Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Conspiracy Series with Shane Dawson

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 keep. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:19, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Conspiracy Series with Shane Dawson[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Articles about this series have already been deleted three times:

I closed two of those, so I'm sort of WP:INVOLVED, and it's questionable whether this version is sufficiently identical for WP:G4. So, bringing it here for a wider look, and more authoritative decision. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:13, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No change or improvement in content, another use of title case to round the previous AfD's. Stop this embarrassing charade already and respect our consensus. Nate • (chatter) 02:11, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Looking at the web showing that has enough coverage which it does not always mean being risk from being deleted. The reason for this deletion is little to no improvement, like the other two of those which is identical which Royhsmith said. Sheldybett (talk) 05:07, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Plenty of coverage since the last AfD, see e.g. this in-depth NYT article [1]. This isn't a run-of-the-mill webseries. wumbolo ^^^ 09:39, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - if this was created by the same editor, they should get blocked. --Gonnym (talk) 11:45, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. ___CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 12:54, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:29, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge As I recall, someone has previously tried to delete this page about a month ago per WP:TOOSOON; the series has some coverage here and there but it’s notability is always inherited from Dawson. It’s intellectual dishonesty to think that New York Times article is about the series itself rather than the Bigger Picture. Merge with Shane Dawson. Trillfendi (talk) 17:57, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi all, I noticed that a few pages of this topic had been made and deleted due to bad sources and the fact the series hadn‘t ended. When it did end to continue the multiple other pages on Dawson’s series in continuity in the format of The Mind of Jake Paul and The Secret World of Jeffree Star. This is completely new page and I have no association with the other deleted articles, and I pride myself in creating articles on notable topics with correct information that does justice to the topic and if you read it and other similar pages The Mind of Jake Paul and The Secret World of Jeffree Star you will see this. Thanks! l — Preceding unsigned comment added by LukaStevens (talk • contribs) 08:34, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The topic is notable per WP:GNG. Looking into merger, I found that, per content of each article, it would do more damage than good. gidonb (talk) 18:06, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This series is important and notable. eventhough their might be a lack of content a merger might save this articleBMO4744 (talk) 19:43, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable and will continue to be added onto by editors when more sources are found. Goveganplease (talk) 04:12, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:06, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:GNG and a merge would be not be suitable or necessary. Linguistical (talk) 14:49, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tymon.r Do you have any questions? 22:56, 9 March 2019 (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.