Talk:Nick Carter

Legal Confusion
Okay, can someone please tell me how was Nick's sister BJ and brother-in-law Mike Ashton even involved with the restraining orders? It was only Nick and Angel who filed against Aaron. I even found of it myself right here.

1. https://www.tmz.com/2019/11/20/aaron-carter-restraining-order-court-brother-nick-sister-angel/

2. https://people.com/music/aaron-carter-twin-sister-restraining-order-extended/

3. https://www.billboard.com/articles/news/8530283/nick-carter-restraining-order-against-aaron-carter

4. https://www.etonline.com/aaron-carters-brother-nick-granted-1-year-restraining-order-136773

5. https://www.eonline.com/news/1095408/nick-carter-granted-one-year-restraining-order-against-aaron-carter

See? There was no mention of BJ or Mike in any of the articles. 108.46.251.85 (talk) 17:32, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Contentious unproven allegations
Unproven allegations have been repeatedly added to, and removed from, this article. An IP editor has made a legal threat in relation to the material being included. I blocked the IP range under the policy on legal threats. However, I think there is a good case for keeping the material out of the article, and I ask that anyone thinking otherwise should seek consensus here before restoring the disputed material. For convenience I am posting here a copy of comments by and myself posted at  WP:AN/I. JBW (talk) 09:18, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Absolutely no issue with the block for NLT, obviously that's black and white. And on the face of it, I agree that removal of sourced information is generally revertable with minimum thought. But let's take a step back here and think about this. I think it's fair to say that this person is either the subject, or someone associated with the subject. The sentence they are trying to remove is sourced, so agree that it has the right to be included. But is it a fair representation of the sources and situation (WP:NPOV)? For me, no. It doesn't mention that he denied the claims. It doesn't mention any of his viewpoint. Right now, that paragraph reads to someone who doesn't click thru to the source as if the only thing that 'saved' him was the statute of limitations, and does not even touch on the fact that he denied the claims. In my view, I can just about understand the removal of content by a person closely associated with the subject, given the emotion they would feel reading it presented the way it is. I feel like we can make some changes here to benefit the presentation of the information, and improve the content around this paragraph to make it more reflective of the situation (and hence, neutral). Thoughts? (Pinging those who have edited the article recently, , , and blocking administrator .) Daniel (talk) 23:53, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I am largely inclined to agree, . In fact on reflection I wonder whether a friendly explanation and warning might have been better than an immediate block. I will look again at the disputed content, and if I find I am substantially in agreement with your view I shall remove it, and I suggest that if anyone thinks it should be restored they seek consensus before doing so. In dealing with negative statements about a living person we should err on the side of excluding material if in doubt. JBW (talk) 08:59, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Privacy
I have removed names and exact dates from non-notable family members that we do not need to include, per WP:BLPNAME and WP:BLPPRIVACY. Elizium23 (talk) 17:45, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Sexual assault allegations
I feel that the sexual assault allegations in regards to Nick Carter should be added as it's a matter of public record. Initially I added all 3 incidences that had been reported to police, as well as statements from Nick Carter where they were reported. The edit was reverted on the basis no charges were laid. Nick Carter is a public figure and there for the allegations, which are notable and well sourced should be added per WP:PUBLICFIGURE. I have added the blog of the initial Melissa Schuman allegation as the many news reports refer to it and Nick Carter's statement is based on the blog so I within the context it's important to add the primary source. Also it seems this has been discussed above in "Controversy" where 3 different users agreed the allegations should be added and then again in "Contentious unproven allegations" where the main point of contention was neutrality. In my edit I added sources and comments from alleged victim's, police and Nick Carter / his representatives. Pinging and  who reverted my edits so we can hopefully come to a consensus. Persianprince99 (talk) 08:46, 26 November 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Persianprince99 (talk • contribs) 05:03, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

I came across this talk page on Dustin Hoffman, which I found interesting as the proposed changes were written by his publicist (COI was stated). I thought it may be a little useful as a way of comparison as allegations were made, he replied but nothing very significant came of them

