Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Melissa Scott (pastor)


 * 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; redirecting to the article on her late husband Gene Scott may be done at editorial discretion. The main issue here is reliability of sources. From the discussion, much of the subject's attention has been due to a text in the magazine Marie Claire, and it has been established that it is not a reliable source. Looking at the article, this is covered in a section entitled "Secretive past", which appears to consist of speculation. Much of the rest consists of fairly general personal data, made up of sources that contain very brief coverage.

Several of the keep votes have suggested that the article ought to be fixed up becuase the subject is notable, and one provided some sources to show that the article can be fixed up. However, even if this is so, in this case we have an issue with unreliable sourcing on a matter that is invasive on the subject's private past. That is a BLP issue that requires more urgent action than waiting for someone to fix up the article. The consensus is clearly against having this as a separate article.

The choice is therefore between a merge/redirect and outright deletion. The subject is covered in the Gene Scott article, which might suggest a redirect even if there is not really a consensus for it. However, I am calling this an outright deletion since the BLP problems would otherwise remain visible in the page history. Sjakkalle (Check!)  19:33, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Melissa Scott (pastor)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Nominating this mostly procedurally, but also because it needs a discussion. This is a BLP about a woman who took over pastor duties from her husband after he passed (Gene Scott), but does not appear to have any singular notability except for a theory pushed by Marie Claire prior to her conversion to Christianity. As I believe it to be a possible BLP violation, I will not link to it here, but it is in the talk page, the history, and some discussions in the BLP noticeboard otherwise. I do not see how this person has enough notability to maintain an article even with the questionable material, nor are there enough reliable sources to do so even if the notability was conferred by the questionable theory. So I am nominating this for deletion, and would currently likely vote in favor if I ran across it today at AfD. Previously kept at Articles for deletion/Melissa Scott (televangelist) in 2006. Thargor Orlando (talk) 17:32, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
 * This has been discussed multiple times, in multiple places. Here it is, again. It is neither a "theory", nor a "BLP violation". The "Barbie Bridges" stuff is completely verifiable through public records. The problem is, that at this point, we have no way to get it into the article without straying into original research. It's not in the article at this time, and it shouldn't be. This is because it would violate WP:NOR and WP:SYNTH; not WP:BLP. There's a big difference. Joefromrandb (talk) 07:35, 1 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment - Thanks to the fellow editor for bringing this request. I DON'T agree that this article would still lack notability if Marie Claire were added. But in any case, MC is effectively "banned."  One or more admins even tried to ban it from the talk page, which not only I think is absurd. As it stands now, there are no valid sources in the stubby article at all, except 1. as rel her husband, 2. about a church that was sold which is not tied (@ least in the art.) to MS, and 3. about her preaching broadcast schedule.  IMO WP BLPs should not function, especially exclusively, as advertisements for their subjects. I am an "inclusionist."  'Have never supported deletion of a WP article I'm sure.  But this one IMO should go. Paavo273 (talk) 18:02, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:33, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:33, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:34, 31 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep A quick indpendent search on the web turned up a good deal of sources on the subject. Clearly it should be scrubbed to meet WP:BLP and then protected if necessary, but deletion is not the solution.--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:16, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
 * "Clearly it should be scrubbed to meet WP:BLP? What the hell is in the article at this point that doesn't meet BLP? Joefromrandb (talk) 07:25, 1 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Can you link some of them here for review? Thargor Orlando (talk) 19:49, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Here's one that says that due to vandalism the Wikipedia page had to be removed. I think we can protect pages now... --Paul McDonald (talk) 20:09, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
 * That's the article that's been "banned by WP" because it mentions her past as a nude model and porn actress. Paavo273 (talk) 20:17, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Is there an actual link to the discussion about the "banning of the source" by Wikipedia? I can't find it and would like to know more.--Paul McDonald (talk) 21:50, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Even if a theory about someone's past can confer notability on them, we need multple, reliable sources. Is there more than this rumor? Thargor Orlando (talk) 20:28, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't believe it is a theory or rumor. IMO it's either a fact or a falsehood. MC 2009 cited multiple sources w/ 1st-hand knowledge of MS. If MS is not a Public figure (as in New York Times v. Sullivan), she could have owned the MC company and all those other people who talked "bad" about her to the article author--if it were false. Even if she is a (limited purpose?) public figure, I would think she could have proved the "actual malice" required and still owned 'em all--if it were a falsehood. Paavo273 (talk) 21:04, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi Paul McDonald: I'm glad you saw the follow up comments to your vote. It wasn't actually "official" action.  