Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/KSI vs Logan Paul

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. Arguments for deleting this article centre on the subject's supposed lack of significance, concerns over promotionalism, and the amateur and fairly out-of-the-blue nature of this fight. Keep !votes hinge on the coverage of this subject in reliable sources. These sources are not of the sort that can be dismissed out of hand, but those arguing for deletion have not convincingly demonstrated why they should not count towards meeting WP:GNG; indeed there generally isn't much engagement with the sources among the "delete" !votes. As such, no outcome other than keeping this is possible here. Vanamonde (talk) 07:58, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

KSI vs Logan Paul

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

• How to contribute
• Introduction to deletion process
• Guide to deletion (glossary)
• Help, my article got nominated for deletion!

KSI vs Logan Paul (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Similar to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/KSI vs. Joe Weller. A boxing match between two Youtubers, with insufficient non-promotional coverage. power~enwiki (π, ν) 15:30, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Boxing-related deletion discussions. PRehse (talk) 15:34, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

• Delete As per nominator. No support that this is a notable boxing event.PRehse (talk) 15:45, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:58, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:58, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

• Speedy Keep Passes the GNG. It's been given significant coverage in Polygon (Feb 2018, "YouTube boxing just went international, so when does YouTube get involved?"), The Verge (Jun 2018, "Logan and Jake Paul’s fight with KSI is shaping up to be deeply embarrassing"), and The Independent (Mar 2018, "KSI vs Logan Paul: The inside story on two of YouTube's biggest stars and the biggest white collar boxing match in history") over the course of five months. Wugapodes [t^hɔk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɻɪbz] 16:28, 22 July 2018 (UTC) 00:38, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
  • It may be kept, but it certainly should not be a speedy keep. WP:NEVENT says routine news coverage of such things as announcements, sports, speculative coverage, and tabloid journalism are not sufficient basis for an article; individual sports events are generally not notable. If there were a good redirect target, I would suggest that; but the WP:XY problem makes it difficult to redirect to either person's article. I also note the sources describe this as "deeply embarrassing" and "may be scrapped". power~enwiki (π, ν) 23:32, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
    • Seems I am wrong in my speedy keep. I have struck it. Wugapodes [t^hɔk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɻɪbz] 00:38, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
• Keep Significant coverage as shown by Wugapodes. --Deansfa (talk) 21:31, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:45, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

• Delete Fight for a non-existent title, and this article tells us nothing about whether this is a sanctioned fight. The previous fight was completely non-notable, and unless something ghastly happens here, this seems like it'll be a one-day media distraction for fans of the two YouTubers and nobody else. This information is better off in the subject's individual articles than it is in its own article (and this is also a WP:TOOSOON case where the fight can still be called off for a number of reasons). Nate • (chatter) 04:31, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
• Keep The event has recieved coverage, I agree with Wugapodes. However, it absolutely could use a bit of expansion. EggRoll97 ^(talk | _contribs) 04:52, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
• Keep per others. To add on to Wugapodes, Business Insider and The Guardian. Abequinn14 (talk) 05:50, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Delete per nom. I guess my links just prove the noms point. "I also note the sources describe this as 'deeply embarrassing' and 'may be scrapped'." Not much shows that the fight is notable, if anything at all. Abequinn14 (talk) 08:35, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:43, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

• Keep This event has received more than enough coverage to qualify as notable. Aelimian21 (talk) 05:19, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

• delete - I can see how this could provide some pop interest, but the boxers aren't professional (I'm aware this is also true at the Olympics). The first match wasn't notable, either. Even if kept, I'm not sure the title of the article is suitible. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:31, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment At least at the Olympics there's a goal at the end and a basic structure of rules and referees (same for the Golden Gloves). Here, we don't know the sanctioning body and if the refs have ever judged a fight. Nate • (chatter) 06:41, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