There is also this article on Morgan Freeman where allegations of harassment have been documented under the "Personal Life" section. In this case the allegations were not credible but they were still included. I'm including this as the article was reviewed and given GA status

Now I know that just because other articles have been edited in a certain way doesn't mean it has bearing on how this will be edited but I thought it was a good talking point and a bit of a framework to how allegations, regardless of veracity, can be documented in high quality articles.Persianprince99 (talk) 06:52, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Your ping failed. You cannot add a ping to an existing, signed comment. Repinging user:Beauty School Dropout for you.
 * As I said in my edit summary: We don't normally discuss accusations unless they result in convictions, let alone ones that don't even result in charges. Meters (talk) 07:11, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Your reading of the previous discussions is badly flawed. As user:JBW posted after the material was removed in June: I think there is a good case for keeping the material out of the article, and I ask that anyone thinking otherwise should seek consensus here before restoring the disputed material. You restored the material, and more, three times, before bringing it to the talk page. Meters (talk) 07:23, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you Meters for your help with pinging and I apologise for my ignorance regarding the 3 edits. I understand with BLP allegations need to be treated carefully and while usually they aren't added unless there is a conviction there is a stipulation with public figures "If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out." In regards to the discussion between user:JBW and user:Daniel the edit in question was a one line edit stating allegations were made and then dismissed. My edit was substantially different as it included quotes from multiple parties and multiple sources.Persianprince99 (talk) 08:33, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
 * He was not convicted in any of these cases. He wasn't even charged in any of these cases. They are simply accusations about events from many years ago, and we have to assume that he was innocent. The material has been removed multiple times by various editors. You need to get consensus to include this material.
 * It may be that editors decide to include some version of this information, but as it is it is there is far too much detail, and it is unacceptably WP:POV. Starting off with "Nick Carter has been subject to a number of sexual assault allegations throughout his life." is not a neutral, for example. Meters (talk) 07:32, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, re-reading that sentence I would be happy to leave it out. I agree there shouldn't be any assumptions on innocence or guilt, which is why I added the detail I did to cover all sides. I think there is a tendency to argue including the material leads people to make assumptions about innocence but I argue that including the material is vitally important to keep people from making assumptions. I think it's fair to think that people are likely to come to this page knowing about the allegations but not knowing they were dropped or dismissed for e.g.Persianprince99 (talk) 10:30, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Can you elaborate on how my edit is too detailed and issues you have with neutrality? From my POV the detail I added was to succinctly describe the allegations, the police statements and Nick's statements. I was considering extending the quote from Brian Littrell saying that the group stand by their bandmate so there's no misunderstanding with his intent. In a revision I would also remove Nick's friends name as he isn't a public figure.Persianprince99 (talk) 05:07, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Request for comment on sexual assault allegations
Is the inclusion of sexual assault allegations in line with BLP policy for public figures?Persianprince99 (talk) 04:18, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm confused. Why are you opening an RFC over whether this is a BLP violation when the discussion on whether to include this has not reached consensus yet? Meters (talk) 07:11, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
 * It seems pretty clear to me that this is the editor's attempt to get at a consensus on that question.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  07:18, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
 * The RFC question appears to presuppose that the decision of whether or not to include this information is determined simply by whether this is a BLP issue. That's not correct. If it is a BLP issue it does not go in, but that does not mean that it should be included if it isn't a BLP issue. If it isn't a BLP issue then we're just back to the original thread again (where the BLP issue should have been raised in the fist place) to determine consensus. The RFC was opened long before any consensus in the existing talk page discussion could be reached. Meters (talk) 19:16, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Maybe I'm wrong or not quite understanding but the reason my edit to the article was reverted by yourself was because the allegation didn't result in a conviction and that isn't normally included, to me that seemed to be referring to normal BLP policy but not accounting for the public figure section that allegations belong in the article if they meet certain criteria. Rather than addressing the public figure criteria you simply reiterated the fact they aren't normally included so that's why I opened the RFC.Persianprince99 (talk) 21:38, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
