Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Logan Paul suicide controversy


 * 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.

The result was redirect to Logan Paul. Clear consensus to not keep. No consensus between merge, redirect and delete. Redirect is the most consensual outcome because it allows merging from history to the extent consensus supports it.  Sandstein  17:45, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Logan Paul suicide controversy

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

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)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! Baby miss  fortune 04:53, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! Baby miss  fortune 04:53, 3 January 2018 (UTC)


 * 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)
 * Merge to Logan Paul and Delete. I don't see the need for a redirect, as people searching for "Logan Paul suicide controversy" will find the "Logan Paul" article. GoingBatty (talk) 18:50, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Note The article has since been moved to Logan Paul suicide video controversy. Everymorning (talk) 22:27, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * Snow delete: This is undoubtedly worth a subsection, but unless this blows up tremendously, a whole separate article is unneeded. Sock   ( tock talk)  02:34, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete - Already covered in Logan Paul. TheDeviantPro (talk) 03:45, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete A controversy from 1 video that was up for only 1 day isn't enough to warrant a Wikipedia article. There's enough information in Logan Paul, anyway. Codyorb (talk) 04:14, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
 * 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 05:07, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete No reason for a redirect. Nihlus  10:22, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Merge to Logan Paul and Delete Per WP:RECENT SpanishSnake (talk) 17:16, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Note on merging: there is nothing to merge here as it was copied in it's entirety from the main article. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:17, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete already covered on the guy's article.  Callmemirela   &#127809; talk 18:51, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Logan_Paul as a helpful and plausible search term and tag as R from subtopic. People will see this in the search bar, and will not have to scroll down from the main Logan Paul article. Patar knight - chat/contributions 20:52, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Logan_Paul - per BrxBrx and Patar Knight. Probably isn't a notable event (yet) but a plausible search term that is related to the Logan Paul article. If there is more coverage in the future I might change my !vote. Inter&#38;anthro (talk) 22:34, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * Merge all content with Logan_Paul. This is a flash-in-the-pan controversy which doesn't require a specific article other than mentions in the article subject's page. Optakeover (U)(T)(C) 14:25, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
 * 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.  Event horizon51  (talk) 14:49, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Merge and delete, although considering most of the information is now in the Logan Paul article I'm teetering towards speedy delete. J.M.Ike (talk) 22:41, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete, not worth a standalone article. 01:48, 6 January 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Romeowth (talk • contribs)
 * Delete then redirect to Logan_Paul. Plausible search term but the article is verging on BLP issues. WP:NOTNEWS.  Anarchyte ( work  &#124;  talk )  01:59, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect to Logan_Paul. A size or content split is not justified. See WP:SPLIT. Waters.Justin (talk) 03:16, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Logan Paul. Nothing significant enough to warrant a separate article. Adamtt9 (talk) 05:01, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Logan Paul 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. Sky  Warrior  05:59, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete making a separate article for this was a waste of time in the first place. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.95.65.252 (talk) 19:44, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete a controversy about a YouTube video that was posted for 1 day is not notable enough for a standalone article Talagan (talk) 11:58, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect just a brief localized internet outrage, no way worth its own article. Juxlos (talk) 12:43, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Merge and Redirect to Logan Paul - The content is already at Logan Paul so there's no need for a seperate article. – Davey 2010 Talk 17:39, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * "YouTube views" is not a good way to show how something is notable or not. Neither are petitions. The lawsuit isn't directly related to the controversy and should go be the main Paul page anyways. As for the rest, well, Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Sky  Warrior  21:33, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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 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)
 * I am aware that his fanbase is very young.  Yoshiman6464   ♫🥚 04:33, 8 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep the article i would say this deserves to stay, its a noteworthy event. maybe flesh it out a little more tho 60.229.149.32 (talk) 11:57, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Redirect and merge to Logan Paul, since I doubt the article will have enough content to justify its size when a proper parent article exists. -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 22:39, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete and redirect to Logan Paul It's a sparse article which can be covered in more detail on the Logan Paul page. 73.96.114.212 (talk) 08:18, 10 January 2018 (UTC)


 * 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.