• Keep - sufficient sources provided discussing the fight to pass GNG. The point that the fight is described as "deeply embarrassing" is irrelevant; GNG only requires coverage, not positivity. OZOO (t) (c) 10:58, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
• Keep easily more than enough coverage to pass the general notability guidelines. 207.164.152.162 (talk)
• Keep - News sources are talking about the fight in the mainstream media and as such outlets are covering the fight, it would only be fair to suggest keeping the page up. See here, here, and finally, here. --Pokkeballs17 ^(talk), 12:55, 11 August 2018, (GMT)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 22:39, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 22:39, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

• Strong Keep due to recent involvement between the two that has attracted millions of viewers worth of attention on KSI's channel, Logan Paul's channel, other Celeb channels (e.g. PewDiePie) in addition to countless YouTube news channels and even some Mainstream Media. Currently, this page reaches 2,500 daily views without fail (possibly due to deletion nomination, but still is a ton for a deletion nomination page–those usually just get 100 daily) and sometimes passes 3,000 making it relevant enough to keep. This definitely needs a 2nd deletion nomination after the drama between the two dies down someday and this page becomes irrelevant. Redditaddict69 ^{(click here if I screwed up stuff again) (edits)} 02:59, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

*Keep Mainstream media coverage aswell as thousands of tickets being sold at one of the UK's largest arenas. User:TheMasterGuru

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 19:24, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

• Keep per above. 344917661X (talk) 20:57, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
• Keep fails passes the GNG. ^Thanks, L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 21:13, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

@L3X1: did you mean "Delete - fails the GNG", or "Keep - meets the GNG"? power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:26, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

@Power~enwiki: yes.
Regards, SshibumXZ (Talk) (Contributions). 01:55, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Sorry all, I miswrote. ^Thanks, L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 18:45, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

• Keep — Doesn't pass subject-notability-guidelines but passes general notability guidelines.
  Regards, SshibumXZ (Talk) (Contributions). 01:55, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
• Delete Pop culture novelty, not notable boxing match doktorb _words^deeds 05:14, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
• Delete. Fails WP:10YT. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:44, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

@RoySmith: WP:10YT isn't a reason to delete, if anything, it seems a reason to keep for the time being and see how coverage develops after the event: "Just wait and see...Editors writing today do not have a historical perspective on today's events, and should not pretend to have a crystal ball." The essay 10YT is a part of even cautions against using it as a reason for deletion, from the first section of WP:RECENTISM: "Over-use of recent material does not by itself mean that an article should be deleted...". The essay is about how to cover notable recent events, not determining the notability of an event. Wugapodes [t^hɔk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɻɪbz] 21:15, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

• Keep — Struck previous comment for this updated one. Mainstream media coverage (from sources such as BBC and Sky News) as well as thousands of tickets being sold at one of the UK's largest arenas. Also expecting this fight to break multiple armature boxing ticket sales (which are expected to sell out the venue with 21,000 ticket sales) and views and maybe even break boxing pay-per-view numbers. In addition, multiple professional boxing personalities are involved and have taken interest. In addition to the over 50,000 page views this page has received in the past week and promises to be much higher come fight night. More than enough to pass GNG.TheMasterGuru (talk) 15:29, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

References

• Weak keep for bare minimum coverage just barely passing WP:GNG. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 21:35, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
• Keep. Passes WP:GNG with significant coverage from The Verge, BBC News, and many more. — Newslinger talk 21:51, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
• Delete Pop culture novelty. TBMNY (talk) 23:05, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
• Delete This event has no true relevance on impact of the world itself. You can argue that cartoon wikis are on here but my expectetion is that they're notable characters within the cartoon that has a impact on the world itself. This boxing tournement has no real prize at the end of it making it a random boxing match for no true goal. You may claim that the winner gets fame but it's true but not a real prize in the boxing match. — Preceding unsigned comment added by IRexBot (talk • contribs) 00:10, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
• Keep — easily has enough coverage to be considered notable. Passes GNG with ease, very suitable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.51.127.148 (talk) 01:34, 25 August 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.