Deletion of Criticism of YouTube (2nd nomination)

Comment: No reason given by the nominating user as to why this article shouldn't excist. Sources are clearly evident throughout the article. I also find it very bad form to nominate this article while the article is under ull|full protection, as this prevents the article from being improved upon, so as to address concerns that may be brought up here
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Non-free content (WP:F)

Comment: relatively good, generally well-referenced article collecting several significant criticisms. I don't agree that this is indiscriminate or inherently POV. Comparisons to other articles are not helpful - I didn't see Criticism of The New York Times, so I can't say how it compares to this article, but ''this'' one is a fair compilation of negative reactions to an important recent establishment. If we're going to compare it to something, compare it to Criticism of Wikipedia - this article is at least as good as that one. I suggest a  close of this AfD
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Snowball clause (WP:SNOW)

Comment: Mildly obnoxious and moderately obvious  nomination made to give the nominator a soapbox to rail against another AfD that didn't seem to go his way. The difference between this and the NYT article is the difference between a few rabbit turds in the Pacific Ocean and the Cuyahoga river|Cuyahoga
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point (WP:POINT)