Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daniel Scot (2nd nomination)

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 merge to Racial and Religious Tolerance Act 2001. Sandstein 19:10, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Scot

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Not notable, fails WP:GNG. We can't have an article on every persecuted person. Störm (talk) 08:04, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment.There are some mentions in passing, even years after (ex [1]), but they are in passing. I can't find a single source that describes his case in-depth outside of the ONEEVENT articles back from the incident in early 2000s like [2], but SMH is a good newspaper and there might be more in the Australian media from back then. Also Google Scholar search for "pastor Daniel Scot" [3] suggests his case was mentioned, at least in passing, by several scholars. If someone can find several paragraphs discussing him it would be helpful, through one may wonder whether this article shouldn't be rewritten from a biography into an article about his court case. Please ping me if there are further comments/sources and you'd like me to consider voting based on them. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:12, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:15, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:15, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Soft delete. A search via ProQuest pulled up very little bar one short article (and a couple of Letters to the Editor of The Australian that refer to the Scot case), which I've added to the article, but I'm not sure it's enough to justify the page...Cabrils (talk) 06:17, 4 October 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cabrils (talk • contribs)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:10, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Racial and Religious Tolerance Act 2001 as a suitable alternative to deletion. The legislation is the basis for Mr Scot's notability (he being the first person sued under that legislation). If an article was created on the case involving him that would also be appropriate, but no such article currently exists. Bookscale (talk) 11:03, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Bookscale (talk) 11:05, 11 October 2019 (UTC) [reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Bookscale (talk) 11:08, 11 October 2019 (UTC) [reply]

Merge and redirect. Agree with this helpful suggestion from Bookscale. Cabrils (talk) 00:41, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Cabrils: Bear in mind only one bolded !vote per person is allowed. Please strike the "soft delete" above if you have changed your position. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:57, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Rhododendrites: Thank you! My mistake-- removed my previous comment as suggested. Cabrils (talk) 22:51, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Cabrils: Thanks. But you removed it entirely rather than striking. :) See WP:REDACT. Basically, if it's been a while or if discussion has continued after/in response to a comment, it's best to strike it rather than remove it entirely. :) — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 02:34, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Rhododendrites: thanks again! I didn't know about WP:REDACT and now I do! Hope this is looking better now. Cheers. Cabrils (talk) 03:18, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect seems like a sensible approach. Doing a look for sources finds a few, but not very high quality, and not sufficient to justify a stand-alone article. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:57, 12 October 2019 (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.