More of a de facto banning.  Mainly some heavy-handed actions by one or more certain WP admins. (who even tried to ban discussion of it on the talk page) and a chorus of some people who seem to have a personal emotional need for this article to exist, WP rules be damned (probably the basis for s.o. placing the "close connection to subject" tag).  I'd refer you to the talk page, especially the top half to see how it went down,e.g.,  (1--bottom 2 lines of section)  and  (2--bottom 3 lines of section) . Coincidentally, an unusual number of prior participants on that talk page (weirdly or by coincidence) have been blocked from or voluntarily exited WP.  One would have to go back into the history of the talk page to find the actual diffs., but the admin. who doctored the talk page literally expunged the MC2009 material from talk as promised by that admin in my Wikilinked refs above.  Another user later added some of it back with his own critique.Paavo273 (talk) 23:23, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
 * That would be I. Please note that I added it back after a WP:BLPN discussion deemed the material to be acceptable to discuss on the talk page. Joefromrandb (talk) 07:50, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete  - There's nothing there to scrub or protect. As per copious discussion on article talk page: No notability, and totally lacking meaningful content or source citations because there are NOT any valid sources on the WWW except Marie Claire 2009 which has been "banned." Paavo273 (talk) 19:54, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The Marie Claire article hasn't been "banned". It was deemed by consensus to not meet WP:RS for WP:BLP purposes. Prior discussion at the BLP-noticeboard has, however, deemed the article perfectly fine to link and discuss. It's quite conceivable that a better source may be available in the future. It is for this reason that I advocate merging it to Gene Scottthus preserving the article and its history until we can have an article that covers her entire life, rather than the tiny portion of it that is currently covered. Joefromrandb (talk) 07:45, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 'Don't know how I missed that. Must not have watched the article. I wouldn't object to a merge as long it involved losing the plug for her broadcast schedule in the text of the article.  (Let's face it, there's not much to merge.)  That info could be IMO appropriate to keep as a link to the cited broadcast website in "See other" or "External links" @ end of GS article. Paavo273 (talk) 18:51, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Weak keep or merge to Gene Scott. It seems that there isn't much about her lately; there was a time, around the time she started taking over the preaching, she did have a higher profile (even leaving aside the rumor discussed in that Marie Clare article). Given the anodyne nature of what's there now and the apparent unlikelihood that the article will be expanded meaningfully anytime soon, merger to Gene's article might be the best alternative. --Arxiloxos (talk) 20:17, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Merge to Gene Scott, per my previous proposal. It was opposed, with the false argument: "we have different article-standards for living and dead people". If anyone opposes a merge on these grounds, please note that WP:BLP would absolutely not cease to apply in such a case; it is in effect anywhere any living person is mentioned, anywhere in the encyclopedia. Joefromrandb (talk) 07:18, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2014 February 2.  — cyberbot I  Notify Offline 14:32, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment This should already have been speedy closed as there is no deletion nomination and no WP:BEFORE.  Requests for comment are handled under RfC.  affaritaliani.it is a publisher with articles on both the English and Italian Wikipedias.   states, "La nota predicatrice televisiva..." (the well-known television preacher).  The Wikipedia article itself has attracted attention in the press (MC).  So much for wp:notability.  Research shows that other names for this topic are Melissa Pastore, Melissa Pauline Peroff, Barbi Bridges, Barbie Bridges, and Mrs. Eugene Scott.  As for the argument that the ministry is shrinking, notability is not temporary.  Merging with the bio on the previous church pastor would confound the issues of Christianity and nudity with the Gene Scott ministry.  Is there any source to show that Gene Scott was aware of the nude pictures?  There is little overlap between the two topics, and Gene Scott had more than one wife.  Unscintillating (talk) 00:45, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
 * "Merging would confound the issues of nudity and Christianity with the Gene Scott ministry". I don't see how it would, as there is nothing about it currently to merge. It won't be in the article until either a better source is found or there's a change of consensus as to the Marie Claire piece. When and if that happens, there still won't be any confounding, as the article can simply be moved back to a standalone. You're right about there being very little to merge. This is a pathetic article, and it wouldn't bother me one iota if it were deleted. I just figure that per WP:PRESERVE, it would be better to merge to retain the history. History, as in back when the article actually contained some information about her. Joefromrandb (talk) 03:39, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
 * If you've been unable to build consensus on the talk page for a merge, why should AfD overturn the current consensus? The policy WP:ATD does not allow the use of AfD for what are really content disputes.  Unscintillating (talk) 04:22, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