 * You opened the RFC prematurely, and you still seem to be assuming that BLP is the only concern here. It is not. I've already pointed out that there is far too much detail, and that the coverage is not neutral. I'm not against mentioning this material at all, but certainly not in the way you have presented it. Meters (talk) 21:50, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
 * For my part, yes, I understand the argument you're making. But I don't think this is going to be all settled out by one RfC or two. Getting this article back into FA shape is going to take time and multiple corrections.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  11:20, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I feel we got off on the wrong foot due to mistakes I've made in procedure due to being a new user. At the time I created this RFC BLP seemed to be the only issue cited and issues of detail and neutrality weren't brought up. So at this point do we agree that the allegations should be acknowledged in the article?Persianprince99 (talk) 04:59, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
 * No, that has not been decided, and that discussion does not belong in this RFC. You've gone from assuming that your material will be included as is if it's not a BLP issue, to assuming that the material will be covered in some form.
 * As for the question you raised in this RFC, in my opinion it is a WP:BLP violation as you wrote it. Can this material be covered in some form that is not a BLP violation? It's probably possible to cover at least some of this material. I don't think it would be a BLP violation to briefly and neutrally mention well sourced accusations in the case of a public figure. Whether all of the incidents, or even just some of them need to be covered, and if so in how much detail is what needs to be decided (and again, that's not what you called this RFC on). Meters (talk) 07:39, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Let's be clear this RFC is not about my edit specifically. There have been multiple discussions on whether or not the allegations belong in this article so I am looking to reach consensus on that initially. I am quite clearly discussing issues of my edit under a different section. I simply asked if we (as in you and I) agree that the allegations should be in the article as your original position was "we don't normally discuss allegations without charges" but above you have mentioned to not being against mentioning the material at all so I was seeking to clarify your position. Persianprince99 (talk) 08:44, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Your RFC is very poorly worded, and does not properly address your issue. It can be interpreted as applying to any article rather than just this one, in which case this is probably the wrong place ask it it. Assuming that you mean to restrict it to just this article, you are asking a YES/NO question. A YES means that we can't mention the allegations, but a NO does not mean that we do mention them, just that it is not a BLP violation to do so. I've already given my opinion on this RFC. I believe your edit as written was a BLP violation. Is is possible to mention the accusations without violating BLP? Yes, probably. So what? If others agree, then the RFC is done and we can start working on reaching a consensus on how much, if any, of this material should be included, and in how much detail. You added it four times. It was removed by three different editors. Previous versions have also been removed. As it stands, it stays out unless editors reach consensus on something that can be added. Meters (talk) 09:44, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I understand your points but it seems you aren't assuming good faith on my part, which is frustrating and it's also frustrating that you continue to point out all the things I've done wrong with very little help in resolving the issues. I've asked for your input above in the "sexual assault allegations" section and you haven't replied. You haven't given me much to go on with WHY you think my edit was a BLP violation besides the neutrality issue around the first sentence. If I open a new RFC how would you suggest I frame the current issues? Persianprince99 (talk) 23:54, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I said nothing at all about whether you were editing in good faith.
 * Your edit as written was so POV as to be a BLP violation, in my opinion. As to why I am not attempting to resolve  the issues, as I've said more than once, you started this RFC prematurely. I'm waiting for it to be closed. If the RFC closes as YES then simply mentioning the incidents is a BLP violation and the material cannot be included, so I see no point in attempting to improve the material until the RFC closes.  These accusations cover incidents from many years ago. There's no rush. Meters (talk) 02:00, 1 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Depends on the coverage level (which translates into broad reader interest). "If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it." This is not noteworthy and relevant, in an encyclopedic context, unless there is a great deal of source material about it, since it was just an accusation that was dismissed and resulted in no charges much less a conviction.  I don't know much about this person, so I'm not sure whether there is sufficient reliable independent coverage of this, in more than a short-term news way, to make this worth including.  Our general norm is to not include crime allegations absent a convinction, but there can be exceptions.  We should be clear on the rationale for inclusion or exclusion. My gut reaction is that this is too trivial and ephemeral, but if, for example, there was a social media campaign against him as a result of the accusations and it is still somewhat ongoing, then it might be worth inclusion, along with the fact that no case resulted from it, since a significant number of readers may be coming here looking for the facts about it.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  07:18, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
