Category talk:YouTube

Can we put some kind of minimum number of subscribers or page views or something to be notable enough for an article? I know we sometimes do some of this subjectively, but for some of these guys, c'mon... ThunderkatzHo! 03:00, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I say we should wipe out the whole category, except for NephilimFree, VenomFangX, and Thunderf00t. 03:02, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Strong agree. P-Foster (talk) 03:20, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Thirded. But I think we should keep Shockofgod. 03:22, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay. Do we post delete tags on each of these other losers' pages, or go en masse and cause HCM? P-Foster (talk) 03:24, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * En masse, of course. Best way to get things done around here. 03:26, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * En masse. 03:28, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Can somebody else finish up? P-Foster (talk) 03:41, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I am. Exempt League of Reason too, it's not a youtube user. 03:45, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Done. 03:50, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Ought we also to take care of the swathe of red this will leave behind? 03:52, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, yes. 03:59, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * This is bullshit. 08:36, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Personally I don't really care about youtube one way or the other, this is really something which should have more substantial discussion first probably in the SB.--BobSpring is sprung! 13:40, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I say we keep. Whether people think so or not, youtube has a significant impact on popular culture these days. And especially when it comes to the promotion of many of the concepts (homeopathy, YEC, just to name a few) that our mission statement is set to dissect. Therefore, with this taken into consideration, this category is important. 14:17, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I think it's perfectly fine to say that you don't care much for YouTube - indeed, as a blogging site it's highly overrated as very few actually use the audio-visual medium to its advance, so we're stuck with mumbling, stuttering, bad lighting and poor camera work that just detract from something that would be far more eloquent as a written document. That said, not caring much about YouTube is not a good reason to say that these articles are not, somehow, notable and to me that seems like the only reason given so far. 14:22, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * If you are responding to me I agree with you. I was not defending deletion.--BobSpring is sprung! 14:33, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * ECI just don't see the value added of having an article on every troll with a webcam. The articles on people who seem to be really good/pioneering/involved in larger debates are still there. To me, it's like the paring down of the serious Andy Schlafly article that went down over the weekend -- we didn't need every minute example of Andy's foolishness, and having all those examples deleted the impact of the good stuff. I think it's much the same in this case. We already have the really unwieldly and STUPIDLY titled Rational and irrational YouTubers. We don't need all these individual articles on top of that. P-Foster (talk) 14:37, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I deleted Darkmatter2525 some time ago, as the article was a Colby of a section of the aforementioned article. For example, I watch AutumnLauber, but I'm not going to add her to the list or create an article about her. Feredir28 doesn't have his own article, but his group channel has an article. I think If they can show some minor notability, enough to interest someone, and missionality, we could have an article. Did that make any sense?ТyUser_talk:Tyrannis 14:44, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

(unindent) And I agree that not every damn youtuber needs an article here. But, before we go on an orgy of deletion of any and all articles about all things youtube, we should follow the standard and go to the talkpage so others can weigh in on whether or not something/someone should be included on our Wiki. If the article is about some dumbshit with 100 hits and is one paragraph long, then I can think of nobody who will disagree about that article's deletion. But we have these procedures in place for a reason. 14:46, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Agree. ТyUser_talk:Tyrannis 14:47, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Lets have a think. Missions.
 * 1. Analyzing and refuting pseudoscience and the anti-science movement. Typically these people are either members of the movement or talk about it.
 * 2. Documenting the full range of crank ideas. Diito. Some of them are well-known cranks in their own right.
 * 3. Explorations of authoritarianism and fundamentalism. Some of them are fundamentalists.
 * 4. Analysis and criticism of how these subjects are handled in the media. Youtube is media, yes?--BobSpring is sprung! 14:50, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Bob, nobody is arguing that we shouldn't have any articles on any You Tube personalities. P-Foster (talk) 15:04, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * OK - I thought you guys deleted the majority of them.--BobSpring is sprung! 15:08, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I undeleted the bulk of them. I think we should be discussing these matters, of course. But I think this discussion should, like it or not, go on every talkpage of every youtube article to be deleted. That is the proper way. To go carte blanche and deleted everything marked "youtube" is reckless at the very best. 15:31, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * EC The idea was to keep the good/notable ones--Thunderfoot, Nephilem, etc, and get rid of the chaff. P-Foster (talk) 15:33, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * We deleted things without a great deal of discussion, but we did discuss which articles to keep. Look at the logs. It was hasty but not "reckless." 18:48, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

previous article purges
In the past we had mass purges of CP articles and funspace articles. We put all the articles in a list, and everyone voted on their fate. Let's do this with all the Youtuber articles. 79.68.232.82 (talk) 18:56, 12 September 2018 (UTC) (Sophie)
 * Sounds fair. 18:59, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Good idea. I might suggest this at the Saloon Bar later. CowHouse (talk) 04:28, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

I think we should cut the amount of people on this category down.
This should focus more on YouTube specific channels rather than larger internet personalities and even politicians. Patty  Pat  21:35, 9 December 2022 (UTC)