 * WTF? There's not really a content DISPUTE, more of a DEARTH of content.  It appears IMO that WP:BEFORE has been solidly met.  And WP:Notability (people) states in part, "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other,[4] and independent of the subject." Here a specific "finding" by "consensus" was made by the involved editors (not me) that MC2009 is not reliable, d/n qualify for use in article.  I'm not optimistic affaritaliani.it would meet the required standard set by these august contributors.  ‘Haven’t read the WP policy about "confounding/overlapping Christianity and nudity"  Even if that one exists :-), it's IMO not relevant 'cuz nudity can't come in per the "consensus." Is there really some other technicality that wasn’t followed? Paavo273 (talk) 06:09, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
 * What the hell are you talking about, Unscintillating? "Unable to build a consensus"? "Overturn the current consensus"? "Content dispute"? What article are you looking at? I proposed a merge quite some time ago. It got precisely one response: an "oppose" by an editor who mistakenly thought that WP:BLP would cease to apply to Melissa Scott if her article were merged into that of her dead husband. The fact that it got only one response, coupled with the fact that no one even bothered to remove the "merge" tags after over a year, shows how lightly trafficked this article is. The article, its talk page, and now this AfD, are a ubiquity of bedlam. "Merge" is as acceptable a result as any other at an AfD-discussion, and there is nothing that even remotely approaches a consensus on the talk page. Some time ago, an editor attempted to block any attempt to even discuss how the article should be handled. He made all kinds of bizarre removals and redactions, rendering the talk page an unreadable mass of lorem ipsum. I attempted to improve the article to the small degree that was possible; this included restoring the talk page. Restoring the talk page meant hours of sifting through endless revisions to make the fragmented discussions make sense. I also had to double-check that no actual BLP-vios removed during the slash-and-burn were accidentally returned, monitoring simultaneous discussions at the article talk page and the BLP noticeboard. The only other editor who was interested in this article was the one who made the ridiculous removals. He quickly lost interest when the BLPN discussion didn't go the way he wanted. I would have been perfectly within my right to boldly merge the article at that point. It would have been equally acceptable for me to have merged it when, after a reasonable amount of time had passed since the merger had been proposed, it received neither support nor opposition. I honestly don't give a fuck if the article is kept, merged, deleted, or made tomorrow's fucking TFA. Just don't misrepresent my actions or opinions. That I was "unable to build a consensus on the talk page" is utter bullshit; ditto for "asking AfD to override current consensus". If you can't be arsed to research the history you should abstain from commenting here. Joefromrandb (talk) 07:27, 3 February 2014 (UTC)


 * To be clear, I am explicitly nominating this for deletion. As my final sentence says, "I do not see how this person has enough notability to maintain an article even with the questionable material, nor are there enough reliable sources to do so even if the notability was conferred by the questionable theory.  So I am nominating this for deletion, and would currently likely vote in favor if I ran across it today at AfD." Thargor Orlando (talk) 13:03, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Delete this article for dishonesty. It fails to note Pastor Scott was formerly a porn star know as, "Barbie (Barbi) Bridges." http://xhamster.com/photos/view/1656994-27245364.html#imgTop — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.94.168.143 (talk) 11:40, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Failing to note something is not dishonesty and dishonesty is not a valid delete-rationale. Joefromrandb (talk) 12:34, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
 * WP:SOFIXIT. Incomplete information is not a reason to delete.  If it can be confirmed and doesn't violate policy, then add the information.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:58, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
 * This discussion seems to just go around in circles. The problem is there are NO qualifying sources.  The quantity of Internet sources on topic has shrunk to nothing (except MC2009, which has been disqualified); it hasn't grown.  Please READ the article.
 * The Italian source mentioned above, complete with a nude photo of MS, seems hardly reliable, hardly scholarly.
 * To keep an article just 'cuz some day a qualifying source might turn up mocks WP's rules WP:NOR, WP:Notability, etc. The main objection to this article IMO is that it says nothing and what extremely little nothing it does say is sourced to GS or MS--and even the MS-sourced cite is dead. Paavo273 (talk) 00:52, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm honestly tempted to simply redirect this article. While doing so during an open AfD-discussion is discouraged (not forbidden), as you said, this is just going around in circles. This discussion is obviously headed for another no consensus, meaning yet more time wasted on such a ridiculously trivial individual. Joefromrandb (talk) 11:29, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I can't find it listed anywhere, but I'm pretty sure that "wasting time" is not a reason to delete.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:17, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
 * What the hell is your point? What are you trying to refute? Joefromrandb (talk) 20:22, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
 * If by tempted to "redirect" you mean to merge, Joefromrandb, I support that move. My close reading today of WP:Deletion policy turns up one or more ADDITIONAL bases to DELETE this article as well.  That includes lack of at least one reliable source.  As it stands, the article says virtually nothing, especially after my removal of the gratuitous and unsourced plug for her ministry, "speaks 20 languages..." or whatever.
