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 keep. Mangojuice^talk 19:30, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Melissa Scott (televangelist)[edit]

An unsourced article which makes extremely strong claims regarding the alleged pornographic past of the subject. It has been waiting over seven months for cleanup and still doesn't come even close to meeting WP:BLP. I suspect that it's just simply time to chuck the whole thing in the trash; if the anons who keep adding maliciously gleeful (and utterly unsourced) details about Ms. Scott's alleged shady past can't dig up an actual reliable source for any of their accusations, there's no reason for there to be an article. -- Antaeus Feldspar 03:40, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per own nom. -- Antaeus Feldspar 03:40, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and source It does seem there has been sexual controveries in the past. Thoough religious terms and Melissa Scott do have a weak google count. C56C 07:22, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• We should not be keeping biography articles that make potentially defamatory, unsourced claims about the subject just in case a source pops up. I have removed the dodgy parts of the article, and they should not reappear until we can prove them by reference to reliable sources. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 10:40, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. If she is carrying on the Eugene Scott televangelist ministry, she is notable enough to pass. No opinion on the pornography allegations from the history, other than amused observations about graceless priggishness and deception, but that's not an AfD issue in any case. Smerdis of Tlön 19:40, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Test - find a picture of Barbie Bridges - find one of Melissa Pastore - reasonable to determine if it is the same person?
  • That would be original research. -- Antaeus Feldspar 20:27, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Entire peice is rhetoric and presents as much truth as a bottom shelf Wal Mart tabloid.
• Keep Just chucking it into the Internet landfill won't do much, as the anons will just re-create the article anyhow, or go and vandalise this article like happened before. I've lost count on how many times I've had to revert this article, but I had thought that the anons would've gotten a clue by now. Speaking of which, instead of nominating it for deletion, what about nominating it for protection from anonymous users? --Cooleyez229 22:13, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone who would bash Pastor Scott doesn't have a clue what a christian is. Just because someone might have a "shady" past doesn't mean jack squat now. This is present time, when you become a christian you are forgiven for all sins. Right? right. Therefore all of the people wanting to know if she was into pornographic this and that. They just want to know for their own perverted minds not because they care. Furthermore if she has in fact been in any pornographic films, etc. That was then, non of our business and just leave her alone. She is doing the Lords bidding now. Plus, FACT: She will tell you she was the last person to ever think that she could be saved. It goes to show that God really does work in mysterious ways. Those of you who bash her, he just hasn't got to you yet. God Bless!-a christian

• Keep but certainly remove any unsourced defamatory remarks in accordance with WP:BLP. RFerreira 19:03, 10 August 2006 (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.