Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nate Moore (actor)


 * 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 Killing of Dave Owen Ward. No real notability here, but as long as the article on the killing exists, a redirect there seems reasonable. Randykitty (talk) 16:07, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Nate Moore (actor)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Person of minor notability - biography now primary notability is to report the manslaughter of Dave Oren Ward, which is not a reason for an life story/biography article, I suggest adding a note to the dead persons article - check, there is already detail there. This is the version that User:Neptune's Trident created - it was 95 percent a controversy section and imo it is/was a violation of WP:BLP, undue weight/primary focus in a life story on a criminal offense when his life story is so minimal and has no possible chance of being expanded - I note also that Dave Oren Ward is of very limited notability also and that User:Neptune's Trident was the creator and main contributor to that wikipedia biography - Govindaharihari (talk) 12:39, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions.  Everymorning   talk  12:44, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Comment - the article closedly associated with this one has also been listed for AfD, Articles for deletion/Dave Oren Ward. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 16:51, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Keep Subject is notable with reliable sources. Neptune&#39;s Trident (talk) 18:14, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Support Merge - I spent some time editing and expanding this article and agree that its "light on substance". The nominator makes a good point about this and the article for Dave Oren Ward, so I suggest that they be merged with regard to the subject matter that links them or merged into an appropriate article such as Road rage or something relating to the subjects involved. There is no reason that Wikipedia should lose the information. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 18:31, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Comment to the REVIEWING Admin - I was uninvolved in this matter until I saw this post on the BLP Noticeboard. I then reviewed the article and edited it along with a related article for Dave Oren Ward, Moor's victim, and an associated Disambiguation page, Nathaniel_Moore_(disambiguation). Users Hemi.pwr, Shark310, Neptune's Trident, Govindaharihari, and an IP (72.199.48.165) have been edit warring over various content to the point where I don't know who wants or does not want "what" in the article. BUT, none of them are uninvolved at this point and this should be taken into consideration. I would still very much like to know the extent of User Hemi.pwr's claim (below) with regard to the primary source as it would make issue far easier to decide if it turns out to be non-WP:RS. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 07:17, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

"COMMENT TO REVIEWING ADMIN"- I feel like it is intellectually dishonest for user scalhotrod to claim neutrality on this issue, considering the fact that this user reverted/revised this rather obscure article NINE times in less than THREE hours. It would Appear that even scalhotrod is personally "involved" on some level. In any case, two film credits in 16 years doesn't make for note worthiness as an actor, and a 16 year old "manslaughter" or "self defense killing" or whatever it was that Happened in 1999 between those guys, I'm sorry but it's not worthy of wikipedias attention. Please don't anybody "sue" me, I'm only speaking my opinion, but imo as for the deceased in this case, who had a grand total of four credits in all low-budget, unheard-of, and obscure 90s indie films Well I think, dead as he may be, there's not much chance of him making much more of an impact, noteworthy-speaking... It would probably be a good idea to nominate that "article" for deletion as well. Wikipedia isn't the place to light a candle for the departed. It's a site dedicated to the noteworthy. Not the obscure. Alwaysquestioneverything (talk) 09:54, 25 December 2014 (UTC)alsaysquestioneverything Blocked as a confirmed sock of Shark310


 * I feel it is odd that you would use the word "intellectually" having missed the statement, "I was uninvolved in this matter", my emphasis added. The very first part of my statement is me clearly saying that I am involved in this matter and the rest is bringing to light that everyone else voting here is involved as well. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 16:43, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

"Comment to REVIEWING Admin"- I have never heard of either of these parties. I was actually looking through the articles for deletion of other non-notable actors, and I am confused. Having looked at both bios (Ward and Moore), i dong understand the debate. Outside of personal issues, neither one of these "actors" have even come close to achieving a "noteworthy" career; in fact, almost every one of the articles up for deletion contain more substantial film and/or television credits. This whole issue seems pretty frivolous to an outside observer. It seems almost irrelevant if the single "source" in debate is "credible", I think the bigger question is, who are these people and why is wikipedia allowing itself to be a sandbox? Furthering my confusion is the fact that "actor" Ward had a few parts in films nobody has ever heard of from over 15 years ago. Why isn't his page up for deletion? This is pretty funny reading for the holidays. Cheers everyone!Filmfanboi (talk) 09:31, 25 December 2014 (UTC)user filmfanboi  Blocked as a confirmed sock of Shark310