 * One of WP's policies is to AGF. I always try to.  It's normal when someone jumps into a discussion to not be fully up to speed about what's going on.  But when a participant refuses to read and self-educate about the current state and history of the article, especially when pointed directly to the issues, and continues to merely interject comments not based on WP policy or the actual condition of the article, IMO a reasonable admin. could find consensus among those participants who show a baseline understanding of what is required for a WP article and are making informed, serious arguments. Paavo273 (talk) 21:51, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
 * With all due respect to those who disagree, I don't find the anonymous contributor's vote to Delete based on "dishonesty" completely without merit. It's not exactly in the same sense as the anon. user meant, but IMO there are multiple instances going way back in talk of "arguments" approaching WP:I like it, WP:Begging for mercy, etc. which IMO add up more or less to a form of WP:Gaming the system, meaning reasoning not based on the article or WP policy. And that sort of input has not dried up here in the AFD discussion. If I'm wrong, anyone opposing delete or merge, please tie what you say to some SUBSTANTIVE and/or POLICY-based argument. Paavo273 (talk) 22:13, 5 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep. At Talk:Melissa Scott (pastor), I have added three  four six books published since 2009 that cover Ms. Scott, one of which has an entire chapter devoted to her. This is more than enough to establish notability. — Brianhe (talk) 07:13, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Do these sources discuss the entirety of her life, or do they omit everything from her birth to her marriage to Scott? Joefromrandb (talk) 21:03, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Both Nightfall and Holy Sinner mention her life before Dr. Scott. If your point is, is her life story subordinate to his, it's just the opposite in the latter: Dr. Scott is mentioned peripherally in the chapter titled "Melissa Scott". — Brianhe (talk) 22:08, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm a bit confused. You voted "keep" and added sources to the talk page, yet nothing has been added to the article. Why not expand the article using the sources you have found? It may sway opinions here, especially if the actual reason she's notable can finally be added to the article. Joefromrandb (talk) 22:34, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I'm kind of busy in real life at the moment. The nominator questioned the subject's notability and availability of reliable sources, and I spoke to that. AFAIK AfDs often proceed this way, not with a demand to expand the article before !voting. — Brianhe (talk) 02:41, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I'd also like to point out that the five six books I listed as sources range from a straight up list of ministries, a novel, biblical commentary, film commentary, to an inquiry into misdeeds of the clergy. This isn't one-off reportage and I see no basis for a claim that someone with this kind of cultural impact falls beneath notability. — Brianhe (talk) 03:19, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
 * "someone with this kind of cultural impact" ? :-) 'Might want to have a(nother?) look at those six sources and/or see my summary below. Paavo273 (talk) 19:29, 7 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Only one of those books, the longer-form one specifically about her, could confer notability. The problem is that the piece is entirely reliant, again, on a rumor that is unsubstantiated and unproven and arguably a BLP violation.  The question remains as to whether such rumors are enough to confer notability in light of BLP. Thargor Orlando (talk) 15:18, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I think TO has identified the problem here concisely. And because User Brianhe has been a main player in preserving this article yet if I recall correctly also in excluding any porn-career info about MS, this definitely calls for clarification.
 * Firstly, all but one of these six sources are IMO junk, completely worthless in establishing any notability:
 * (1) Barber 2010 mentions MS just once and IMO is surely no authority on her language abilities, so a ZERO. Barber's few words about MS mainly DO establish a now defunct CONNECTION between MS and the UA cinema, something completely missing in the article's mention of the historical building before a user recently deleted it.
 * (2) Beverly 2009 also mentions MS just once, to say she took over from GS; that is not in dispute.
 * (3) Rel Carmichael 2013, not sure how one would argue that sponsoring a pizza party at a remote state prison and giving out religious literature the inmates didn't like would confer notability. Just like Barber, Carmichael is surely no authority on MS's language ability; however, with multiple sources mentioning the language thing, it would be IMO reasonable to mention the language claims, but absolutely not in WP's voice as before.
 * (4) About Carvajal 2009, this is a NOVEL! WTF?  In some obtuse way the mention of WP article deletion (taken from MC2009?) might confer a grain of notability on the WP ARTICLE.  But it's a long logical leap from there to notability for MS.
 * (5) Next, Whitman 2009 appears to be a personal narrative of the author's spiritual or ministerial journey (e.g., "I study more in anticipation of ministry unto Jahweh all my life, and the tools Yahweh God has given me..." p.viii and "[MS] has often ... had periodic pastoral nuggets of exhortation for people to focus on only what she's saying, not anything else..." p.63) 'Can't see how any of these confer notability on MS.  Sources can also still be found that post nude photos of s.o. alleged to be MS and either praise her looks or ridicule her perceived hypocrisy.
 * That leaves Webb 2013, which includes largely the same material as MC 2009. Since Webb is being offered as a reliable source to establish notability (IMO the ONLY one of the SIX offered by Brianhe for which a serious argument can even be made for establishing notability for MS), is Brianhe now totally okay with a discussion of MS's real or according to Webb, "theor[etical]", porn career?  If so, we @ least now have something to use to flesh out the article a little.  (Whether or not it confers notability and so deserves its own article is a separate issue, as others have noted.)  If not, then these SIX references amount IMO to exactly squat.
 * If Brianhe IS offering Webb 2013 as a reliable source for use in the article--and to do so for any other reason w/b a serious self-contradiction--IMO MC2009 also deserves a revisit, because now we have a corroborating (and then some) source for MC2009.
