Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/PewDiePie videography/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was withdrawn by The Rambling Man via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 24 May 2020 (UTC) [1].[reply]

PewDiePie videography[edit]

Featured list candidates/PewDiePie videography/archive1

Nominator(s): Soulbust (talk) 01:32, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe this list satisfies all of the FL criteria, and it would be one of the first Internet or YouTube-related lists to be promoted to FL status, which I think is exciting. Thank you and best wishes, Soulbust (talk) 01:32, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The year bars violate WP:ACCESS --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 01:48, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy oppose I was thinking "Wait, how the heck is the guy the most-watched youtuber with 10ish videos a year?" and then noticed the "Selected videography" header. So how the hell were these ones "selected" but the other 4,000 videos were not? The lead doesn't mention the inclusion criteria at all so this is a massive failure of criterion 3a. Honestly this should be nominated for deletion. Just because he has the most views doesn't mean Wikipedia should catalogue his videos. Reywas92^Talk 02:22, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Dynamic lists shouldn't be considered for FL, especially one of PewDiePie's videography. KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 04:03, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I don't see how we can consider for FL a list which contains about 2% of the content which the article suggests. It would be like Shakespeare bibliography just listing one play and one sonnet (and no I am not comparing PewDiePie to Shakespeare :-)). There aren't even any criteria shown for why these particular videos were selected..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:25, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:34, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

**I'd also question, given that not a single video has its own article, whether this article even needs to exist. Would we create a separate discography article for a musician who was notable in their own right but had no releases whatsoever with their own articles? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:28, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Hi, @Guerillero:, I would like to ask how to present the year bars in a way that doesn't violate WP:ACCESS. Also, to respond to the concerns mentioned. The videography is selected based on if the videos in question have been covered by third-party, reliable sources. Also, @ChrisTheDude:, if you look closely through the list, there are video releases of his that have their own articles. This listing has has merits to exist. It's unprecedented for a YouTuber's videography to exist, and I've received a lot of pushback on YouTuber-related articles in the past. It'd be worth nothing that there's actually a lot of recording artists that have a majority of their tracks, music videos, etc. not have a respective article of their own. I don't think a videography has to have that requirement anyway. It's not like that's a requirement for episode listings. And that's true, even at the featured list classification. With YouTube videos, you have to take the nature of the craft into consideration. It's not so much a straight-forward parallel to discographies (there's no real "albums") or filmographies (videos often get uploaded at a much higher frequency than films can get produced at). Instead, it's much more of a blend of those -ographies with the aforementioned episode listings. I thought it'd be easier for a reader to digest it if inclusion is just limited to those videos that have been covered by reliable sources. Gauging from the response to this listing, I'm wondering if I should withdraw the nomination. Soulbust (talk) 08:32, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, I missed that a couple of videos do indeed have articles -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:51, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"It'd be worth nothing that there's actually a lot of recording artists that have a majority of their tracks, music videos, etc. not have a respective article of their own" - do they have separate discography articles? That's what I was getting at. Do you have an example of a musician with a separate discography article where pretty much all of the releases therein do not have their own article? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:11, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's okay. And again, I don't think this is necessarily a one-to-one comparison (particularly because there's no real direct comparison for an album), but sure. Lil Peep has six singles with articles. The rest of his discography is limited to being catalogued only through the respective list. I don't think PewDiePie's videos have only sprung 2 separate articles because only 2 merit their own separate articles; it's more than likely I or another editor can sucessfully make an article on some of his other videos. But just basing this off of what exists now, similar "songs written" lists are also examples of this. Perhaps they are even more apt ones, but that's subjective I suppose. This artist has only 2 songs with separate articles. Here is another list with not too many separate articles have been made. Several artists have the vast majority, or even all of their individual songs as not having their own articles, with many album/mixtape/EP projects even not having their own aticles. Here is a featured list discography featuring only 2 individual singles as having their own articles. And having the vast majority of one's discography only included in a list isn't exclusive to just one genre. Here is a featured list discography of compilation albums. Don't mind individual songs, not a single album on this list has its own article. The few wikilinks for the albums all direct to sections of articles. I don't know, I'm sure there's more. This was just a result of me quickly sifting/browsing through categories and such. Soulbust (talk) 10:06, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Another thing to note, is again, we should take the nature of the craft into consideration (which is another point as to why a YouTuber's videography vs. a musician's discography isn't an apples-to-apples comparison). The music industry's release of singles is well-known. Songs are released as singles in order to hype an album or multiple-track project. There is no such parameter in the YouTube video medium to compare to. Soulbust (talk) 10:31, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, I accept that most of the videos not having their own article isn't an issue - disregard my comments about that. But what about the fact that PewDiePie has apparently published over 4000 videos, only 80 or so of which are listed here, with nothing in the article to indicate why these ones were chosen and the rest not? TBH that's probably more of an issue...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:18, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that is an issue, and it is one that makes me highly consider withdrawing the nom if possible. With the inclusion criteria I was working off of I thought it was more or less comprehensive (although it is still a dynamic list, so maybe not). However, I would like to ask for some suggestions with this. This discussion has leaned more deletionist, and I totally disagree with that (as the lists I showed above support that one's individual works don't need to have their own articles, yet their whole discography can still be both catalogued an promoted to even Featured-list status). I am also fairly certain I could continue to make legitimate and substantial improvements to the list. However, I would like to ask for some constructive suggestions here. Like, how to address the accessibility issue in which the gray year bars violate WP:ACCESS. Is it that the gray is too dark? Also, would you suggest mentioning my inclusion criteria (i.e. that a reliable third-party source covered the video, usually through both embedding the video in their coverage + giving descriptions of the video)? Or would you suggest that I forgo that criteria and just do a legitimate and comprehensive listing of his videos. By the way, after thinking about it and reading the comments given on this discussion, I'm definitely leaning more for the latter. It makes a lot more sense to me at this point. Soulbust (talk) 16:35, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm assuming that if the list expands to be a more total and comprehensive listing, we probably wouldn't even need the year bars. Perhaps just different sections correlating with individual years. Soulbust (talk) 16:40, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose perReywas92 ~ HAL 333 22:51, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Reywas92 and ChrisTheDude; and agree that it should be nominated for AFD. - Brojam (talk) 21:32, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@ChrisTheDude: I'm surprised this is still an open nom, but I would like to just withdraw the nom if possible. I also would like to ask if you think splitting this list into PewDiePie videography (2010), PewDiePie videography (2011), etc. (similar to List of The Late Show with Stephen Colbert episodes (2015), [...], List of The Late Show with Stephen Colbert episodes (2020)) would be a good alternative to having over 4,000 videos listed on one page? I think it the size of the list would make the page rather unwieldy and harder for a reader to navigate. I'm also considering maybe having the PewDiePie videography page have Playlists listed (perhaps the thing most comparable to an album, for a YouTuber). That way it can be condensed, and still reliably sourced. This can be done whether or not the list is split by years. Soulbust (talk) 23:10, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@WP:FLC director and delegates: The nominator wishes to withdraw the nomination. ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSA^talk 11:35, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been withdrawn, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.