Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brian A. Scott
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
— User:Someguy1221, 03:51, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Stance: comment
Cited policy: WP:RS||WP:BLP (Wikipedia:Reliable sources)