 * Finally, one other issue that is likely to come up later if not now: Most of these sources are extremely dubious as not being printed by major publishing houses: Whitman--CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform; Webb--CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform; Carvajal--Fear Nought Publishing; Carmichael--AuthorHouse; ('Not sure about Barber's Reaktion Books.) Paavo273 (talk) 19:14, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Paavo, for taking the time to research these sources. I was puzzled that a "keep" voter would list potential sources on the talk page while making no effort to incorporate them into the article. Your analysis seems to help clear that up. I can tell you right now that if this source discusses "her theoretical porn career", there's no way it's going to be allowed in. Joefromrandb (talk) 07:01, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not defending the quality of each of the sources above as information that could go into an infobox; however I think my argument that they are, as an aggregate, evidence of her notability is still true. In brief, is a novel a good source for biographical details? No, of course not.  Is it a good source for the notability of a non-fictional subject mentioned in the novel?  Yes. I don't know if we have enough independent material to start talking about the alleged connections in Scott's past. And I have a right to change my mind in the 2+ years of watching and contributing to this article. However there is definitely enough to establish that she is a prominent cultural figure as a religious leader, and should have a Wikipedia article. I feel like the discussion has slid from an offhand dismissal, to a delete nomination without a serious search for sources (I found the first 4 books in a few minutes at Google Books), to, once they were found, criticism of the depth of the sources (a chapter in a book is trivial?) or the names of the publishers. People involved in this AfD have made unhelpful comments like the subject is a "ridiculously trivial individual", the article is being stood up by the "MS fan club" and "we don't need an article about every TV preacher." Please try to look at this objectively whether or not you like her message. Can we decide together at least that the subject is notable, then go on to decide how to improve the article, perhaps on its talk page? — Brianhe (talk) 17:53, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
 * "I have a right to change my mind in the 2+ years of watching and contributing to this article." That IMO is absolutely reasonable.  What is not reasonable is to just make up your own rules.
 * You can't just push your own theory of Notability such as "my [offered sources] are, as an aggregate, evidence of her notability..." OR "[T]here is definitely enough to establish that she is a prominent cultural figure as a religious leader, and should have a Wikipedia article." Just saying it 'don't make it so.  ** "prominent cultural figure as a religious leader..."?!  You've gotta' be kidding!
 * You can't have it both ways: offering sources you say are reliable to establish notability but then saying you're not sure if they can be used. There's simply no such WP authority.  It is true that notability established by a reliable source is still subject to other WP rules.  But there are not two different standards; either the source is reliable or it isn't. I agree with Joefromrandb that it would be helpful if you had edited the article according to your "reliable" sources.  At the very minimum, you need to point out WHAT SPECIFIC PART(S) of what source(s) you find make her notable AND are reliable for inclusion in the article.
 * As for unhelpful comments, interjecting cavalier remarks or "offering" sources without REALLY offering them, or I.D.ing sources which clearly do NOT establish notability are IMO most unhelpful; and this sort of contribution wastes a lot of GF participants' time.
 * WP:Notability also specifies, "[Notability] is not a guarantee that a topic will necessarily be handled as a separate, stand-alone page. Editors may use their discretion to merge or group two or more related topics into a single article." *** Given the current state of the article, IF no consensus can be found to delete, I wholly support and would gladly assist, if asked, any editor's action to merge the article UNTIL such time the article actually says something and might be worthy of a standalone. *** This article consists of all of seven lines and even that consists only of her taking over GS's "ministry" + her broadcast schedule; it not only includes nothing NOTABLE about her, it includes virtually NOTHING about her period--no biography, no education, no prominence, no connections, no cultural identity, no leadership, no anything.  Instead of The Man Without a Past, this article reads like the woman without a past. Paavo273 (talk) 19:56, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually, taking sources in aggregate is explicitly allowed by WP:BASIC: "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability." So, we have multiple independent, published sources discussing the subject as required by WP:BIO.  Now why should the article be in jeopardy of deletion? — Brianhe (talk) 15:37, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Because the weight of the references involve an unconfirmed rumor that is arguably a violation of WP:BLP? Thargor Orlando (talk) 16:56, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
 * And because the other FIVE of six sources offered say nothing individually and therefore nothing together. Five times zero still equals ZERO. The critical second part of the sentence Brianhe left out of his policy quote above is "trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability."
 * The question asked by at least two different editors that we still can't seem to get an answer to is WHAT specifically can we take from any of those sources--even if we assume they're reliable--that in any way--individually or collectively--establishes notability.
