Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hunter Moore


 * 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 keep. Nyttend (talk) 05:41, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Hunter Moore

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This article should be deleted and redirected to Is Anyone Up? per WP:CRIME. The only qualification for notability is his association with Is Anyone Up?, a more suitable article for biographical details on him. Founding the website is not inherently notable. He's simply not notable on his own. Keegan (talk) 20:01, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

I say keep the entry. A minor figure, yes. But a minor public figure who served as the human face of a corporate entity that went about harming ¿hundreds of? ordinary citizens. Mr. Moore is sufficiently well-known and sufficiently connected to a semi-important public issue (i.e. revenge porn) to merit a wikipedia article, if for no other reason because people will consult Mr. Moore's entry when they read about his recent prison sentence. The most important daily newspaper in Spain (El País in Madrid) reports today (06 dec 2015) that Mr. Moore received a two-year prison term for his role at Is Anyone Up? Link here: El rey del porno vengativo, condenado a dos años de cárcel. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dennis3333 (talk • contribs) 05:16, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Sure, but that information can be put into the parent article and the redirect will point the person looking up the information there. Keegan (talk) 17:15, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:25, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:25, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:25, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:25, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:25, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions.  SwisterTwister   talk  06:47, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Could do with a bit more discussion.  Onel 5969  TT me 13:01, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Redirect as mentioned as all in all he seems better connected to that so there may not enough solid independent notability for a separate article. SwisterTwister   talk  06:47, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete and redirect to Is Anyone Up?, not independently notable and has another place for info per WP:CRIME. L235 (t / c / ping in reply ) 13:55, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment The website should be redirected here, look at the sources, majority of sources have his name in the headlines - not the website, this is a pivotal legal case as the laws were introduced for him specifically plus he was also a entertainer on the side (DJ) and the legal coverage is better suited for this then the website article. Look here GuzzyG (talk) 17:44, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Onel 5969  TT me 13:01, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete and redirect I can't see any point having two articles covering essentially the same case and policy is usually to write the crime not the perp. Also noting that no-one has bothered to update the sentence. That wasn't hard to find and is quite telling about the real significance of either of these articles. Thanks. Spartaz Humbug! 10:17, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect to Is Anyone Up? per Nom. -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 20:12, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep the man has received media coverage about his criminal acts that may or may not be associated with the website he founded. WooyiTalk to me? 21:00, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep Granted the site was what brought the charges, however his actions (which were well documented, and have a number of sources) are enough to justify the page staying. RickinBaltimore (talk) 21:56, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep A reprehensible predator and little man. A felon who got what he richly deserves.  But WP:SIGCOV and WP:GNG nails it.  I don't have to like him to keep the article.  A cautionary tale; there might even be some lessons to be learned by having such an article.  7&amp;6=thirteen (☎) 22:02, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep He's an epic douchebag who is (or was) big enough on the internet to have this sort of notoriety displayed on a Wikipedia article for what went on. I mean just Googling what happened to him in 2015 alone brings up like five relevant pages of Google results from news coverage articles like The Smoking Gun and Washington Post. The internet really cares about this guy suffice to say, an article on Wikipedia is definitely necessary I feel like. Second Skin (talk) 00:42, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep but reduce the duplication. This is significant enough to pass WP:CRIME  DGG ( talk ) 02:04, 20 December 2015 (UTC)


 * 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.