The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Copy of a section in an existing article. I boldly redirect, but it was reverted. I think it actually might be better to delete the article now rather than redirecting because the title is arguably a BLP violation, and the content is already present at the parent article so there is no need to preserve the history. Wouldn't oppose a redirect, though, just think there might be reasons to delete in this case.
TonyBallioni (
talk)
04:40, 3 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete and redirect to Logan Paul You were right in being bold. The event is clearly not notable. Arguably speedy delete via A7.
Acebulf (
talk)
05:36, 3 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete and redirect to Logan Paul - Page shouldn't have been moved while AfD is in progress, but the name doesn't matter; this just isn't notable enough to warant its own article. Would agree with speedy delete via A7, even.
Shelbystripes (
talk)
23:34, 3 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete I don't know if this is quite at the A7 level, but this is a
WP:NOTNEWS and
WP:RECENTISM problem. We have an article for Paul, and coverage of this is entirely about Paul, so this should be covered there. If this gains
WP:SUSTAINED coverage, we can reassess at that time. I do not see any reason to assume that will happen, however.
Grayfell (
talk)
01:11, 4 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Merge and redirect - the content should be added to the main article. Similar to how Donald Trump's food habits aren't worthy of a standalone article, this controversy is not sufficiently permanent to warrant it's own article. If this does result in some permanent changes to youtube, however, I suggest that we can revisit this issue in the future.
BrxBrx(
talk)(please reply with { {re|BrxBrx}})05:07, 4 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete - already covered in the main article. Not enough content, or evidence of lasting notability, to justify a separate article.
Robofish (
talk)
22:51, 4 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Merge and redirect to
Logan Paul. This is a clear example of a
news spike. I think it's pretty clear that this particular controversy will not be historically significant in the future. It can be comfortably covered in the existing article about Paul.
Eventhorizon51(
talk)14:49, 5 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Redirect to
Logan Paul#Suicide video controversy per
WP:NOTNEWS and
WP:SPLIT. Not every single controversy needs to have its own article, and this is a pretty good example of one that doesn't. All of this can fit easily on the main Logan Paul page. Merging is not needed considering everything that can and should be merged has already been done.
SkyWarrior05:59, 6 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Note and unconfident keep: I disagree. Significant news coverage features this controversy. Some of the most famous people have addressed the issue. Lawsuits, petitions... it's pretty big. Over 30 million have been involved, and that's just in terms of YouTube views. --
AlexanderHovanec (
talk)
21:21, 6 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Merge and redirect - The article was created immediately after the incident. Unless more news regarding Logan Paul's video comes out later in the year (which is unlikely), an article regarding the controversy is useless. Most YouTube drama, including the
React World controversy and the
PewDiePie's livestream racial slur, does not have their own articles. Yoshiman6464♫🥚04:26, 7 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Keep the article I believe this is notable. Although it is considered YouTube drama, I believe it is much more notable than other drama. I understand that views on YouTube are generally not a good way of determining notability, however this drama received millions of views. I believe that millions of views show that it is an important topic and therefore notable enough to have a Wikipedia page. Even if the millions of views it got on youtube isn't anything to show notability, it was significantly covered in the news. I know that
Wikipedia is not meant to have news, but I think this incident is significant as it has significantly damaged Logan Paul's Reputation. I think that this controversy was significant and deserves its own article.
1 Great Username (
talk)
17:15, 7 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Comment I doubt that it "significantly" damaged Logan Paul's reputation. In fact, Logan Paul didn't have a net loss of his subscribers, according to
Social Blade. In fact, Logan Paul actually gained subscribers, according to an article by
Metro. At this rate, it is not likely that the incident would be remembered by the end of this month. Yoshiman6464♫🥚20:33, 7 January 2018 (UTC)reply
This is an unnecessary
spinout article, just because it got coverage by the media doesn't mean it should have it's own article. The article isn't that big and is mostly covered in the
Logan Paul article anyways.
PewDiePie's anti-Semitic controversy doesn't have a article and that got a lot coverage by the media. Wikipedia isn't a newspaper.
TheDeviantPro (
talk)
02:03, 8 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Reply Yoshiman6464, at this point you are likely correct. However I just want to point out that YouTube users rarely lose subscribers. Sometimes incidents like this only promote someone on YouTube. It is also a factor that Logan Paul has a younger target demographic, while I both have little or no proof of this, and it likely isn't much of a factor I believe it is still a consideration. Fanatics are more common in younger viewers. I believe that Younger Audiences are more likely to be fanatic about an idea or person.
Logan Paul's video showing him at VidCon has the people aroung him appearing to be younger. I know my argument is weak, but I just wanted to point something out about Logan Paul's demographic.
1 Great Username (
talk)
02:24, 8 January 2018 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.