Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brian A. Scott

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:27, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Brian A. Scott

Brian A. Scott (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Completely unreferenced bio of minor UFO crank, with not a hint as to why he's supposed to be notable. Appears to be some sort of WP:COATRACK, in that the article creator's very first edit summary says I am part of a team that watches charlatans like this guy. Calton | Talk 03:17, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

My B.A.S. article was wholly and accurately referenced before someone showed up and removed all of my references. ???

With the B.A.S. references that I will add in soon, I must dissent and formally appeal the BIO and COATRACK counterclaims. First, in terms of notable biography while quoting WP best practices -- consensus reached through discussions and reinforced by established practice, and informs decisions on whether an article on a person should be written : others and I have done extensive, periodic research on and spent small amounts of time with the individual in question being biographed here. These facts make me 1) a competent biographer and 2) wholly qualified to add sources of information about this person.

Now for my second point addressing the curiously esoteric coatrack counterclaim -- discusses the nominal subject, but in reality is a cover for a tangentially related bias subject. The nominal subject is used as an empty coatrack, which ends up being mostly obscured by the "coats" : are you suggesting I am creating a straw man argument or using ad hominem attacks in my biography? Again I repeat myself to the point of near exhaustion: *Everything I have written about this individual is factually correct!* Some who are more military minded than myself would consider this person to be a predator.

Winlundn (talk) 00:51, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete as a non-notable person. The sources provided are very plainly unreliable and privately maintained websites. And considering that this information could be considered defamatory if untrue, it meets the very definition of a BLP violation. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:23, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Brian A. Scott is not a non-notable person. This article is being written largely for historical purposes because, back in the 1970s/1980s this guy was No. 2 or No. 3 right behind Whitley Strieber on the list of most resourceful UFO pranksters.

I feel like I'm being singled out here and I don't know why. If you really believe I am libeling this person then come out and say that I am libeling him.

Here we go again -- I must dissent against the claim Brian A. Scott is a non-notable person:

Neutral point of view (NPOV) | Verifiability

.. use of high quality references. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material — whether negative, positive, or just questionable — about living persons should be removed..

Both my presentation and P.O.V. are neutral. Nowhere do I write "I think" or "this author believes"

I have verification AND I can validate my statements. Nowhere do I write "may have". If there is ANY question about this specific matter then call me out with a point of order or leave it alone.

High quality refs: one of the references I cite is directly from the individual in question. He wrote it, he believes it and according to multiple sources not just mine he has used individuals in official capacity to push his beliefs on the public.

-winlundn 19:08 12 February 2008

  • Comment. I mean exactly what I said. There are no veiled accusations. If you don't understand it, read the three links I dropped. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:10, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I did. Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Sources should be appropriate to the claims made. My sources are appropriate to the claims made. How can you invalidate what I've written if it is indeed based on fact?

With regard to Wikipedia:RS: This page documents a content guideline on the English Wikipedia. While it is not policy, editors are strongly advised to follow it. As the occasional exception may arise, it should be approached with common sense.

Let's take the common sense approach, then. Doesn't common sense tell you I won't come in randomly and use shady references to write a biography?

Again, B.A.S. is not a non-notable person. He has some fame. Aside from that if you continue to maintain I am not following protocol then that is bordering on an entirely arbitrary and capricious pattern of behavior directed against a wikipedia user.

-winlundn 19:22 12 February 2008

  • Comment. My common sense tells me you don't actually understand what a reliable source is. A reliable source is a source of "material [that] has been thoroughly vetted by the scholarly community. This means published in peer-reviewed sources, and reviewed and judged acceptable scholarship by the academic journals." This includes articles from newspapers and magazines of good reputation that exercise editorial review. This does not include privately maintained websites with no evidence of proper review, or a at least notable opinion of reliability from obviously reliable sources. This being the case, this individual has not been shown to satisfy the notability guideline, as the only fundamental criterion for this guideline is the existence of multiple, reliable, independent sources concerning him. All other criteria for notability exist only to establish those cases in which we can be certain such sources exist even if they are not presented, and you haven't shown this to be certain. Further, by the same argument, this inherently violates the BLP policy, which requires that any possibly defamatory material come from a reliable source. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:51, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete unless somebody can provide some reliable sources (not blogs, POV websites and reviews of a self-published book). --Orange Mike | Talk 02:15, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
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.