Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scott Disick (2nd 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 and redirect to Kourtney Kardashian#Personal life. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 19:30, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Disick[edit]

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

WP:NOTINHERITED. Subject is claimed to be a "model, TV personality, and businessman." What is supportable is that he appeared on the Kardashian shows (because he is married to one of them). Other than that, there seems to be neither coverage nor any other body of work that would confer independent notability. (After posting this, it appears this article was nominated and deleted a few years ago for the same reasons, and then recreated). MSJapan (talk) 23:05, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Begrudging weak keep - bad things will likely happen to me for defending this one, but... he probably does meet WP:GNG on the basis of the media coverage which has focussed on him (and thus have given him, personally, "significant coverage") rather than articles which have focussed on her, with him as an "also, ...". Including:

This painful article about a party with the Pussycat Dolls.
This article about how he is allegedly a drunk who allegedly can't be trusted around children.
This article about how he allegedly doesn't have a real job.
This article about how he allegedly didn't want to answer questions about all of the above.

I will apply a general caveat to all of these by saying most are from "gossip columns", even those from otherwise reliable news sources like NineMSN. Some are just straight-up gossip. While I'm conscious of WP:NOTGOSSIP, this is "entertainment news" type gossip which has come from various sources. Would be interested in the general consensus on sources like TMZ, PerezHilton.com and others of their ilk. There is plenty of "coverage" of him, but none of it is in the New York Times or Chicago Tribune (unless you count their gossip columns too).

My only other concern would be that given the tone of almost every article about the guy, writing the article from a NPOV is going to be almost impossible and we are talking about a BLP. Allegedly, Stalwart111 (talk) 01:47, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 15:51, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 15:51, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Kourtney Kardashian#Personal life. Pretty much, if it were not for his relationship to Kourtney, he'd be off the radar and have no coverage at all. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:57, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The Kardashian claim is WP:NOTINHERITED because he is not famous for the antics of the Kardashian sisters...they hold title to that. His family name remains "Disick," and demonstrates no obvious public lineage in the marital relationship.

- This painful article about a party with the Pussycat Dolls.
- This article about how he is allegedly a drunk who allegedly can't be trusted around children.
- This article about how he allegedly doesn't have a real job.
- This article about how he allegedly didn't want to answer questions about all of the above.

None of the italisized items are notable whatsoever. Being at a party with even Gene Simmons (much less The Pussycat Dolls) wouldn't make you notable - even if he (or they) autographed Scott's boobs. Being an alledgedly untrustworthy drunk is not notable as half our politicians probably are too. 50% of America doesn't have a job, so that's not notable for him either. And not wanting to answer questions about why you are not notable is probably a prudent thing for him to do so people don't realize it quite so much. If we make an article of it, everyone will know he is WP:NN. So let's be bold and delete this. :Яεñ99 (talk) 10:21, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

More than happy for that to happen and if the consensus is that the sources might provide "significant coverage" but not of any activities which would make him "notable" then I'm all for that. I would almost suggest that regardless of the length of the articles or the depth of "coverage", articles like this could reasonably be considered "trivial mentions" as they effectively flesh-out what would otherwise be one-line mentions of the subject into gossip. Cheers, Stalwart111 (talk) 23:55, 24 September 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Delete: WP:NN -- Dan Griscom (talk) 23:02, 24 September 2012 (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.