 * As with a lot of what occurred the last couple years on the talk page, what we have here IMO is continuation of a long-ongoing, heretofore successful effort to keep this article that borders on WP:Gaming the system--making arguments and "citing rules" in a way that appear prima facie to be valid but totally and completely lack substance. What reasonable person who knows this subject, even if s/he included all the source material actually excluded for lack of reliabilty, would take seriously the statement, "...[S]he is a prominent cultural figure as a religious leader"?! Paavo273 (talk) 19:20, 10 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete - As I've said in past discussions, the Marie Claire article regarding the subject's past is true, but it cannot be verified without resorting to original research; that's the dilemma this situation has always teetered on. Until a definitive source comes along and breaks the story for good, what we're left with is a pastor of a church with no source coverage of Ms. Scott directly, but rather coverage of her late husband and the church itself. Tarc (talk) 14:45, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2014 February 9.  — cyberbot I  Notify Online 08:13, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2014 February 10.  — cyberbot I  Notify Online 03:42, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Without mentioning the controversial biographical material, I've incorporated book sources 1, 2 and 5 into the article, as well as pieces in The New York Times and D Magazine. — Brianhe (talk) 07:53, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Question: Who among you believe(s), just arguendo, IF the porn career WERE to come in (via Webb2013 or MC2009), that would make the subject notable? If not, then IMO it's clear what needs to be done here--posthaste. IOW, does a former non-notable porn model who becomes a non-notable tv preacher add up to a notable person? Paavo273 (talk) 23:00, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
 * If the rumor could be confirmed with reliable sources, I would probably argue to keep the article. As it stands, no one appears to be able to do so, which is why there's a problem: an article should not continue to exist based on the notability of a possibly damaging rumor. Thargor Orlando (talk) 23:29, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2014 February 11.  — cyberbot I  Notify Online 01:57, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 'Better have a COLLECTIVE look at those sources, y'all! Now the dubious porn sources come in but the porn info is censored out?  WTF kind of logic or process is that?  Good sense and I'm sure WP procedure rel reliability of sources can't allow that to fly.   How will it be decided what comes in and what stays out?  Is there to be a specially appointed WP censor for this article? What about the nude modeling?  What about the pony-girl phase?  What will WP readers think when they read the cited porn sources?  Does anyone really think this is a viable way to source an article?
 * And why is a blurb (that includes porn info) in a LOCAL magazine and a 5-page "chapter" in a virtually self-published (CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform) book all about her porn past permitted while a researched feature article in a national magazine excluded?
 * The NYT obit's total mention of MS: "He is survived by his wife, Melissa." Mentioning s.o.'s name doesn't make her notable as per the missing second half of the sentence on WP policy you left out in your discussion above: "trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability."  So please don't offer that one as establishing notability. Paavo273 (talk) 08:52, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
 * First of all, claiming that others (like me) who don't agree with your viewpoint are "gaming the system" and "wasting [other people's] time" is unproductive, uncivil and not AGF. I'm a longstanding member of the Wikipedia community and don't appreciate that comment. I've provided sources for this AfD in a completely appropriate way and have both invited feedback on them on the article talk page, and days later added them to the article as a demonstration of their suitability.


 * Let's do a little thought experiment. If the Nowheresville, Oklahoma Shopper's Gazette mentioned Pastor Bob in passing, and Pastor Bob's sermons are listed in the local gazette but never reached the eye of published critical commentary, maybe we would agree that it wouldn't support a Wikipedia article on Pastor Bob. However, if The New York Times mentions M.S. in passing, and the content of her sermons is also mentioned by a notable author like Stephen Barber (notice the bluelink), then I think we should agree that it supports a Wikipedia article on M.S. This is why the guideline says "trivial coverage may not…"; we have to take it in context and make a reasonable decision about what notability the sources (plural) confer. Not to mention the fact that coverage that would be trivial if it appeared in a local gazette doesn't quite equate to its triviality when the same information appears in the national newspaper of record; I think one could argue that any issue covered in NYT's A section is non-trivial by definition.


