Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/James Scott (criminal)

Why deletion?
How is this not a significant event? Alexander R. Burton (talk) 19:52, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Please see the Wikipedia essay on "pseudo-biographies" and the People notable for only one event section of Wikipedia's biographical notability policy. The former says:


 * "An article under the title of a person's name should substantially be a full and balanced biography of that person's public life. If the person is notable only in connection with a single event, and little or no other information is available to use in the writing of a balanced biography, that person should be covered in an article regarding the event, with the person's name as a redirect to the event article placing the information in context. If the event itself is not notable enough for an article, and the person was noted only in connection with it, it's very likely that there is no reason to cover that person at all."


 * Note that "significant coverage", which I assume you're referring to, is in this context a thing defined by Wikipedia policy. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 21:28, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Expansion of the flood of 93 article before removal of this one? Alexander R. Burton (talk) 21:40, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Per the discussion so far, if there's a decision other than keep, relevant info in the Scott article would be integrated/merged into Great Flood of 1993. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 22:30, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
 * what of this isn't relevant? Alexander R. Burton (talk) 01:57, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I would like to keep the article but it should also be updated. Independent sources have brought evidential claims (more than was used to convict him) that the flood likely was going to happen from natural causes and may have been the cause all together. Quite a few years ago at that. 24.144.238.246 (talk) 20:21, 26 May 2023 (UTC)