 * This makes sense and while coverage level is quite a broad concept I do find the allegations should fit the criteria. There has been considerable coverage from the first publicised allegation in 2006 to present time. In an effort to quantify this the keywords "Nick Carter sexual assault" show 24 million results and Google Trends worldwide over the past 5 years in relation to the search term "Nick Carter" show both "Nick Carter sexual assault" and "Nick Carter Melissa Schuman" as breakout trends. Melissa Schuman is the one of the people making an allegation and also a public figure. Also, Nick's brother, Aaron Carter (also a public figure) has spoken out about the allegations over the past 2 years in a number of well publicised interviews and I'd say a large amount of public interest is coming from that as well.Persianprince99 (talk) 10:20, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I said I didn't want to get involved in the conversation, but I was just following up & I thought I'd just pop in to make some suggestions with regard to search engines: Google results differ by locale (why? I don't know), so the exact numbers one editor gets may vary from those of another, but they shouldn't differ by an order of magnitude. When I search for nick carter sexual assault, I actually only get 8.6 million results, which is hard to square with the 24 million above. (I am not accusing Persianprince99 of lying: I do not think they're lying. I am just trying to figure out what we did differently.) However, I don't think this is a very good search: It's just going to return every indexed page which has all four of these words in it (I know that that's a simplification). If someone's writing slash fiction about Nick Cage sexually assaulting Jimmy Carter, it'll turn up. If I group the terms thus: "nick carter" "sexual assault", I get two million hits. I would still want to be a little more careful, but all ten hits on the first page are stories about allegations against Nick Carter. But really for an issue like this, I want to know that there's news coverage. So looking in news.google.com, if I do the same search, I only get 2,680 results. Four of the top ten results deal with this Nick Carter & the sexual abuse allegations. Several of the other six help uncover things that we would want to be conscious of in evaluating quantitative indicators like this: Nick Carter is also the name of a British general who was, until recently, the chief of the UK's defense staff. He appears in a number of stories about sexual assault within the British armed forces—including three of the top ten news.google.com hits—advocating for structural changes within the British military to better protect female soldiers & address instances of abuse. There's also a rapper Nick Carter who appears in a list of news stories, another of which deals with sexual assault. (That is, that Nick Carter was not relevant to the sexual assault story, but appeared in the same search result.) That said, all of the hits on the second page of news.google.com results were about the sexual assault allegations against this Nick Carter. It seems likely—but I'm just hypothesising—that most of these 2,680 results are about these allegations against this Nick Carter, but it's worth a little digging. (If you assume that any story about this Nick Carter will include the word 'backstreet', you end up with 1,970 Google News hits from "nick carter" "sexual assault" "backstreet".) I really don't have an opinion about whether this story is notable or not. Pathawi (talk) 14:01, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
 * You're right about Google. I've just gone to replicate my result and instead I've gotten 12 million results, which is still wildly different to yours as well. I know the algorithm is tailored so perhaps my increased searching has led to more results being visible? In regards to the Google News, that is also a frustrating one, in the sense not all legitimate news articles are shown. For example in my edit I cited a 2006 article from Broward Palm Beach New Times and it only shows up via Google search. I suspect this is partly due to it being an older publication and/or because it is a local news source. I think Google Trends is still fairly indicative that people are searching for it and while the keywords "nick carter sexual assault" can relate to the other Nick Carter's there is at least the qualifying "nick carter melissa Schuman" breakout trend, which only relates to this Nick Carter.
 * Digging into the Google News side a bit more if I search "Nick Carter" "Singer" "Sexual Assault" I get 2,070 results. To provide some context in terms of notability "nick carter" "backstreet boys" gets 18,800 results, "nick carter" "house of carters" gets 572 results, "nick carter" "lauren kitt" gets 1,790 results and "nick carter" "masked singer" gets 1,610 results. So as far as notability in context for this person you can see that sexual assault allegations are quite notable. In a wider context Nick Carter is named in a number of articles about the #metoo movement such as, and Persianprince99 (talk) 21:28, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I've looked in a little more at the coverage of the topic and also page views for this article and it seems that the highest monthly peak of 300,000+ views happened in September 2019. and that actually correlates directly with the assault allegations being in the news again. It is the same time Nick filed a restraining order against his brother Aaron and central to the articles were the sexual assault allegations against Nick. Examples here, https://hollywoodlife.com/2019/09/18/aaron-carter-nick-rape-accusations-restraining-order-response/ and here .Persianprince99 (talk) 06:28, 1 December 2021 (UTC)