 * Actually you are "uninvolved" in everything. Your account was created today and this is the first edit that you've made. You do know that your IP address is traceable, right? So if someone is using a second account to influence a formal process like this, its not difficult to determine. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 16:56, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

"Support deletion"- the only expansion or editing of this article in its history as been done by people citing one unreliable and inaccurate story, written by John Horn, a friend of the deceased. This story was the subject of a libel lawsuit, for its many harmful inaccuracies. The friends of the deceased,( a very Much unknown and insignificant "actor" from a few small independent films in the 90s,) have taken the opportunity to hijack wikipedia and wage a personal campaign to attack a living person, violating many wikipedia policies. See Wp:avoid victim,WP:COI, wp:notpublicfigure, wp:blpname, and wp:blpcrime. The supporters of keeping this article have a history of editing the Nate Moore page with language that no objective third party Wiki admin would allow. Besides quoting a single Ill informed source, (the guardian) the information included in some of these edits is irrelevant and of no interest to the general public. Things such as an opinion of what Moore wore to court are ridiculous. These "editors" should cease their nonsense and move on. This has no place in wikipedia. David ward wasn't significant enough to have an article either, for that matter. If so, every single extra or one or two line actor who ever lived would require an "article." The fact that ward and his two friends began a fight one night that ended poorly for ward also does not necessitate a "wiki" article. Wikipedia has many provisions against allowing persons to hijack the forum and does not allow persons to use articles as a way to continue an ongoing personal attack. Please refer to the many "edits" made in the past 24 hours.Hemi.pwr (talk) 20:11, 24 December 2014 (UTC)hemi:pwr Blocked as a confirmed sock of Shark310
 * Wow, do you have evidence of what you are asserting about the article and the lawsuit? This changes things completely. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 12:27 pm, Today (UTC−8)

"delete" Neither of these "actors" have achieved anything close to "signifigance". There has only been a handful of wiki activity on either page, from the handful of same users. The "crime" mentioned isn't worthy of any significant attention. Wikipedia isn't a history of crime blotters, rather, according to Wikipedia standard, the subject must be "worthy of notice" – that is, "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention. Neither of the two subjects have achieved notability as actors, and the "event" was not at all noteworthy. One article was written years ago in a now defunct newspaper. This appears to be a personal matter, best left out of Wikipedia. Inclusion only seems to invite the use of Wikipedia as a forum for personal use. One need only glance at the traffic and edit patterns of either "article" to see that they are mostly edited by the same person, "neptunes trident", making note that this use was also the creator of Both pages. I'd say delete and move on. 😃Shark310 (talk) 20:39, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Why did you delete my question? --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 20:47, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Needs to be deleted: Sets bad precedent; Among other issues I've reviewed the "sources of information" that have been cited to by the proponents of this page. I am a Deputy District Attorney and have been so for many years. I have extensive knowledge of the criminal justice system as well as the way a case proceeds through the system. From what I see, one of the creator's of this page has cited to a magazine article which was written during the pendency of the case. As such, it cannot be considered a reliable source of information. None of the facts stated in the article had to be proven at any point. In other words, think of the following analogy: a tabloid may say that Celebrity X is currently pregnant. Months later it is determined that said celebrity is not pregnant. Yet, the tabloid would at no time print a retraction because at the time of the original article it sold copies. As such, this has no business in a webpage that is dedicated to providing true and accurate information. Furthermore, and what should be given most weight is the fact that, if you look up the court documents, which, based on the information it does not appear any of these contributors have, Mr. Moore entered a plea of "Nolo Contendere." For those of you who don't feel like googling that and who didn't suffer through law school, that is a plea of "No Contest." This means that a plea agreement was reached where the Defendant did not actually admit to guilt. It is NOT a guilty plea as many people confuse. I've also taken some time to look online and it appears neither of these persons, Nathaniel Moore and David Ward are of noteworthy significance in their so called "fields" of acting, or in anything else for that matter. In fact, I doubt anyone, besides maybe their close friends or family have even heard of them. To allow this sort of what appears to be a "feud" between interested parties opens a door to many more articles where a "Victim" and "Defendant" wage war on a website designed to provide the public with scholarly and noteworthy information. This site is called "Wikipedia - The free Encyclopedia." It is not a place for two groups of people to feud over what may have been a significant event in their own personal lives. If every Victim of a crime and every Defendant decided to start Wikipedia pages to slander each other in a public forum, it would only desecrate this site, whose purpose is to provide accumulated knowledge on important topics or people. Nathaniel Moore and David Ward do not fall into either of these categories. I'm sure both parties have strong feelings about this situation, however, Wikipedia is not a place for a feud between two interested parties. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CA Prosecutor DDA (talk • contribs) 00:37, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

