RationalWiki:Articles for deletion/BreadTube

BreadTube | Result: Deleted

 * – ( View AfD View log )

''This article has been nominated for deletion before. See RationalWiki:Articles for deletion/BreadTube 2020.''

Delete

 * 1) While the topic sounds missional on paper, Breadtube is such a wide and ill-defined concept that it is difficult to make any sweeping statements on the topic, leaving the article doomed to be mostly just a list of channels, most of the major ones already having their own pages anyway. While some of you may criticize the article for not being critical enough on the subject, it's hard to criticize the subject as a whole since there are so many different ideologies between different Breadtube channels, and that's not even getting into the constant drama/infighting between creators and their communities due to their disagreements. I can see this maybe at most becoming a fork page that links to the creators that we have articles on, and if any creator does something missional we put in on their page. Think of it this way - we don't need a page for right-wing YouTube. Plutocow (talk) 02:46, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * 2) What are the criteria to say someone's relevant part of BreadTube anyway? "He's a leftist and I like him"? GeeJayK (talk) 02:54, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * 3) Before anybody rants about "oh no, creating YouTube articles is giving in to pure evil," just making articles on the absolute biggest youtubers of this bunch and calling it a day is far better than creating some ill-defined group, whose ambiguous nature will lead to ceaseless conflict about who is listed and how we define them and how we treat them. Heck, even saying "there is a united definable phenomenon that can be readily classed as BreadTube and thus we can treat them all in the same manner" appears to be a bit of a leap.-Flandres (talk) 03:07, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Wow, I edit Germany a bit, and this happens. I vote yes pretty much for the same reason as before. This page is just a collection of "Youtubers that I like". It's an ad more than anything else. The fact that some of them debate fuckheads does not make me interested in them. Some have articles, and that's fine, but this article and list does not need to be a thing. 03:22, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I think the issue is that our article portrays Breadtubers in too positive a light. We could definitely trash on them a fair bit more, but just because its not well-written now does it warrant deletion. Kauri0.o (talk) 03:48, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * 1) Youtube articles are a plague on this wiki-Hastur! (talk) 04:02, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * 2) Terrible article on an ill-defined term. Christopher (talk) 14:23, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * 3) Bongolian (talk) 04:34, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * 4) Topic is too loosely-defined, article contains potentially-misleading editorializing that tries to paint topic as a righteous anti-altright movement when in reality it's a personal hugbox for pseudo-intellectual moonbats, topic's inherent vagueness makes page a huge editorializing magnet, and worst of all, IT'S A YOUTUBE ARTICLE. FRAG IT! KILL IT WITH FIRE! 🔥 TAKE NO PRISONERS!  Furthermore, it's already been so thoroughly gutted that there's just no point in keeping this. Just casting a tiebreaking vote -- Goatspeed.  04:41, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Kill with fire! Crash this article... with no survivors! GeeJayK (talk) 04:20, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Really? Personally I think there are things worth criticizing about "BreadTube", though I personally think such criticisms should be nuanced given the large number of people involved. 13:07, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's right, a large number of people are involved; that's what makes this topic so vague. -- Goatspeed. 18:57, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Keep