 * No (exclude) - This does not meet BLP, and also that’s not the only issue. BLP requires wide coverage by third party cites, not a blog by an accuser.  Also seeing notes above of legal threats, request to not include for discussion, dealing with negative statements about a living person we should err on the side of excluding material if in doubt, and it being long ago with him not convicted or even charged.  Seems inappropriate for taking to RFC.  (Also, it doesn’t seem significant for a biography so doesn’t belong.)  Cheers Markbassett (talk) 01:08, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify, and this speaks to the issue with my generalised RFC wording that User:Meters mentioned, the edits that have previously been made cite more than a blog. They were reported on in mainstream media and a police investigation resulted. My edit includes 2 other allegations that have also been reported on and investigated by police. My edit is here, this is the edit from 2019 and this was the edit reversion by someone claiming it was libel, which led to the discussion under "Contemptious unproven allegations" https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nick_Carter_(musician)&diff=prev&oldid=1028570927Persianprince99 (talk) 06:28, 1 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Inclusion of allegations must meet WP:PUBLICFIGURE at the very least. The disputed diffs show that some of the sourcing is lesser than high quality and only information from the highest quality sources (and multiple) should be presented under WP:DUE. The level of detail sourced to People and Daily Beast don't cut it for me. Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:43, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Many of the sources here are not usable for facts; several more are not usable for BLP-sensitive claims. Vox is not in-depth. However, the sources CNN, NPR, Time, The Daily Beast and People look good enough to mention something on the topic. — Bilorv ( talk ) 20:57, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 5 March 2023

