- List of most likes on you tube (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
A few editors charged that I copied another list, but there is NO such list of likes on you tube anywhere, certainly not easily accessible with a google search. Nothing comes up in any such search. The deletion editor deleted the page anyway, despite the fact that the charge is false. There is no such page anywhere, and I did all the research myself directly from you tube videos. Why did the deletion editor not understand this, and delete my page anyway?
This subject is quite notable, certainly as notable as the other fine wikipedia "list of most viewed videos" already posted. I pointed out that likes are as valuable as views in determining the most popular videos. This could end up being a list of interest to lots of folks. Also, another poster did a lot of work to update and format the list. It is quite unfair to delete a page for no reason, after people have done a lot of work on them. It is unfair to ignore my responses to the incorrect comments that were made. Does wikipedia routinely delete pages for no reason? Is it only determined by a vote, without considering the validity of the claims made on the deletion talk page? Please reconsider and undelete this page.> Eameece (talk) 07:40, 4 January 2014 (UTC)eameece[reply]
- Endorse the nominator here is saying that it's original research (and sounds pretty much unmaintainable), and since no other such list apparently exists it would fail notability as well (Clearly the world at large can't be showing their interest by non-trivial coverage of this in multiple independent reliable sources if no such list actually exists elsewhere) --86.5.93.42 (talk) 11:25, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse as closer - As I pointed out in our discussion with Eameece that because there is no other article like it does not mean we need an article on it. Everything must adhere to WP:N and be covered by multiple and independent sources as defined in WP:RS in order to avoid problems with original research. The article had no references and a consensus was clearly reached. Furthermore, replying to every !vote does not invalidate them as this editor believes, and arguments like valuable and there are other similar articles are all mentioned in arguments to avoid such as WP:OTHERCRAP and WP:ADDSVALUE (which is actually an essay point I wrote). I also explained that WP:AFD discussions on policy based arguments and WP:NOTAVOTE. There were some civility issues in some emails sent to me but I am inclined to see it as a new frustrated user unfamiliar with how things and work -- who undoubtedly put a lot of their time into making the article -- but it simply did not meet our policies and the consensus was clear. Mkdwtalk 19:03, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Consensus at the AfD was clear. Eameece, why do you think the topic meets WP:LISTPURP? In looking into the topic, there is little to indicate that the compiled list is something others have written about (but see this). There has been some "Likes" coverage, for example - Psy's 'Gangnam Style' breaks YouTube 'most liked' record, Until we stop measuring social media by Likes, spend will remain negligible, SM Remarketing Announces Service to Buy YouTube Likes Cheap, click farms. However, there's not enough about List of most Likes on YouTube. 'There is no such page anywhere' means the subject is not notable and is reason for Wikipedia to not have an article on the topic. -- Jreferee (talk) 20:25, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Lists consist of data, which is not copyrightable, so whether or not the article was "just a copy of a google page" really wasn't much of an argument. But since the creator admits to original research, we arrived at the right result anyways. I note the existence of List of most viewed YouTube videos (which survived an AfD a few months ago), but views seems to have garnered more reliable source coverage than likes. Tarc (talk) 04:14, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I found some signs of notability, perhaps not enough. This list can be prepared and maintained without unacceptable original research. Wall of text follows.
A search of the Web for "most liked videos on Youtube" (in quotes) turns up several mentions, for example: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] (this last says "YouTube views and likes have become one of the most important signs of music popularity in recent years. Sometimes considered even more important than the sales chart, the number of likes on YouTube is now actually among the Guinness World Of Records Book criteria for the forthcoming year."). Whether Buzzfeed is a reliable source or not was debated here.
A search for "Youtube likes Guinness" (without quotes) turns up lots of news stories about the video of Psy's "Gangnam Style" receiving the most "likes" and being mentioned in the Guinness Book of World Records for it: [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11].
Here is a list from CBS Radio of videos with the most "dislikes" on Youtube.
Currently Youtube provides a machine-generated list of what it calls the "most popular videos" [12]; how popularity is determined is unclear, but videos with numerous "likes" can be expected to appear there. In the past, a list of the videos with the most "likes" was provided at http://www.youtube.com/charts/videos_top_rated?t=t . Old lists are available at the Internet Archive, for example this one from 29 November 2011. Those would be an adequate source with which to start a list; videos which have subsequently garnered more "likes" could then be added. The number of "likes" is shown on a video's Youtube page next to a thumbs-up icon. Comparing the number of "likes" attained by a present-day video with those gotten by those on an earlier list is a minimal amount of original research, in the spirit of WP:CALC. —rybec 08:46, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply below. Mkdwtalk 20:22, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Temporarily restored for discussion at Deletion Review. -- Jreferee (talk) 12:11, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Permit recreation - While the AfD was clear, the delete arguments can be overcome. Looking at the deleted article, I think the decision of the new user who created the article to place the Wikipedia article List of most viewed YouTube videos as the only reference in "List of most likes on you tube" may have had a strong influence on the AfD. A sufficient amount of prose can be added to the article based on the references listed above in this DRV. At least some, if not all, of the table entries can be sourced to reliable sources independent of YouTube (see, e.g., this) and a source column can be added to the table to receive the links. Since YouTube got rid of its widely used charts channel in October 2013 - see Youtube, why did you get rid of the youtube charts - I think this list may meet WP:PURPLIST as a valuable information source, something not discussed at the AfD. Given that Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of most watched YouTube videos was closed as Keep and that List of most Likes on YouTube can be improved to overcome the reasons for deletion listed at the AfD, we should allow recreation. -- Jreferee (talk) 12:41, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- RS: All the sources listed are from roughly up until the time Youtube stopped reporting most likes. Now that Youtube does not it seems likely those sources will not report as they will have the same trouble as we do that they do not have a way to parse the data accurately. Guinness Book only reports the most liked (singular).