 * 1) Provisional vote, but I think keep. I agree it is broad and hard to define. But it's not our responsibility to decide on a definition nor criteria for inclusion; we can still explain in a general sense what it is, and use RS to include some notable creators; we don't have to list everyone. There are obviously conflicting ideologies, but it is generally a far-left group of communities. We can still criticize the prevalence of extremism, sensationalism and 'opinionism'. Kauri0.o (talk) 03:13, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * , noting that their AFD resulted in "keep" and the article is classed as "low-importance".Kauri0.o (talk) 03:18, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * 1) Keep under the condition of just tossing the entire example list. Having a strict "no example" list for this page keeps hopefully what is salvageable of this page.  09:51, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Having examples is valuable to understanding what it's about. We definitely shouldn't list every person with 10 subscribers, but still worth listing the main people. --Annanoon (talk) 10:58, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Without the examples, there is even less to salvage, as all we're left with is vague statements about a vaguely defined group and the article becomes stub length without any hopes of improving. For the people who vote keep, how do you plan on improving this article? Plutocow (talk) 12:22, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * 1) I do not care if it gets deleted, but I would hope that it is kept if the article would actually improve. I am not against moving it into draftspace. MarioSuperstar77 (talk) 11:19, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * 2) Kevs  Ping!  12:14, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * 3) I think that the bullet list of examples has always been a bad idea, and we should not be in the business of creating what are essentially subjective lists of links. There are better platforms for that. I am in favor of retaining the article as it stands today, purged of all the examples. It requires some expansion and more thoughtful analysis. We should be careful to prevent it from devolving into a puff piece. —cosmikdebris talk stalk 14:25, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * 4) I thought we resolved this list issues months ago. 14:38, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * We resolved the issue, and then the article's editors created a new puff-piece list. It's inevitable with this article. 19:49, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * If it happens, revert. MarioSuperstar77 (talk) 19:57, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * The problem is that the article is kind of dependent on the list, as Breadtube is essentially defined as a list of channels that are generally agreed to be Breadtube with no real traits holding them all together besides being vaguely left-wing. That's why people will continue to add lists to the article, as it is the only real way to define the term. If you have an issue with the lists, then you have a problem with the very idea of a Breadtube article. Plutocow (talk) 21:16, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * The resolution as I remember it was to briefly summarize the most prominent/influential "breadtubers" as part of explaining the term. Every list entry beyond that was considered excessive and unnecessary. 02:22, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * 1) Keep, with extreme prejudice. 15:59, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Goat
BreadTube is a new form of media, and the page is beginning to actually highlight how BreadTube criticizes and handles crank ideas. (Some BreadTube channels do it quite well, like Abigail Thorne's Philosophy Tube or the classic debunk-style videos of Shaun). Personal dislike of certain BreadTuber's political views are not a reason to delist and dismiss BreadTube as a relevant, critical media... anarchic? syndicate? thingy. Please contribute to shaping the page rather than knee-jerk motions to delete every single dang month. — FiveHundredMiles (talk) 00:43, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I would like to express that interpreting the third point of our mission to mean we ought to write about everything political is a terrible idea-Hastur! (talk) 04:05, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I could be wrong, but it seems awfully like this AFD vote is motivated by an emerging talk page consensus that the article should no longer be a puff piece repository for people's favourite talking heads. Better, then, to nuke it, rather than risk any serious analysis of a media ecosystem which, amongst other things, is providing plenty of batshit political fap material for idiot tankies and bored college kids LARPing as anarchist revolutionaries. Helena Bonham Carter (talk) 01:50, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * +1 to HBC'c sentiment. Kauri0.o (talk) 02:43, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Leaving aside the rather presumptive statements of "Breadtube"'s audience demographic (I for example fall into neither of those categories), Breadtube has a number of things worth criticizing. Firstly, the most obvious point is unified talking points, which can vary from true (climate change) to completely unfounded speculation (all violence at the 2020 protests was agent provocateurs). In addition to the quality each point, the very fact that there are unified points can lead to some degree of an echo chamber effect. Secondly is the habit of several "BreadTube" communities to court tankies and other such authoritarians. Third is the apparent preference for courting far-right figures over centrists. Fourth is the way systemic racism affects who becomes a well known figure in "BreadTube". All of these points being said, I do not think we should throw up our hands (as some of have attempted to do) and say "the far-left and the far-right are equally bad and basically the same", as that stinks of an anti-intellectual approach that this wiki was founded (at least partially) to counter. In summery, I think the article should take a turn for the critical, but do not think it should be a shallow balance fallacy laden mess. 13:29, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Page fulfils point 4 of the Wiki Mission.
 * That would be better accomplished by covering the individual channels, as Breadtube is too vague a term. Plutocow (talk) 01:06, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Lol, Breadtube as a critical media... Breadtube is full of garbage too and should be treated as such. Just because they criticize right-wingers doesn't make them automatically correct. Kauri0.o (talk) 02:41, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * -- Goatspeed. 19:00, 19 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Can you fuck off with the bullshit balance fallacy and strawmanning of left-wing positions for once? — Oxyaena Harass  15:00, 19 March 2021 (UTC)