Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/YouTube statistics

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 delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:55, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

YouTube statistics

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Violates WP:INDISCRIMINATE, criteria 3: Excessive listings of statistics. — Ṟ Ṉ™ 15:42, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I've read your consideration for deletion of this article (YouTube statistics) and I was wondering what exactly does violate the WP:INDISCRIMINATE, criteria 3: Excessive listings of statistics. Is it the small amount of text (which shouldn't be a problem, if I look at the article like this, or this or is it the table with the listing of the top 30 YouTube channels (which I think is relevant to the topic)? Thanks, Michal Smetana (talk) 14:38, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Apart from violating WP:INDISCRIMINATE, I have considered that the topic, overall, fails to meet notability guidelines. Has any source discussed all the statistics of YouTube as a whole? Or how the most viewed channels have evolved? Also, why did you only add the "Number of Uploaded Video Views"? Why not sorting this too by channel subscription? or by number of videos? or by most watched video? [I can go on...] — Ṟ Ṉ™ 23:34, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:00, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, agree with analysis by Michal.smetana (talk · contribs), above. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 22:25, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:INDISCRIMINATE. The "Traffic", "Mobile and Devices" and "Social" sections can be merged to YouTube. Statυs (talk) 23:27, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Were to to keep the top 30,000, I would agree that it is indiscriminate. But the top 30 is as much encyclopedic as any other such list of the biggest--as much WP content as world-class athletic records or lists of largest cities. DGG ( talk ) 06:20, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Go Phightins! 01:59, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all the references are to youtube sources. If it is rewritten from independent reliables sources, as required by WP:GNG, ping my talk page. Stuartyeates (talk) 05:29, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Excessive statistics, citing YouTube instead of reliable sources. -- Wikipedical (talk) 08:13, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:INDISCRIMINATE concerns. TBr and ley 08:22, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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.