Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Youtube suspensions

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 no consensus. With respect to the keep vs. delete argument, there is only one detailed keep argument and most of the delete argument appears to be for redundancy reasons. With respect to the merge argument (which owing to the delete arguments has particular importance), it seems like some people consider it a poorly written spinoff article whose notability as a list would be questionable and others feel like it can be turned into a good list and that the main YouTube article is too long for a merge. I don't think any of the arguments here is notably more compelling than the others in terms of policy/guideline or headcount, so no consensus. A dedicated merger discussion may be well advised, though. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:40, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Youtube suspensions

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Not sure why we need an article on this. This (at best) could be a redirect to the main YouTube page. Slatersteven (talk) 18:09, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 18:11, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ___CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 18:12, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I am guessing it's spurred on by coverage like this. I see that this could turn into a list of incidents noted by reliable sources (e.g. Reuters 2007 Variety 2018) which would suggest more lasting notability than any given situation on its own would merit. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:10, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's a WP:POINTy article with no real point; zero cites, and states the obvious, that a private website can suspend users at any time for any reason. Poor copy of Twitter suspensions with no examples at all. Nate • (chatter) 01:40, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Barkeep49. Markus Pössel (talk) 20:21, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Nothing but the Twitter article boilerplate has been added to this article. There's nothing to keep right now. I highly suggest a relist on this (and I don't forsee the article creator adding anything to this). Nate • (chatter) 03:26, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:21, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I went ahead and started the table with the items Barkeep49 mentioned and the other top search result on "youtube suspensions". Maybe other editors will improve this article. I'm ambivalent on whether it serves an encyclopedic purpose; all three entries have their own articles which cover their YouTube issues. Schazjmd (talk) 15:53, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot help but feel it will end up as a fork, for all those "personalities" who are not notable enough for their own page.Slatersteven (talk) 16:02, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Slatersteven, I didn't know of the existence of Twitter suspensions when I made my !vote but would think it would evolve in that direction. And as one of the foremost skeptics of certain claims of YouTube personalities (e.g. subscribers and views) I am OK with that and with having lists of non-notable people. Much better a list than an article imo. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:04, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If it is not notable it does not get an article, we do not need a list to appease egos in the hope they just are happy to be mnetioned here.Slatersteven (talk) 17:12, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What is the it? People can be not notable but be a part of a notable grouping (list). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:36, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, because lists should not be a get around notability. That (in effect) is creating a fork.Slatersteven (talk) 17:43, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, from my lengthy searches today, it doesn't look like there's any coverage of a YouTube suspension unless the suspended account is already generally notable (or notorious). I haven't found any coverage of an account being suspended that didn't already have an article. If there's no independent coverage to provide as a reference, a suspension shouldn't be added to the article. I didn't add any brief-mention coverage, such as "popular channels X, Y, and Z were suspended" in "YouTube pulled monetization for anti-vax" articles. Schazjmd (talk) 18:24, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Our description of notability for lists suggests that in some cases non-notable entries can be appropriate. I am suggesting this is one such circumstance. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:59, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into YouTube, doesn't seem appropriate for its own article. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 20:02, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge into the YouTube article. This seems like one of those articles you'd find in an excessively detailed fan-made project. Does not belong on Wikipedia, but may have some sort of usefulness on the YouTube page. Foxnpichu (talk) 19:46, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Glad to see a similar structure to the page I created Twitter suspensions Deku-shrub (talk) 23:00, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Just as notable as Twitter suspensions, which was also put up for afd and kept. The article has been expanded greatly and now have relevant sources from reputable outlets such as BBC and Reuters. Trialpears (talk) 19:12, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:17, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge - probably not enough for its own article, but can be improved; content should be kept at Youtube if it doesn't warrant its own page --DannyS712 (talk) 10:27, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I advise against a merger with YouTube due to WP:SIZE concerns with the article being significantly over the recommended 100k maximum readable prose. An alternative target to where a merger could be more appropriate to Censorship of YouTube, but my ideal outcome would still be a keep. Trialpears (talk) 13:14, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Censorship of YouTube. 111.68.115.165 (talk) 07:21, 27 June 2019 (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.