Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of YouTube celebrities (4th nomination)
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
— User:A, 21:27, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
Stance: keep
Cited policy: WP:ITSCRUFT||WP:N (Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions)