Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Martin Scott (military officer)

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 no consensus. (non-admin closure) Kirbanzo (talk) 15:35, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Scott (military officer)[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Martin Scott does not come close to meeting WP:SOLDIER. He was brevetted twice the second time to lieutenant colonel, which was his rank when he was killed in the Mexican War. He had no civilian "track record" to satisfy WP:GNG. Much of the page is hearsay extracted from existing documents which, in turn, often read "I was told" or similar terms. The tale of a raccoon surrendering to Scott in lieu of being shot may be the most mind-boggling. Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 22:10, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 22:12, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Vermont-related deletion discussions. Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 22:12, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 22:12, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Having a fort named after you must count for something. The source in the article for that may not be very RS, but here's a better one from a book source. I'm seeing his name come up in a few books, The Life of Major General Zachary Taylor and General Scott and His Staff. All little more than passing mentions but in particular this book refers to him as "the famous Martin Scott" indicating that, at least in his own time, he had some notability. SpinningSpark 00:52, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
~~If the keep fails, then repurpose as an article about the fort.~~ The fort is definitely notable. It has a book written about it and there are scholarly papers on archaeological investigations at the site.[1][2]. SpinningSpark 01:14, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment We already have an article about the fort: Fort Martin Scott.--Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 14:12, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Right, I should have known. Striking my comment. SpinningSpark 22:57, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems to be enough mentions to pass WP:GNG. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:11, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:49, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: does not meet WP:SOLDIER & significant RS coverage not found. Sourcing is namechecks and in passing. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:46, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I would be more convinced of his lack of notability if someone with access to a historical American newspaper database was to comment. Highbeam does not go back far enough. For instance, their oldest result for "Custer", who was unarguably notable in his own time, is dated 1984. SpinningSpark 08:45, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- There are two contemporary papers in newspapers.com that report his death; one says he is "celebrated" but doesn't say why. Newspaperarchive.com has one article about Scott talking a raccoon out of a tree and a couple articles about Fort Scott, mentioning that the post was named after Martin Scott but, other than his being killed in battle, offering no reason. I can do clippings if required.--Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 14:40, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:44, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. Merge to Fort Martin Scott also possible, but I think in this case this passes GNG. SOLDIER only creates a presumption of notability - it does not preclude notability for those who do not pass, and criteria for SOLDIER are more tuned to the modern era (and less to the US army between the war of 1812 and the Mexican war - which was a small force with low ranking individuals having a significant influence in folklore and various Indian wars). I'm satisfied that the followings hits from my cursory BEFORE - [3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11] - that there is probably enough coverage out there for GNG.Icewhiz (talk) 14:55, 29 April 2018 (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.