Deletion of List of YouTube celebrities (4th nomination)

Comment: I agree, this is .  I also agree that categories would be better and more manageable.  That said, however, I have had probably a dozen proposals for deletion rejected on these exact same grounds.  I see no reason to make one exception here so I am voting to keep purely for the sake of consistency
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Listcruft (WP:LISTCRUFT)

Comment: the nominators comments are completely true. The term 'celebrity' used in the article title, and the fact that most things on the list are lacking more than one source. Both issues need to be addressed, otherwise relist for deletion again. Nominator should've attempt to address these two issues themselves first. Most of the keep arguments seem to be from |here
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:ATA)

Comment: per , etc. a category would be sufficient for entries with genuine notability
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Listcruft (WP:LISTCRUFT)

Comment: per  and above
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Listcruft (WP:LISTCRUFT)

Comment: per  never being a valid reason for deletion (no matter how many numeric "I don't like it" non-arguments an article gets, the policy based reasons for keeping ultimate trump them), but add references to really notable ones, i.e. those that make ''Countdown with Keith Olbermann'' or ''Attack of the Show'', or make a category for ones notable enough to have their own articles.  The sources are |notable, at least: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/26/technology/26ecom.html?pagewanted=2&ei=5124&en=9670fbf567afd78d&ex=1330232400 New York Times, http://popwatch.ew.com/popwatch/2006/06/youtube_brooker.html Entertainment Weekly, http://online.wsj.com/article/SB115768704950557377.html?mod=googlewsj Wall Street Jorunal, etc. show that the topic has received mainstream attention.  We should also keep per Wikipedia:Lists (discriminate, encyclopedic, maintainable, navigational, notable, unoriginal, and verifiable concerning only celebrities, only celebrities from the internet, and per our other policies only those covered in reliable sources).  Given that you see occasional countdown shows on VH1 and E type networks of best internet celebrities and the like, a good case could be made for widespread mainstream interest in the phenemona.  Heck, ''South Park'' had a whole episode on the subject!  The list also serves a navigational/table of contentsesque function as well as a well-organized gateway to other blue link articles for which millions of our reader have an interest.  Indeed, http://stats.grok.se/en/200911/List_of_YouTube_celebrities over 50,000 readers come to this article a month and over http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_YouTube_celebrities&limit=2000&action=history 1,000 IPs and accounts have edited it for the past three years!  Finally, as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of YouTube celebrities (2nd nomination) closed as "keep" and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of YouTube celebrities (3rd nomination) closed as "speedy/strong keep" consensus clearly supports this article's existence when we take into account total number of participants across an unnecessary four discussions and in multiple months.  Best
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:ITSCRUFT||WP:N)

Comment: Too |trivial for the standards of wp
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Listcruft (WP:LISTCRUFT)

Comment: per over-achieving in its meeting . Not at all trivial, being a well sourced list that meets the inclusion criteria set by . Not only does this list lead readers to more expansive articles, but it makes an assertion of notability and is itself properly sourced per guideline and meets the requirements of . Essays rarely trump guideline or policy
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists (WP:STAND||WP:GNG||WP:LIST)

Comment: per 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Listcruft (WP:LISTCRUFT)

Comment: SoWhy pretty much said it all. The call for |salting the article is rather inappropriate considering it has not been deleted and has survived 3 AfD already
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Protection policy (WP:SALT)

Comment: In my opinion, the argument by the nom seems more appropriate if they were calling for the deletion of the individual YouTube users' articles rather than the list itself, considering that their main points are notability and . Even though the list is amplifying that the article's subjects are solely notable for being YouTube "celebrities," all the articles on the list (as far as I can tell) are about a subject who is either very notable because of their YouTubing, or being on YouTube has played a role in making them notable. If there are any persons on the list that aren't notable, then sure, remove them, but not everyone on the list lacks notability. If the term "celebrity" is causing a problem, a page move could fix that, but that would not be grounds for deletion in itself
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:ONEEVENT)