Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scott Moore (sergeant)


 * 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   redirect to Mila_Kunis and delete history per consensus. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:47, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Scott Moore (sergeant)

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Fails WP:GNG. Essentially WP:BLP1E. Article probably created by subject or someone closely affiliated with subject. Bbb23 (talk) 19:12, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. I don't think anyone who gets 4 million views on a youtube video should get an article on Wikipedia.  This is more suitable for a mention on Mila Kunis (It actually is mentioned there.  Perhaps move a couple more details from here to that page, then delete it. Millermk90 (talk) 19:51, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 19:57, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 19:57, 3 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep - Although the above contributors are correct that one event does not automatically make someone notable, the WP:GNG is satisfied in this case, as the sources in the article demonstrate. Most of them are reliable and feature Scott Moore or his video as their subject, which clearly establishes notability. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 21:01, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - This was all over the news for several days, both when it came out and when the date actually happened. He also started the trend of this, as he was the first on to ask.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scottyboyy9 (talk • contribs) 23:26, 3 December 2011 (UTC)  — Scottyboyy9 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Delete - per nomination. Anotherclown (talk) 21:44, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - no notability outside of the one event. MilborneOne (talk) 22:30, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. "Notable" for a single non-notable event. -- Necrothesp (talk) 22:46, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. The three sentences on this in the Mila Kunis article seem appropriate. Nick-D (talk) 23:07, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. Nick-D is correct. The entry already there is completely sufficient. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 00:45, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. He's only notable for one event. The only thing that could have potentially taken him out of this event or shown that he had lasting notability is the Teen Choice awards and he was only nominated. He didn't win, so still falls under WP:BLP1E. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 05:19, 4 December 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79
 * Delete - ridiculous. Completely lacks any notability. Buckshot06 (talk) 11:40, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - Not in any way notable. Vincelord (talk) 16:59, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Changing vote to delete after reconsidering the WP:BLP1E rationale. The sources only establish notability for that one event, which is not enough for an article. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 19:03, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect to the target of his attention; or delete. Stuartyeates (talk) 01:01, 9 December 2011 (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.