 * Now as to the sources I've offered. Claiming as you have that if only a small snippet of information is usable from a particular source, that source should be entirely invalidated, contradicts common sense and Wikipedia policy. Citing the NYT Eugene Scott obituary just for the fact that M.S. is his wife, is fine, and in fact this biographical detail wasn't captured by any online citations so it was even necessary. Citing the book Holy Sinner which has controversial bio details I'd rather not touch at this time, to establish that M.S. has claimed knowledge of many languages, is also appropriate. We can pick and choose the bits of each source that are appropriate and improve the article, and leave out the bits that either deal with off-topic issues, or touch on controversial material that we have agreed through consensus should not be in the article. You ask by what logic or process will good sources be found, by a judge? No, by consensus.  This is not "censorship", it is abiding by the decisions of the Wikipedia editor community. The fact that you don't or won't recognize this reflects poorly on your grasp of Wikipedian principles.  You are promulgating an illogical all-or-nothing approach that inevitably would lead to an empty shell of an article, which is pretty much where it stood a week ago, and exactly what I'm trying to avoid by adding well-chosen and well-sourced biographical details to the extent that they can be found. — Brianhe (talk) 01:53, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
 * * > > > Discussion continued below < < <


 * Questions. This person is pastor at "Faith Center Church" (currently redlinked). Does this merit an article? If it doesn't, why does Scott merit one? The claims made for her look ropey. (Actually the claim about her past is from a source that looks more carefully done than anything that is cited.) One claim within the current article is that "Scott is reported to claim to be able to speak 20 languages." There are two sources for this: an article that looks like the product of ten minutes' work, and a book from a very obscure publisher. Well, the claim is usefully discrete (and non-libelous). Let's see: Scott says herself that she has "a mastery of over 25 languages". That's five more languages; and mastery, excellent. This page offers her in not 24 but just three languages (Spanish, Japanese, Tagalog) aside from English. When I click on any of these links I see a video (often at a wrong aspect ratio) of her talking in English with an interpreter putting what she says into one or other of the three languages. Am I missing something? -- Hoary (talk) 13:31, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
 * @Hoary: 'Appreciate your cogent and slightly humorous, understated analysis. Great point IMO rel notable pastor @ non-notable church; I think you're the first to raise that. :-) Don't think you're missing anything. Would you care to vote? Paavo273 (talk) 22:10, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
 * While I have no problem with deletion, the argument: if her church isn't notable, she isn't either", is the fallacy of affirming the consequent. Joefromrandb (talk) 07:34, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
 * , try this: If she isn't notable for activities or achievements outside her church (and as far as I can see she is not), and if her church is not notable (and I don't claim to know), then she is not notable. How'm I doing? (And is her church notable?) -- Hoary (talk) 09:46, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm just saying that a pastor can be notable without her church being notable, and vice-versa. Notability comes down to significant coverage in reliable sources, something this woman, IMO, lacks. Joefromrandb (talk) 12:00, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
 * @Hoary: In my view the Faith Center is notable, but its notability is largely based on its history and is essentially inseparable from the notability of its extremely famous former minister and its somewhat less famous current one. Which is why, after reading all the discussion here, I still come down in favor of merging and redirecting Melissa Scott to Gene Scott.--Arxiloxos (talk) 14:39, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
 * @Joefromrandb: Agreed--if this were being reduced to deductive reasoning ala "If A, then B" syllogisms. IMO, it's just one more illustration of the nothingness/non-notability of the subject for a very long time.  As much pointed out, she has to be notable some way to stay, and it sure isn't from her church.  The UA Cinema where MS preached for a short time IS notable, but not because of her.  She doesn't appear 2 qualify under Pornographic actors and models.
 * BTW, WHERE do you think this AFD is at? (I think it is at or close to consensus based on the WP:Consensus standard.  For sure the vote but also IMO the level of reasoning is one-sided.) Paavo273 (talk) 18:08, 12 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete -Clearly the article has massive BLP issues due to verification problems and I'm not convinced the subject meets WP:GNG partly because of the verification problems. Blethering  Scot  16:44, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment - this discussion shows, to me, a complete lack of consensus so far. Can another sysop re-list this or close it thusly? Bearian (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:32, 11 February 2014‎
 * @Bearian: What about this AFD shows a "complete lack of consensus" to you and why are you asking for another admin to close it? It appears that activity here is just now picking up, and that a consensus is building for merge or delete.  Only a couple "Keep" votes based on misapplication of WP policy, and a growing number of merge and Delete votes.  IMO & IME "consensus" is at best a SLIPPERY concept both in real life and in Wikiworld, often used by those who want to get their way and avoid an up/down vote.  The WP:Consensus page does offer significant guidance including the following: "Consensus is ascertained by the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy." IMO that has serious applicability here.  One or two contributors IMO are pushing the "Keep" position w/o much or any substance or WP policy to support them.  As such, I respectfully request this discussion and hopefully building consensus be allowed to play out here.
 * If an admin. is to get involved wearing her/his admin. hat at this point, I'd ask that it be to join in the discussion and give an opinion of the relative strength of reasoning presented in this discussion rel WP policy and the facts of the article. Best, Paavo273 (talk) 20:25, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I just wanted to hold this open while we could do a bit more research before taking action. Bearian (talk) 20:37, 11 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm going with delete. The only really independent notability is some salacious allegations by a woman named Marie Claire.  I conducted several research paths online, and found -- not much.  There's a really nasty blog from the Free Republic, which is not a reliable source; nor are any of the blogs or websites she runs. The New York Times article mentions her, but only in passing, and in her husband's obit (which, FWIW, proves her husband's notability, not hers).  The biggest problem I'm having finding reliable sources that might exist is that she shares a name with a well-known SF writer, Melissa Scott (writer). Bearian (talk) 20:49, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
 * some salacious allegations by a woman named Marie Claire I'm not sure if you're being sarcastic or (pardon me) obtuse. Somebody called Gretchen Voss has a long article about our biographee, "The preacher's unholy past", on marieclaire.com (see Marie Claire). This is dated 2009. This suggests that it has been there for four years. At its foot we read "©2014 Hearst Communication, Inc. All Rights Reserved." Hearst sounds to me like a company that could shell out quite a bit in a libel payment, yet I infer that its lawyers have played down or dismissed the risk of a successful libel suit. NB I wouldn't be keen to have this material added to the article even if the latter survived AfD. Nevertheless, it looks more substantive than the dribs and drabs about the woman's linguistic prowess, etc. -- Hoary (talk) 22:57, 11 February 2014 (UTC)


 * > > > Discussion continued from few paragraphs above < < <
 * @Brianhe:
 * I've explained w/ evidence--quotes of yours, analysis of your sources, cited policy, etc.--my basis for believing your arguments here range from shaky to utterly w/o merit. No point to repeat.