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved. I see a consensus favoring the move in numbers and in argument strength. Nobody questions that the singer is the primary topic by a huge margin in terms of likelihood of being sought as estimated by relative page views. While long-term significance is also important, in order to counter such a strong primary topic by page views, any other use with more long-term significance also has to have a relatively significant number of page views. But here the other uses are clearly quite obscure in terms of how often people visit them and therefore in terms of how likely they are to be sought. There is also consensus to move the dab page currently at the base name to Nick Carter (disambiguation). The other uses are so unlikely to be sought there's no need to even hatnote link to any of them directly from this page once it's at the basename; just one to the dab page should be sufficient. --В²C ☎ 03:59, 26 March 2023 (UTC) В²C ☎ 03:59, 26 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Nick Carter (singer) → Nick Carter
 * Nick Carter → Nick Carter (disambiguation)

– This is why I propose this move. The topic seems to be primary/main (WP:PRIMARYTOPIC) for many years, but the singer has been very popular since the 90s. RapMonstaXY (talk) 11:51, 5 March 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. BilledMammal (talk) 03:33, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
 * (Requested move of associated dab.) Rotideypoc41352 (talk)
 * Updated dabpage requested title, per OP. 162 etc. (talk) 17:13, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Should note that both Nick Carter (disambiguation) and Nicholas Carter are redirects to the dab page.  P.I. Ellsworth &thinsp;, ed.  put'er there 14:37, 5 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Support Nick Carter (singer) → Nick Carter if paired with Nick Carter → Nicholas Carter, but oppose Nick Carter (singer) → Nick Carter if paired with Nick Carter → Nick Carter (disambiguation). An argument can be made for Nick Carter (singer) being WP:PRIMARYTOPIC over other men named "Nick Carter", but not over men named "Nicholas Carter", since the dab page also lists Nicholas Carter (cricketer), while others among those listed as "Nick Carter" are likewise indicated as having been named "Nicholas". —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 00:26, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment: Do we need to have the dab page to "Nicholas Carter"? RapMonstaXY (talk) 10:13, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Updated as requested. 162 etc. (talk) 17:13, 6 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Support first, oppose second, move DAB to Nicholas Carter instead.--Ortizesp (talk) 18:18, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose moving the dab to Nicholas Carter. A majority of the entries on the dab page are "Nick Carters" who are not also "Nicholas Carters". Dekimasu よ! 07:03, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
 * Support as proposed, but especially the first as a clear primary topic.|Nick_Carter_(singer)|Nick_Carter_(character)|Nick_Carter_(British_Army_officer)|Nick_Carter_(footballer)|Nick_Carter_(baseball)|Nick_Carter_(cyclist)|Nick_Carter_(tennis)|Nick_Carter_(anime)|Nick_Carter_(athlete) The dab page title is much less important, but all but one of the articles listed is titled "Nick..." and only four of the other ten definitely have "Nicholas" as part of their subject's name. Several use "Nick" solely as a nickname. So Nick Carter (disambiguation) is the better title but shouldn't hold up move of the the singer. Station1 (talk) 05:49, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
 * https://wikinav.toolforge.org/?language=en&title=Nick_Carter shows that there were 308 outgoing clicks to the singer from a total of 446 incoming views of that list, which is ~69%. This is moot, because we clearly see that there's reader interest in other topics, it's not overwhelmingly in favor of the presumed primary topic by usage, and if someone wants to argue primary topic by long-term significance, we need a more coherent argument than what seems to be an assertion. The singer is listed as the first entry of the second section, so I'd just swap the two sections and call it a day for now. --Joy (talk) 17:47, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't see where those numbers are coming from. When I click on that link it shows Nick Carter (singer) getting 86.52% of outgoing clicks in January and 91.77% in December. Station1 (talk) 00:39, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
 * That's the graph of *only* outgoing clicks nearer to the bottom of the WikiNav page. That one looks at the body of all outgoing clicks, regardless of incoming clicks. However, near the top of the WikiNav page you can see how many incoming clicks there actually were, and from the top graph see how many outgoing clicks happened per topic, and then compare those. To analyze whether a navigation element serves its purpose, we can't look at just the people who navigated by way of clicking further, but also those who chose not to proceed, for whatever reason. Maybe some of them were confused by seeing the list and gave up. Maybe some of them saw the list and found the information they were looking for on it. --Joy (talk) 08:45, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose All - I don't see this as the primary topic. It should be much more likely than any other single topic (granted) plus more likely than all the other topics combined. For people who grew up listening to the Backstreet Boys I could see it, but I bet few would know who Carter is individually. What's funny is when I hear Nick Carter I immediately think of the famous conductor from Australia and Switzerland. Why he's not here I have no idea. My second thought was the fictional detective. The singer was third on my list. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:41, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Sir Nick Carter (British Army officer) commanded the British Armed Forces, for crying out loud! No primary topic here. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:55, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Support both. The singer is a definite primary topic. Looking at |Nick_Carter_(singer)|Nick_Carter_(character)|Nick_Carter_(British_Army_officer)|Nick_Carter_(footballer)|Nick_Carter_(baseball)|Nick_Carter_(cyclist)|Nick_Carter_(tennis)|Nick_Carter_(athlete)|Nick_Carter_(musician) monthly pageviews over the long term, we can see that the singer maintains a substantial and consistent lead in pageviews. (Note that Nick Carter (musician) was the article title prior to 20 June 2022.) Additionally, the claims that the singer is not the primary topic contradict one another; one opponent disputes that the singer is "more likely than all the other topics combined", while another opponent notes that the singer receives 69% – i.e., an absolute majority – of the outgoing pageviews from the Nick Carter DAB. (For the title of the DAB page, Nick Carter (disambiguation) is my preference (per Dekimasu), but Nicholas Carter is also acceptable.) ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 15:00, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment. Note that pageviews are not the be all and end all. Long-term significance is just as important, and I would argue that a British Chief of the Defence Staff easily trumps a member of Back Street Boys in long-term significance. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:38, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Page clicks should not be the sole determinant. For me, the former British Chief of the Defence Staff is a more significant individual. Dormskirk (talk) 19:08, 25 March 2023 (UTC)