DELETE this issue is clearly the result of an ongoing personal feud. Wikipedia should immediately delete both pages and maintain its integrity, dignity, and credibility. Neither one of these two parties is even remotely close to "noteworthy." The author of both articles, "Neptunes trident", is clearly involved on a personal level, violating the NPOV policy, and as such, it would appear that the sole and primary purpose of this article is to violate rule 3 and 9 of the reasons for deletion clearly stated in the Wikipedia reasons for deletion. In other words this is an attempt to disparage one private party by another private party. This is exactly the kind of thing that ruins Wikipedia credibility.00:47, 25 December 2014 (UTC)Factchecker0818 (talk) Blocked as a confirmed sock of Shark310

Comment - My suspicion is that the following editors Hemi.pwr, Shark310, Factchecker0818, are maybe all the sockpuppet accounts of actor Nate Moore? And he's trying to get this information offline? Just a guess. And for the record, The Guardian is a VERY reliable source and a major newspaper. The story was also written about in Premiere magazine as well. Neptune&#39;s Trident (talk) 17:38, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:12, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:12, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Strong Delete - Subject is a not notable actor with a not notable, failed acting career. Worlds Famous Cypress Hill (talk) 20:11, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete. If the article for Dave Oren Ward survives AfD then a merge and redirect would not be unreasonable, but as far as Moore goes, he's solidly non-notable. The only thing he's known for is the manslaughter case and even if he pled no contest, this is still ultimately what he is known for. None of his roles gained him any recognition, so other than the manslaughter case there's just nothing out there. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   09:41, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I've argued for deletion for Ward since his roles didn't really gain coverage in reliable sources and the films themselves could probably redirect to the director's page. I do note that there is a new article titled Killing of Dave Owen Ward and barring that page getting deleted, this could redirect there. I am a little leery about the new page since there really isn't a lot of coverage about the manslaughter itself and I'm also slightly concerned that this could be a little bit of a WP:POINTed response to various edits made by sockpuppets intent on removing the whole thing from Wikipedia as a whole. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   10:06, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Tokyo, there is already a merged article in progress, Killing of Dave Owen Ward. As soon as this AfD is closed, it can be converted to a redirect for both Moore and Ward. As for the Scoks, its a clear case of WP:CENSOR to me. What their connection is to the Moore incident, I have no idea, but no one has the right to delete information that they don't like. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 19:55, 27 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete. It appears that, small acting credits notwithstanding, Moore is only potentially notable for the crime he was involved in. That puts us in a situation somewhere between WP:BLP1E and WP:WELLKNOWN; an actor is not necessarily someone who is likely to remain low-profile, but neither is Moore notable for anything but this (single-sourced) event. Luckily, BLP1E and WELLKNOWN both give similar advice regarding BLP content: "If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out" (WELLKNOWN) and "The significance of an event or individual is indicated by how persistent the coverage is in reliable sources" (BLP1E). Currently, the article's crime content is supported by a single, rather tabloid-y news article. I can find no further coverage of the event in a google search, and certainly nothing high-quality enough, or focused on Moore enough, to support a negative BLP. The article's non-crime content is supported even more weakly, with only an IMDB link and a passing mention of Moore's name in a movie review. Though it's not being proposed right now, since the alternative article has been brought up above, I'll add that I would also support the deletion of Killing of Dave Owen Ward on a similar basis; its sourcing is essentially the same, providing little reliable support for an article on a sensitive BLP-related topic. If more sources covering the actual crime are available, it might possibly be saved if it can be fleshed out in a direction other than "tabloidy", but in its current state, it has no business on Wikipedia given our commitment to BLP. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 03:04, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Hey Fluff, that's a fair observation. If you don't mind, maybe give the Editors that are working on the article a reasonable amount of time to research and expand the article. At least a month would be nice, we're all volunteers after all... :) --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 07:20, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Laughable - no one is waiting a month to allow this rubbish to continue exist - Govindaharihari (talk) 09:32, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Your urgency does not help your case, but thank you for your comment. Like I said on the merged article Talk page, things like this cast doubt on actions and intentions. You're just helping to make my case. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 21:47, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