- OR: There is no reliable source that publishes most likes at present and with out it everything except the top entry would be original research as based upon the time the editor spends browsing around Youtube looking for most liked videos. We would have no way of knowing if the editor missed a video hence making the list accurate. Most likes and most watched are not the same thing hence why we have WP:OTHERSTUFF -- you can only say most watched is a starting point and it does not equal a reliable source for the list of most liked.
- Unless these two points can be addressed I am against allowing recreating. I agree it's potentially a notable subject but with out the reliable sources the list would be parsed down to one entry. Alternatively you could create the list List of most liked Youtube videos in 2012 when there were reliable sources. -- Mkdwtalk 20:22, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- The CBS Radio list of disliked videos [13] is from March 2013. —rybec 20:23, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Which would be helpful about an article or section about dislikes and not likes. Mkdwtalk 21:30, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I was responding to the statement that "All the sources listed are from roughly up until the time Youtube stopped reporting most likes." If people are still preparing lists of disliked videos, they may also still be preparing lists of liked videos. —rybec 23:29, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- This brings us back to speculation and original research as a keep rationale. It also refreshes the point made earlier that the charts channel stopped in October 2013 and no new reliable sources have been producing results. March 2013 is well before October 2013. Mkdwtalk 01:19, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Responses by author
- I compiled my list not only from previous lists and sources, but from looking through sources for potential entries to the list, such as Billboard Top 100 charts for the period SINCE the source on you tube entitled top 25 most liked videos (July 2013), which was my starting point and proved to be accurate. I don't have to just browse around among all videos; there are indications of which videos to look at. This includes the other list of "most viewed videos" on wikipedia, which is being updated frequently, as well as on-line surveys of most popular music (Billboard, rock on the net, etc.). I already have a large list of videos that potentially might make the list, which I can check later. It was surprisingly easy and quick to search through these videos and look at how many likes they have. It's true that some most-liked videos might be missed at first, such as viral non-music videos, but they would be found later, and there may be sources to check for those too. I don't have to be the only one updating this list; another wikipedia author had already done so within the few days the list was up. I don't think the reader needs to assume that this list is completely up to date; it is only up to date as of the date listed, and would likely be accurate as of that date.
- The list of most popular videos referred to above seems to include only current popularity, perhaps in the last week or month. None of the most liked or viewed videos of all time are included, although it might be a list to watch. A writer above made a great point that you tube likes and views are among the most important indicators of today of how popular a piece of music is, and lots of folks are interested in that! I don't understand the idea that, because a list like this does not exist, it is therefore not notable. It seems to me that there are many things notable that are not reported on. That's why a need arises. That's why there's a wikipedia. Lots of times, it's the only reliable or meaningful source that comes up in searches I do. I appreciate all the comments.Eameece (talk) 03:04, 6 January 2014 (UTC)eameece[reply]
- Endorse per clear AFD consensus and lack of reason to imagine this is in any way an encyclopedic topic. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 06:58, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, based on Mkdw's response to Jreferee, I'm concerned that Mkdw is inventing a rule we don't have. It's always been Wikipedia's custom and practice to allow content provided it's based on reliable sources. There's no rule requiring the sources to be recent. Although more recent sources are often preferred, it's perfectly normal to have an article whose only source is the 1911 Encyclopaedia Britannica, and nobody would delete one of those. It's true that this means the list can't be current. It's of purely historical interest. But Wikipedia has enormous quantities of content that's of purely historical interest, and it's right that we should----encyclopaedias should be interested in history.
Having said that a unanimous AfD is a unanimous AfD. Closers need confidence that DRV will support them if they follow the consensus, and on a more practical level I suspect this is best handled by adding another section, or perhaps just another column, to the list of most watched Youtube videos. So even though I don't agree with everything Mkdw says, we might have the right outcome here.—S Marshall T/C 14:01, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I apologize for not being more clear. It wasn't my intention to imply that the content with an out-of-date reference was not admissible. I wanted to point out that the list was being updated and actively with information from no reliable source and hence prone to original research -- and eventually the entire list as was the main issue at the AFD. This is why I proposed List of most liked Youtube videos in 2012 as one alternatively as it denotes the historical facts. Mkdwtalk 18:47, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I notice that all the videos listed in the temporarily restored article have their own Wikipedia articles. Wikipedia:Lists_(stand-alone_lists)#Selection_criteria says that a common inclusion criterion is "Every entry meets the notability criteria for its own non-redirect article in the English Wikipedia." If the inclusion criterion were changed to that, and the title of the list were changed accordingly, then the concerns raised in the AfD discussion and here would no longer apply. I suggest making that change (it should be described in the introduction) and moving the list to something like List of YouTube videos. —rybec 23:29, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- While some redundancy is allowed between categories and lists I do not see any advantage to this list over Category:YouTube videos. Mkdwtalk 01:19, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I was interested in posting an article about most likes of all time, not most likes within a particular year, which is impossible to determine anyway. I wouldn't mind if a "list of most likes" were part of another article.Eameece (talk) 22:01, 8 January 2014 (UTC)eameece[reply]
- Just saying that a few opinions makes a "consensus" and therefore delete the article makes no sense. Most of the points made on the AFD page were ridiculous and without any basis (such as the charge that I just copied it from another list), therefore they should not be automatically deferred to.Eameece (talk) 21:59, 8 January 2014 (UTC)eameece[reply]
- Endorse, plainly correct decision and nomination is in violation of point 1 of "deletion review should not be used". ✄ (talk) 12:11, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
|
