Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scott Disick (3rd nomination)

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 delete. Tone 12:00, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Disick[edit]

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

Delete: non-notable for anything aside from being Kourtney Kardashian's consort; all else is derivative of that. Quis separabit? 23:11, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect to Kourtney Kardashian#Personal life. Notability is not inherited. EricSerge (talk) 01:21, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Salt as this is the 3rd nom. NickGibson3900 - Talk - Sign my Guestbook 04:01, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, redirect to Kourtney Kardashian#Personal life and salt Only known for their relationship, role in a reality show, and buying a manor solely for a title. The rest of the article is a BLP minefield and what salvageable content there is can be merged in the rd'ed section. Nate • (chatter) 05:58, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

NO, do not redirect. The result of the second AFD was to merge. As long as the name exists as a link someone is going to make an article out of it. At most, manually move any salient info not already on Kourtney's page from Disick's current page, but it should be, thanks NickGibson3900 for reminding me, SALTED. Quis separabit? 22:14, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect can easily be salted after deletion of the existing content. There are some incoming links leading to the subject's few roles outside of KUWTK (beyond the myriad of vandalism warnings on IP's) and they should at least lead somewhere. Nate • (chatter) 02:26, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It pains me to say this, but the subject of this article passes WP:GNG as evidenced by the sources found in the article and many other independent and significant sources found elsewhere. This guy is a reality shows celebrity and tabloid fodder, and all those stories published about him (like [1][2][3] and many more such stories) demonstrates that he is notable; like it or not. Dolovis (talk) 03:49, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dolovis: Yours appears to be, at this point anyway, a minority opinion, respected but, IMO, inaccurate, because, aside from:

a) some small-time, non-notable, squalid clubbing business "enterprises",

b) the deaths of his parents within two months of each other (a family tragedy but not conferring notability in any way), and

c) his well-known affinity for rolling cigars (which also confers no notability),

Disick's entire public profile is due to his being, as stated above, the consort of Kourtney Kardashian. Quis separabit? 21:23, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be confused about the meaning of WP:NOTABILITY. It is the significant and independent media attention that he enjoys, and not his achievements, which confers notability. For example, Prince Harry's entire public profile is due to his being the grandson of Queen Elizabeth II, yet the public and press are fascinated by this royal relationship, with the result being that he is wiki-notable in his own; not for any outstanding personal achievement he accomplished, but because he has the press clipping to prove it and therefore passes WP:GNG. The same thing has been demonstrated for Scott Disick - his public profile may be due to his being the consort of Kourtney Kardashian - but whatever the reason for his celebrity, he does pass the GNG and thus this article should be kept. Dolovis (talk) 01:05, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't agree with the comparison to Prince Harry or that "[Harry's] entire public profile is due to his being the grandson of Queen Elizabeth II". Harry's title, position, other family connections, and military, civic and personal experiences are his own. Quis separabit? 01:32, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

None of Prince Harry's accomplishments would be worthy for media notice if her were not the grandson of the Queen. But media attention which passes the GNG qualifies him for a stand-alone Wikipedia article. Dolovis (talk) 13:50, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as notability is not inherited, it says in the beginning of his own article currently "He is best-known as the boyfriend of reality star Kourtney Kardashian" and that's about all he's known for entirely. ShawntheGod (talk) 01:48, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as Disick is a popular character on the show, Keeping Up with the Kardashians WIth reality television becoming more and more popular, one does not need to accomplish much to become a household name. In addition to the show, Scott has a web series, [4]. While I do agree that he is a repugnant individual, I do think that he is notable enough for a Wikipedia page. He is the main topic of several articles, as mentioned above. The rules on notability [5] state, "In particular, if reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event, and if that person otherwise remains, or is likely to remain, a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having a biographical article on that individual." Sources have covered Disick in multiple events. I believe it is highly unlikely that will remain a low-profile individual. Although many cannot see why this ridiculous man is relevant, the masses have taken an interest in him. I believe this page is useful. Edit: After reading this article again, I learned that Disick was on the cover of one of my favorite childhood books. This actually was of interest to me. I feel like it would be hard to integrate this information into an article with Kourtney. Sorry, I'm new at this and keep screwing up the signature part. StaciLynn
Delete and redirect to Kourtney Kardashian#Personal life Disick has nothing else going for him except he is Kourtney Kardashian's boyfriend and father of her children. Without the Kardashian connection Scott is a nobody, take that away and what is there? His notability is as meaningful as the "Lordship" title his article states he purchased online.Pedro Pantalones (talk) 07:41, 15 August 2014 (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.