't be noted at Billboard charts and YouTube. I'm simply pointing out that the normal interpretation of WP:NOTADVERTISING prevents us from using charts like this: we don't track Amazon, iTunes, Los 40 Principales, MYX, or any of thousands of single-vendor charts for precisely this reason. That YouTube is enormous doesn't change our policies: it's certainly not substantially larger or more influential than iTunes.&mdash;Kww(talk) 21:20, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I dont understand your reasoning at all... Should we then delete Time magazine's Time Person of the Year because it "serves only to promote that vendor"? Should we also delete the Forbes 500 because it "serves only to promote Forbes magazine"? Hopefully not! Those articles are there because they are notable topics, not because they are there to promote Time/Forbes magazine. And believe it or not, the iTunes charts is a good indicator of music trends and it is not uncommon for musicians to top the iTunes charts before topping national music charts. The fact that there isn't an article for the iTunes charts should be seen as a failure of the Wikipedia community to create an article for a notable topic, this reasoning shouldn't be used to argue against the existence of an article for the YouTube charts. (Thats like blatantly omitting an article about the sun and then arguing that an article for the moon should not exist either). Unfortunately, your reasoning is a seriously flawed one here. Why not delete the FIFA World Rankings (or any other rankings) because it is a serious "violation" of WP:NOTADVERTISING and only serves to promote FIFA?? -A1candidate (talk) 21:45, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete Per WP:SINGLEVENDOR. Erick (talk) 23:10, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Northamerica1000(talk) 11:19, 22 January 2013 (UTC)


 * This list is only for music videos watched each week, it not including all YouTube videos. Note, the list only list the top 96 sometimes, it not always the top 100(scroll to page 16 and see).  And the list only shows the ones that were number 1.  So if it is kept, it should be renamed to List of the most popular music videos on YouTube by week or something of that sort.  The media does mention certain notable bands and their current views of their YouTube videos at times, but I don't know of any place that updates their list every week.    D r e a m Focus  11:38, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete: It's mentioned on Billboard charts which should be quite enough. Widr (talk) 13:17, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment:  Obviously the existence of this Billboard chart is going to be covered on Wikipedia; whether it needs a separate page is a different question.  Template:Billboard shows that we have longstanding individual pages for many of the Billboard charts.  E.g., Top Heatseekers.  Trends show that YouTube and social media's power to create hits is becoming quite notable.  So, if we are going to have these chart pages, this one should be one of them.--Milowent • hasspoken  14:00, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
 * We do have articles on many of the charts, but they are actually articles about the charts, not just listings of #1 hits. At a minimum the current article should be renamed to List of or something. A very diffeent article that talks about the history and significance of the chart (from reliable sources) could be created, but thats a 100% different article than what we have. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:49, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS PEANUTBUTTER &#9734;&#9733; 18:18, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS PEANUTBUTTER &#9734;&#9733; 18:18, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS PEANUTBUTTER &#9734;&#9733; 18:18, 22 January 2013 (UTC)


 * delete This isn't even a chart to begin with, nobody is buying anything. This is based on video views. No indication that the top 100 is particularly notable, or the top 1 (which is the only one that is actually listed in this list). Individual videos are quite often notable, and they may certainly say that they were a top 1 as one of the signs of thier popularity - but the topic itself is not discussed. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:17, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Are TV ratings not charts then? As for the title, its a misnomer, the Billboard chart is not called the top 100.--Milowent • hasspoken  19:41, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Neutral but open to rescue. Redirect to Billboard Social 50 and salt Commented below. The main problem with this list is that it is completely sourced only to YouTube and there is no context that being the number one is notable. I also think each entry should be sourced, even if it is to the YouTube chart archive. If the lead explains why the accomplishment is notable and the entries become sourced I think this could be a good list. Insomesia (talk) 19:37, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I've added some context and refs now...it may be a good idea to source each individual entry, but Im hesistant about further improving on this article as long as its under deletion and there's a chance that all my efforts will go to waste. -A1candidate (talk) 20:29, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Maybe check out Hot Digital Songs, it seems to have a good structure that may help. Looking at Billboard it seems like there are just dozens of this type of article, so what's needed is more up front information demonstrating that this is a notable subject. Sourcing each entry can wait for now but definitely need to show evidence this chart is notable somehow. Insomesia (talk) 02:44, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The other charts with similar articles (like Hot Digital Songs) all collect information from multiple vendors. No one is claiming there's a notability issue.&mdash;Kww(talk) 03:09, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
 * So no one charts music videos except YouTube? Or is there any hope for this article, I'm guessing that it would be notable but maybe I'm missing more here? Insomesia (talk) 03:29, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
 * YouTube videos get charted in the Billboard Social 50, where they get combined with Facebook, Myspace, and a few other suppliers. The deletion argument for this article is that we specifically don't track charts that only contain material from a single vendor, per WP:SINGLEVENDOR and WP:NOTADVERTISING. I tried to spell it all out in the nomination and my first response. Can you read those over again and tell me what I didn't make clear?&mdash;Kww(talk) 04:01, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I wasn't aware of Billboard Social 50. I recommend redirect and salting as this is likely to repeat. Insomesia (talk) 04:38, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
 * As I've noticed chart is no longer avaiable on YouTube, but it's still visiable on Billboard--Spacejam2 (talk) 21:31, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:SINGLEVENDOR.  GregJackP   Boomer!   18:49, 26 January 2013 (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.