- Scott Disick (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
See the talk page. I'm not sure if this is the right place for this, since the article has been discussed several times before, but I am not sure where to request a review. At this point there is no reason Scott Disick should not have his own page. He is quite notable, constantly reported on in pop culture, appears regularly on Keeping Up With the Kardashians and has for years (147 episodes), has his own clothing line, and currently has his own TV show on E! Network. Mukedits (talk) 01:12, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, this is the right place to discuss unprotection of a redirect that replaced an article deleted at afd. Given that it was deleted at afd, though - three times after full discussions, and the last as a speedy - you're going to have to explicitly refute the arguments in those afds, with sources, to have a hope of getting it overturned. —Cryptic 02:04, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I think Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scott Disick (4th nomination) pretty clearly outlines the problems. I think the well-reasoning admin will want any version of this article to be created in draft space first. Drmies (talk) 02:25, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Restore Easier to work with what's there now than to start from scratch. Just find two reliable sources that give him coverage, mention those as evidence of notability, and then add them to the article. Just look through that and click some things to read through to confirm. [1] Dream Focus 12:38, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and SALT with Extended-Confirmed Protection in both article space and draft space. The community has already decided three times that he isn't even sufficiently famous for being famous to have his own article, and that he can be covered with his girlfriend, and the fourth nomination didn't even require a debate. Too much is too much. If he accomplishes anything new that isn't associated with KK, an experienced neutral editor can develop an article. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:28, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Robert McClenon it was already mentioned at the nom, he is starring in Flip It Like Disick, which is unrelated to Kardashians besides the guest appeareances, plus his new "Talentless" clothing brand which already turns up two WP:SIGCOV articles in reliable sources solely about him [2] [3]. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 19:58, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Some WP:SIGCOV coverage on OK! [4]. Seems he also had a short lived restaurant [5], appeared on the cover of Men's Health that has a profile of his (sadly full article only in print) [6] and recently on Sunday Tasmanian with some coverage [7], and apparently appeared on the cover of Heartland (novel series) as a teen. I think he overall has a solid claim to notability even without Kardashians around. The last AfD was 4 years ago, things have changed. I am also okay with drafting if needed. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 19:58, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Pinging Drmies and Cryptic for comments. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 20:01, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I suggest that anybody who wants us to have an article on this comes up with a workable draft first. The most recently deleted version has the same content as Kourtney Kardashian#Personal life, there is no point in restoring it. The next most recently deleted version is five years old and mostly consists of trivia such as incorrect claims to be British royalty and an incident in which he killed and skinned an alligator. I suggest starting again and making sure to demonstrate notability through sources rather than just appearances on reality TV shows. Hut 8.5 20:37, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the content reveal. Yeah, do not restore this as is. A perfect case of WP:TNT. A draft from scratch should be the best way to go here. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 20:47, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I have to say that I don't think it's a good idea to just unprotect the redirect given the number of times this has been deleted at AfD and the fact that the major suggested sources are gossip magazines and tabloid newspapers. For a BLP like this we should be looking to get the article right and not just put up any old article on the grounds that it can be improved later. This isn't the right venue to decide whether to delete a redirect, especially one which was kept at RfD two years ago, and as I've noted the deleted versions have no value. Hut 8.5 07:41, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think the deleted article should be restored given the length of time and continual AfD failures, but I don't see any problem with bringing a draft up to a point where it passes WP:GNG, probably at AfC. SportingFlyer T·C 02:12, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- In light of the discussion below, given this article's history, I still think we'd be better off having this be accepted at AfC than boldly recreated and potentially subject to an AfD. SportingFlyer T·C 02:23, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Stop. We're in the process of reaching a poorly-thought-out decision here. Redirecting his name to Kourtney Kardashian#Personal life may have made sense in 2015 but it does not make sense now. They broke up in 2017, since when he's been frequently covered in the press, and yes, I do fully accept that these are low-quality articles in the show-biz sections of tabloids and gossip-mags, but, there are lots and lots of them. Profile in The Sun, recent article in The Metro, gossip in Cosmopolitan, gossip in Elle, gossip in Who. Yes, he's a person I consider deeply uninteresting and untalented. Yes, much of the coverage is banal and trivial in the extreme. But, clearly, writing about him still sells magazines so there's still ongoing interest in him despite his now-long-ago break-up with Miss Kardashian. Therefore his name's a plausible search term. So how on earth would it make sense to enforce a decision to redirect his name to that of a woman he stopped dating more than two years ago? Things that make you go hmm.—S Marshall T/C 18:55, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Allow Re-Creation - If his show has been accepted, and has his name on it, he is notable. There has been too much fancruft written about him by inexperienced editors, but if experienced editors like User:Jovanmilic97 and User:S Marshall are willing to review the article, it will be okay. I still like the idea of Extended-Confirmed protection, but am willing to compromise on the presence of Extended-Confirmed editors. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:24, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete the redirect, (let anyone looking for “Scott Disick” discover the quite good Wikipedia internal search engine that is intercepted by the redirect). He is highly associated with KK, in the past, and there are children, but WP:BLP! Many pages have mention of Scott Disick, the redirect is no longer appropriate, and the subject is not clearly Wikipedia-notable. Allow AfC draftspace drafting, but do not allow bold recreation in mainspace. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:52, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Allow Re-Creation There seems significant evidence that he is now notable quite apart from any connection with the Kardashians. I don't see the need to mandate going though a draft, although I would strongly advise any editor to create a draft first, and unless the editor is experienced, to seek review through AfC or from a willing experienced editor before moving to mainspace. Enough has apparently changed that the previous AfD result is no longer relevant. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 19:21, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Allow Re-Creation or restore if it is not worthy of a stand alone article, someone will nominate it for AfD. Lightburst (talk) 19:08, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Support for the prevailing consensus at DRV close per the rationale cited by S Marshall above. Doug Mehus T·C 19:49, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
|
