James Scott (criminal): Any option would bring the content into alignment with WP:BIO1E and WP:PSEUDO , as all of the sources about Scott discuss him in the context of the flood.  Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 18:37, 6 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Crime .  Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 18:37, 6 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Illinois and Missouri .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:42, 6 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Unusual case with sufficient coverage to meet WP:GNG .  -- Necrothesp ( talk ) 12:27, 9 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep James Scott has engendered considerable press coverage over the years and is considered by many to have been unjustly imprisoned.   The article about the Great Flood of 1993 covers very different material than the article about James Scott.  More recent article about James Scott also cover things other than the flood, such as his behavior in prison and efforts to free him.  SONORAMA ( talk ) 15:48, 11 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  22:34, 13 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : per the reasons provided by Necrothesp and SONORAMA Jack4576 ( talk ) 07:33, 14 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : I agree with the users before me.  Additionally, I suspect that Scott will soon be a topic of media sensation regarding the alleged misconduct of the prosecution, like we saw after the airing of "Making a murderer".  Xwedodah ( talk ) 05:31, 21 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge with the main Great Flood article, with a subsection for Scott's biography where relevant.  Has no relevance outside the Great Flood ~~ Cliffordben1994 ( talk ) 23:19, 13 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge into the main Great Flood article.  Although it has the sourcing to be a notable page, it runs foul of WP:BLP1E and would likely be more informative as a part of that article.  JML1148 ( Talk | Contribs ) 02:04, 14 May 2023 (UTC) Keep per CT55555.  They make a very good point that BLP1E needs all criteria to be met to fall foul of that policy, however Scott doesn't.  JML1148 ( talk | contribs ) 07:34, 2 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge into the main Great Flood article per all editors involved.  CastJared ( talk ) 14:31, 14 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] It’s important for America to be taught about this.  It happened, he existed, did he cause the floods?  Idk.  This will still be taught in our history books, why are we trying to erase it?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:281:D680:7E80:E050:CA2B:39A4:FCA3 ( talk ) 06:07, 15 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Split between those advocating Keep and those seeking a Merge.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  23:34, 20 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge slimmed down and properly sourced content into the main flood article.  Article is a clearly a BLP1E.  Keep votes provided no sources showing this was anything other than a BLP1E.  // Timothy :: talk 17:06, 21 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - This is not BLP1E, which would be something random like the winner of a lottery or a random contest.  Subject is the subject of a full length book cited in the footnotes, for cripe's sakes!  Clear GNG pass.  Carrite ( talk ) 15:11, 27 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep ; there is substantial source material, per Carrite, and the scope of the flood article is far larger than the smaller catastrophe this individual was convicted for; a merge would thus create a due weight problem in the proposed target.  Vanamonde ( Talk ) 04:20, 28 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: One more go… Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, CycloneYoris talk!  09:39, 28 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep WP:PERP states "The motivation for the crime or the execution of the crime is unusual—or has otherwise been considered noteworthy—such that it is a well-documented historic event. Generally, historic significance is indicated by sustained coverage of the event in reliable secondary sources which persists beyond contemporaneous news coverage and devotes significant attention to the individual's role ".  A book about him published decades after the events is that.  And the book received a starred review from Publishers Weekly ; it didn't fly under the radar.  Some editors here might benefit from reviewing what BLP1E is not .  Compulsive Researcher ( talk ) 04:03, 29 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Editors have argued to not keep on the basis of WP:BLP1E but that guideline has 3 criteria that all must be met, including #3 which says If the event is not significant or the individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented .  The event was significant and his role was substantial.  So WP:BLP1E therefore guides us towards keeping the article in my opinion.  So therefore I am looking at WP:GNG and noting that he hit the news many years apart, and had a book written about him, GNG is met.  CT55555 ( talk ) 15:04, 29 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Scott's conviction was also the feature of a 2022 documentary.  I've updated the article.  My ! vote should now be considered strong.  CT55555 ( talk ) 22:34, 30 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep for the exhaustive reasons already mentioned above.  Beyond that, my personal experience is that this man is infamous over two states and should easily meet GNG.  Grey Wanderer ( talk ) 22:16, 31 May 2023 (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.

Discussion outcome: keep