 * It’s frustrating to keep pointing out broken logic seemingly ad infinitum. There’s no objection to using NYT to establish MS was GS’s wife. The problem is your level of reasoning about cumulative trivial nothing sources adding up to notability (still persisting in your "thought experiment" above).  Obits. mention family members, whether it’s the NYT or the Bumblefudge Weekly Despatch.  It doesn’t confer one iota of notability 2B named as a family member in an obit. And it doesn’t amount to “cover[age]” of the family member of the deceased "in a national publication".  And adding sources like this together with the other sources you offered 2 establish notability, you still get NADA. 0 + 0 = 0  and 5 X 0 = 0


 * Well, what do other editors think?
 * In looking back at the prior discussions Brianhe cited on my talk page ( Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive107 and Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive188, I see the same broken reasoning as presented here.  If Marie Claire 2009 was not a RELIABLE source and couldn’t be used, it IMO makes no sense to allow the use of much less authoritative sources that talk about MS’s porn career.
 * The ideas of “limited-purpose reliability” within a source and that WP editors are supposed to by concensus line-item veto or approve RELIABILITY (not to be confused with relevance) of info within a given source seems IMO completely unworkable. Is there any specific WP policy or precedent on point?
 * IM(revised)O, even if the porn career comes in, notability is still nowhere to be found. Non-notable porn model PLUS non-notable TV preacher EQUALS non-notable subject.Paavo273 (talk) 18:04, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment remember, consensus can change. Consensus can also be incorrect.  I see no reason to disallow the Marie Claire article.  I know that there are arguments against its use, I just disagree with those points.  We should be careful to not just drink the WP:KOOLAID on this one and re-investigate the facts and not the folklore.--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:48, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Libel or not, this article is still a total mess. Bearian (talk) 22:07, 12 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Eliminate. Either (A) delete and salt or (B) turn into a redirect and fully protect this. And ditto for actual or likely alternative article titles. (I neither know nor much care which of these two options.) Why? Well, the only thing that seems to have changed since the 2007 DELREV is that there is now a long and detailed article on a part of this person's life that she clearly wants forgotten (an article that is imaginably mistaken and libelous, though Hearst's confidence in publishing it and leaving it on the web for years makes me doubt this). As for her current profession, the other sources I've looked at seem to lack authority, or to be very slapdash, or both. If a DELREV concludes that an article should stay deleted, then it should stay deleted; unless of course it is agreed in a second DELREV that "notability" (or whatever) has changed so greatly that the article should restart. Here the DELREV was ignored (or not noticed), and though AfDs that result from unilateral restarts can at times give rise to mildly entertaining argle-bargle, they're mainly a waste of time. -- Hoary (talk) 01:50, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

This AfD so far, and request for further inut So far the vote is about 7-2 in favor of delete or merge. Consensus is supposed to be based on WP policy including the following: "Consensus is ascertained by the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy." It's not a vote, but rather the strength of argument(s). Brianhe has graciously provided links to the sources he's offered (except for the NYT obit. in the MS art. but I added)--they're all short and easy reading--along with his view of how they make MS notable. I and other contributors have offered analysis rel why we don't think they make her notable. See links to those sources listed on the talk page HERE.

QUERY 1: Does the Marie Claire article's admissibility need a revisit, along the lines of what Paulmcdonald is saying?

QUERY 2: But B4 we go there, if that's what y'all want to do, assuming we admit Marie Claire in full can someone make a WP-policy-based argument for the proposition that any OR ALL of the contents of that article, if included in the MS article, would make MS notable? (As mentioned above, IMO Non-notable porn model PLUS non-notable TV preacher STILL EQUALS non-notable subject.) Paavo273 (talk) 18:24, 15 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Merge to Gene Scott or *Delete. Only looking at the article itself I fail to see anything in the article to make it worth keeping. Almoust everything about the church work was done by her and Gene Scott. It seems after his death she just took over and kept going but not really adding anything new. I admit I dont live in USA so for me this was the first time I ever heard of her but after a google search on her name I see she does seem to have some notibility atleast in the field of rumours. Still this article doesnt mention why exactly she is notable except of being a tv pastor amongts many many of them. Are we to have a page for each tv pastor? Can anyone even imagine how many there are around the globe? Still what is it that makes her a notable tv pastor? Merge the article with Gene Scots article would be the best option or delete it.Stepojevac (talk) 21:27, 15 February 2014 (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.