Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scott Disick (4th nomination)

This discussion was subject to a deletion review on 2019 November 22.
For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review.

This discussion was subject to a deletion review on 2015 June 25.
For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review.

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 speedy delete. Per G4. My special admin glasses reveal that this article, while lacking a whole bunch of the BLP and common sense violations of version, the last one before the last deletion, the content in the current article is essentially the same as the content in in the "Relationship with Kourtney Kardashian" section of the previous article. Deleted and salted. If a redirect is to be created, feel free to request one at Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Redirects. Drmies (talk) 23:44, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Disick

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

This article has been deleted at AfD three times, and each time the consensus has been that he does not inherit notability from his relationship with the Kardashians, and has none of his own. Now here it is yet again, and this version does nothing to overcome the previous reasons for deletion. Suggest delete, redirect to Kourtney Kardashian#Personal life and full-protect the redirect so that we do not have to go through this argument a fifth time. Should he in future actually become notable in his own right, evidence of that should be presented at WP:DRV requesting permission to re-create. JohnCD (talk) 19:40, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. JohnCD (talk) 19:41, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. JohnCD (talk) 19:41, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. JohnCD (talk) 19:41, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per WP:CSD#G4. I agree with the nominator, if deleted/redirected, then protect it. The article has adequate sourcing, yes, but all of it is based on the subject's association with a pop-culture figure rather than coverage of the subject in his own right. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:11, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets criteria of WP:Entertainer and easily passes WP:GNG. This actor's character may be unpopular with many people, but for over eight years he has persisted as a regular television personality. In addition to his acting role on Keeping Up with the Kardashians since 2007, he has also become a staple for TMZ, E!, People (magazine), Star (magazine), Us Weekly and other gossip magazines, and in the process has (like it or not) become a figure in pop culture. His popularity with viewers has seen him placed on numerous TV shows including Punk'd, Fashion Police and Miss Universe 2012 (as a judge no less). As a model (without Kim) he has appeared on the cover of the May 2011 issue of Men's Fitness; and several years ago (before his reality TV personality took off) he was the cover model for the Heartland (novel series) by Lauren Brooke, see story at dailymail.co.uk Dolovis (talk) 20:50, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You're the author of the current incarnation of this article, so perhaps you could explain what inclusion criteria he meets, other than your own claims that he is a "staple" in various publications and a pop culture figure? I have no clue about his popularity, to be honest I never heard of this guy until today. Keep in mind that appearances don't establish notability in the same way trivial mentions in major publications don't. He may be famous by virtue of his association with someone notable, but the coverage about him seems to derive from that association. That's fine for the world outside of Wikipedia, but here we have a different definition of what "notability" means. Unfortunately WP:Entertainer is rather vague on the criteria; but looking at the past discussions, it seems that the community doesn't share a liberal interpretation of it. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:48, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You are misinformed. I am not the author of the current incarnation of this article. User:Croxx036 is. It would be very useful to see the deleted edit history for this article. It could shed some light on the the how this article might, or might not be, be improved. Dolovis (talk) 23:02, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep he has received enough coverage to have his own article. --Eurofan88 (talk) 21:26, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: for the same reasons it was deleted three times previously. This is an idiotic abuse of process and of the community's patience. Appearing as an in-law on a reality show (which by definition is not "acting") or being mentioned in gossip magazines do not indicate lasting notability. Regardless of his fan club. DO NOT REDIRECT. Why was this article not SALTED?? Quis separabit? 22:06, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per WP:CSD#G4. Per nom and above editor deleted/redirected, then protect it. Nothing has changed in the last 10 months since we last had this discussion. Being Kourtney Kardashian's boyfriend is not sufficient to establish notability. Sources are all related to that relationship. Notability is not inherited. EricSerge (talk) 22:07, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete G4 Still a BLP nightmare and writing that's definitely not even trying to make a case for WP:N (apparently he just sat in his room doing nothing for 22 years until he went to Mexico in 2005; if you're trying to go for a keep, the WP:BURDEN is on the article creator to make a case for the subject's whole life for notability) and everything here is easily summed up in Kourtney's article. In fact with Caitlyn Jenner, this subject's claim to notability has actually deteriorated in the last few months; restore the redirect and salt it. Also, if anyone would like to do something about the connected disaster of an article On-again, off-again relationship, I would definitely support that. Nate • (chatter) 22:59, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Notability is not temporary. Dolovis (talk) 23:12, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:G4 excludes pages that are not substantially identical to the deleted version, and therefor does not apply. Dolovis (talk) 23:20, 24 June 2015 (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.