 * In a typical article about, say, a company whose notability is iffy, a month wouldn't be a big issue. But in a almost-wholly-negative BLP, policy compels us to remove such negative content unless and until it can be supported with a reliable, published source ("Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced – whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable – should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion"). The only source available right now doesn't meet those specifications, and your requesting a month makes me think no better sources are readily available, so I continue to feel that the material cannot be allowed in an article - which means the article has no notability at all. If you want to keep working on the article to get it to a more acceptable point, I would suggest working on it as an offline document until such time as you feel you have provided fully-adequate sourcing for the negative claims. I know that's an awkward workaround, but the fact is that a negative BLP is a particularly special case of "err on the side of Wikipedia not hosting it until its sourcing is unquestionable." A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 19:12, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Just so were clear, we talking about Killing of Dave Owen Ward and not this article and you're referring to the Guardian article as a source? We should move the conversation there if that's the case. As for this (Nate Moore) article, I'm perfectly fine with having it deleted and turned into a redirect. I even asked an Admin, but this AfD has not run 7 days yet. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 19:18, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Both articles share the same gossipy single source supporting the account of Ward's death, so I'm talking about both: if there's no more adequate sourcing available for the quite opinionated claims made in the Guardian column (especially subjective, storytelling stuff like who said what in which dramatic manner, what intent Ward and/or Moore had, whether either man was talented or likeable, etc), we cannot rest an article, about the person or the event, on them. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 19:28, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
 * OK, if I understand your assertion, you're saying that because The Guardian article has subjective elements, that the factual information can't be used? And for the record, I agree with your reduction of the "crime novel" aspect of the incident description. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 21:02, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
 * More that given the POV and embellishments in that article, its reliability as far as basic facts (especially considering there appears to have been no trial, and thus no conviction/testimony/witness statements backing up the article's assertions) is pretty iffy. In conjunction with some other reliable sources covering the topic, it could be fine as a "and here is what some coverage of the time looked like"-type source - it doesn't need to be written off entirely, necessarily. As a lone support for the event, however, it's really not something I find to be high-quality enough to hang a negative BLP (or an article based on negative content about a BLP) on. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 22:08, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The point about the "no contest" plea and there being no trial is well taken, but not so fast on the testimony and witness statements. The death of anyone means that A LOT of "paper" (law enforcement speak for reports) is generated. Police reports, witness statements, followup incident investigations, and medical staff statements taken by police are all public record and available for review. In my opinion, the level of detail given in The Guardian article (and I am assuming if for nothing other than liability reasons) had to come from credible sources like these for their fact checkers or editorial reviewers to have passed the article for publication --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 02:08, 1 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I can't tell if you're serious or joking? All of the things you listed: Police reports, witness statements, followup incident investigations, and medical staff statements taken by police are NOT public record. I don't know where you got that idea. All of those things are located in 2 places... the DA file and (I'm assuming) the defense attorney's file. Forgot.... the Defendant would also get a copy of reports. I guess you could always attempt to ask him for a copy. It appears that in some of the other comments I was reading, accused him of being on here a couple times. Not sure if that's allowed. Seems like that shouldn't be allowed. But I'm new. Anyways, point is you cannot just go to the law enforcement agency and ask for copies of reports re: people. Hence the reason, in my prior posts, I was kind enough to inform you that the facts as they are listed are inaccurate. However, let me comment on something you said in one of your earlier posts; and I am giving you the benefit of the doubt in that you were not accusing me of any sort of misconduct or saying I have violated any of my ethical obligations as an officer of the court or even as an attorney. Since those are very serious allegations which I would take very seriously. It is because the information is not public record that I did not correct the misinformation. I have simply let you know it is inaccurate. As stated by another user,  there was no trial and thus no trial testimony, which WOULD be public record. It seems as though you are misinformed. Also, I do not understand why you appear to have such a vested interest in this. It appears EVERY time someone disagrees with your strong opinion to keep this, you start with attacks and accusations. I just had an opinion. I did not want to wage some sort of war with you. I simply feel this is not noteworthy, the persons involved are not noteworthy, and most importantly, the information is inaccurate. No need to tarnish the integrity of this site.


 * Your opinion is fine, and you can continue to have it, but if there are verifiable sources available and someone wishes to spend time creating an article to document an event within Wikipedia guidelines, the integrity of the site allows for this. Like I said in my reply to you at the Talk page for Talk:Killing_of_Dave_Owen_Ward, your opinion is not going to change policy via this one article or this single discussion. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 07:03, 1 January 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.