Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Melissa Pastore Scott

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 Eugene Scott, no independent significant coverage in reliable sources has been found to establish notability. Davewild (talk) 11:35, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Melissa Pastore Scott[edit]

Contested prod. Fails WP:BIO. See also the deletion review Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 March 22. Widow of Eugene Scott.; while he was notable, nothing in the article indicates that she is, nor are there any sources to indicate possible notability. Pairadox (talk) 11:27, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Tentative keep~~. Xymmax removed the first sentence of this comment out of an over-abundance of caution re: a possible WP:BLP concern. Xymmax (talk) 17:56, 14 February 2008 (UTC) However, in light of the previous deletion I think we'll need reliable sources that assert notability. PC78 (talk) 11:44, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As an explanation for my actions above, there was a prior AfD for this subject last March here. At that time many of the comments addressed the appearance in the article of information that, while widely repeated on the net, and mentioned above prior to my edit, lacked reliable sourcing. I removed the reference to the statement. If I'm overreacting, I apologize. Xymmax (talk) 18:07, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I've got no intention of getting involved in any controversy, especially over a subject I couldn't give a toss about. For what it's worth though, I did manage to find one news article which at least gives mention to her "shady past" [1]. PC78 (talk) 23:43, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, I'm glad you didn't take it the wrong way. I saw that source too, but I don't think we can use it as proof since it states itself that the author is repeating info he found on the net (including Wikipedia :) ) Xymmax (talk) 03:10, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per previous discussion, unless suitable sources can be found. I'm assuming that the Kevo link used in the article doesn't count as a reliable source. Perhaps someone knows if it's just a mirror of the original Wikipedia article? PC78 (talk) 00:08, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Eugene Scott. The version of this article that survived the prior AfD and DRV became a redirect to the subject's husband. Based on my somewhat cursory search, it doesn't appear that any reliable sources have appeared since that speak to her independant notability. If it appears otherwise after I look further tonight I'll happily reconsider. Xymmax (talk) 18:13, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:07, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Eugene Scott. Nothing has changed to invalidate prior AFD. --Dhartung | Talk 05:44, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Her increased media presence merits not only an entry, but expansion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lamlsk (talk • contribs) 14:55, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. And are there any reliable sources that speak to this increased media presence? I ask this sincerely, as I see you edit extensively in this area. I couldn't find anything other than her website, links to the church, or attack sites. Xymmax (talk) 13:56, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Her elaborate website points to this presence itself. A google search on "Pastor Melissa Scott" without quotes gives over 150,000 citations and with quotes close to 10,000. Lamlsk (talk) 14:24, 28 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.81.11.71 (talk) [reply]

Comment And you'd think that it would be easy to find a reliable source among them, but I searched, and I couldn't. They all are blogs, attack sites, self-published sites for Scott or her husband, or the like. I could not find independant treatment by any newspaper, magazine, etc. Xymmax (talk) 22:11, 29 February 2008 (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.