Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jason Scott (Life Tabernacle Church)


 * 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, discounting SPAs, newbies. Alkivar's keep would be more compelling if it weren't in Pirate-Day Pirate-Speak. :) Xoloz 16:04, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Jason Scott (Life Tabernacle Church)
non-notable, fails verifiablity, fails WP:LIVING &mdash;Hanuman Das 01:09, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per my nom. The reference links don't work, and an affidavit is not a reliable source. &mdash;Hanuman Das 01:09, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep. Many of the details would be verifiable (there was a civil suit).  The first link does work, pointing to a news article, and there is back-up on the Ross page, stating that this did bankrupt the CAN.  There is clearly an honest attempt at sourcing the aticle here.  Is this deletion request in good faith?  --Ogdred 01:24, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh, and being the case that caused the Cult Awareness Network to go bankrupt and end up in the hands of the Scientologists (assuming that is indeed true) is certainly notable in my book. --Ogdred 01:31, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, the nom is in good faith. Neither of the links was working when I nommed it. I agree that the case itself is notable, but is the person? &mdash;Hanuman Das 04:51, 13 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep. Per above. Shortfuse 02:47, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Uhh...so is he really notable because litigation involving him caused the CAN to go bankrupt? And in that case why isn't it enough that the CAN article covers this? This fellow is a private citizen who does not seem to have done anything besides file a lawsuit against the CAN. Litigants in lawsuits, even if the lawsuits generate famous issues or produce famous results, are not usually notable. We should respect this guy's privacy. Allon Fambrizzi 05:00, 13 September 2006 (UTC)Allon Fambrizzi
 * Yeah, what he said. &mdash;Hanuman Das 05:10, 13 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment. As I see it, the article passes WP:V, WP:LIVING and the links work, so most of the reasons for deletion given here are not valid.  The article presents reasonable detail about his notability, including not just the suit itself, but the circumstances around the later settlement, and attempts by his former lawyer to nullify it, so Scott is not just a plaintiff here.  On top of that, it is a fairly well written and sourced page, in contrast to most of what is being discussed here.  --Ogdred 06:00, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete ultimately this is not about Jason Scott the man, it's about the Jason Scott deprogramming incident and subsequent repercussions. The subject appears to have little or no coverage outside of that restricted locus.  Thus, covering it in the articles on CAN and Ross is both logical and prudent per WP:LIVING .  I am not sure the subjecty would consider this incident to be the sum totalof his life's worth, and as the article says his current activities are unknown (for good reason: he is not actually independently notable).  Nor is this article entirely about Jason Scott, a fair bit of it is about his mother as well. Overall, I'd say delete this history and redirect the few inbound links to CAN. Guy 12:25, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Merge with/redirect to CAN article. --Roninbk 13:14, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep This man had a huge effect on the deprogrammer industry. Seano1 19:49, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep or Rename The arguments for renaming the page to something like "The Rick Ross -- Jason Scott Case" make sense, but the information is too important to the history of cults to delete. Thank you. User:AOrange 17:08 13 September 2006 (PDT) — Possible single purpose account: AOrange (talk • contribs) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic..
 * Keep. I agree with AOrange that it might be renamed after the Case, though, as it's not really about Jason Scott's life, just his famous case. --Eileen R 02:18, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. This is not a biography, but an article about a court case, a case which is only important in the context of CAN. Any info not in the CAN article should be merged into it. -999 (Talk) 14:54, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Arrrrrr this be a Keep says I tis a famous incident... methinks this belongs as a keep!  ALKIVAR &trade;[[Image:Radioactive.svg|18px|]] 13:00, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete merge any relevant details into the CAN article.  Tewfik Talk 18:49, 19 September 2006 (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.