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. Yunshui 雲‍水 10:05, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rev. Samuel Gibert Scott[edit]

Rev. Samuel Gibert Scott (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Seems to be notable neither as a reverend nor as an ornithologist, and so fails WP:BIO in general and WP:RELIG/N in particular. Who's Who tended to include members of the clergy fairly indiscriminately until recently, and isn't much use in settling the question of notability. Alexrexpvt (talk) 19:13, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. An obituary in such an august journal (and a reliable a source) as The Ibis satisfies our requirements. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:35, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I did consider that, but the Ibis at that time seemed to publish perfunctory obituary notices of all its members. The obituary itself is here, and certainly doesn't suggest that he was in any way notable as an ornithologist, noting merely that "he never published in ornithology". Alexrexpvt (talk) 19:49, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. A single obituary isn't enough to make him noteworthy. Membership in the British Ornithologists’ Union alone is not enough to make him noteworthy. And his vacations to Scotland to observe birds and to fish certainly don't convey notability. As mentioned in the article "he did not contribute to ornithological literature". Also: ROTFLOL that anyone would refer to Ibis as "august" :) Majoreditor (talk) 19:59, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - same reasons as Majoreditor. The only independent source is Scott's obituary in a specialist publication. The article makes no particular claim of importance. Sionk (talk) 00:17, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Does not meet WP:BIO notability guidelines, notability being neither claimed nor any shown. David_FLXD (Talk) 04:56, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Appears to fail WP:BIO --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 00:03, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:01, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:01, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:01, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment also note mention in All about Battersea and Halhed. --Nouniquenames 05:18, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- NN as a clergyman, since he was only a canon; NN as an orthnologist, since he never published. Peterkingiron (talk) 10:45, 29 December 2012 (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.