Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Jay Brown

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. There are marginally more recommending delete than keep, but several of the keep recommendations are either not policy based or have misunderstood policy. Some of the delete recommendations are not policy based either, but duly weighting all the contributions against policy there is a strong result for delete. Possibly a future article could be constructed by an independent editor. The crackpot fringe can have articles about them on Wikipedia, but they must be (a) notable, and (b) clearly explain that they are fringe ideas. Notability has not been established in this article, as has been pointed out by several contributors, on the basis of the subjects own publications. Scholar returns an h-index of about four which is not enough to meet WP:PROF#1 and that is about the only way that one's own publications by themselves could be judged to meet notability. Reliable sources independent of the subject are required. Spinning Spark 19:15, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

David Jay Brown

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

Promotional BLP created by two IPs and an SPA. It's largely primary-sourced and gives little confidence of notability. Mangoe (talk) 02:16, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

Delete. The article is the very height of meaningless vapid ego, of abuses surrounding WP:AUTO, or abuses surrounding WP:COI, written by the self-promoting subject himself [1] and his good obliging pal [2] who is financially connected to various projects involving David Jay Brown. The sourcing itself is an ugly testament to self-advancement, self-promotion, and self-love, as David Jay Brown constitutes nearly every single source himself--David Jay Brown and his friend using David Jay Brown himself as a source for an article about David Jay Brown himself. Incredible. It's as though, in their minds, there is no universe at all outside of the mind of David Jay Brown. Off-wiki you'll find a very few non-primary sources, mostly bloggy onanism focusing on WP:FRINGE, most of it the purest spam posing giddily and ludicrously as objectivity. Spectacularly fails WP:PROF, WP:AUTHOR, WP:BK, WP:CREATIVE, WP:RS, WP:GNG, and any other policy you care to name. Earlier versions of the article were even worse--if such a thing is possible--praising Brown as a modern-day messiah who combined all of the powers of Jesus and Freud and Einstein and Marx and, oh why the heck not, Timothy Leary, lol. For years now, anyone daring to touch this article has been roundly abused in the most aggressive and personal ways imaginable, in one of the most egregious cases of WP:OWN that we have ever seen. Now this tyranny must end, and this article must go. This is not the first time a self-appointed spiritual savior has promoted himself on Wikipedia, nor the first time we've been abused by the followers of such a person. What never ceases to stagger me is how much personal abuse is hurled by these people who insist that they are so very, very spiritual. Now if only he were notable! Qworty (talk) 03:15, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There doesn't seem to be a word of truth in this incredible screed. I ask for diffs to demonstrate earlier versions of the article "praising Brown as a modern-day messiah who combined all of the powers of Jesus and Freud and Einstein and Marx and, oh why the heck not, Timothy Leary" and "anyone daring to touch this article has been roundly abused in the most aggressive and personal ways imaginable" and examples of the subject promoting himself as "a self-appointed spiritual savior". I find a consistent characterization of the subject as a journalist/interviewer, a science fiction author, and a researcher in fields related to the mind. I'd also like an explanation as to why the bibliography was deleted.Rosencomet (talk) 18:00, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. COI, marketing brochure about a non-notable self appointed expert. All it needs is the 800 number. History2007 (talk) 08:11, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete References do not establish notability, clearly promotional. - MrOllie (talk) 15:22, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:46, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:46, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There are no reliable sources, the sources listed are either primary sources or unreliable sources. So, I did my own searching and found lots of thing by Brown but very little about Brown. I did find one solid book review (in journal Nature Medicine Jul2007, Vol. 13 Issue 7, p775-775, 1p) but that's a long way from establishing notability. All the TV show appearances look impressive but unable to verify with reliable independent sources; a cursory check of IMDB (not a reliable source but out of curiosity) did not show appearances on those shows. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 02:37, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this shit. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 04:13, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, blatant (self-)promotional spam. Notability is tenuous at best. --Kinu ^t/_c 02:29, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep David Jay Brown contributed to Cognition Factor (2009) and Rupert Sheldrake's consciousness experiments. --SchwannCybershaman (talk) 22:18, 16 November 2012 (UTC)§[reply]

Cognition Factor does not have an article here, and seems deeply non-notable (e.g. Rotten Tomatoes lists no reviews for it). Sheldrake is a fringe theorist who is not adequate to endorse notability on his own. Mangoe (talk) 20:41, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cognition Factor is listed on IMDb---SchwannCybershaman (talk) 23:25, 16 November 2012 (UTC)§[reply]

IMDB does not constitute WP:RS, as anyone can post anything there. Qworty (talk) 21:33, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

They also fail to report any reviews, implying that nobody cared. Mangoe (talk) 21:44, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have worked with Brown in person in Basel 2006. Felt it appropriate to add in my two bits as I have met the guy. He is a bit like Woody Allen. Mercy?----SchwannCybershaman (talk) 23:55, 16 November 2012 (UTC)§[reply]

Yes, let us have mercy on Wikipedia readers and get this deleted. The people who edit that page and you voting here seem to know the person, so that just runs counter to the idea of "general notability" outside a small circle. History2007 (talk) 21:58, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There's worse, more obscure stuff, which Wiki carries quite happily, but you all seem to have decided so I'm declining further comment--------SchwannCybershaman (talk) 00:25, 17 November 2012 (UTC)§[reply]

That "other stuff" you're referencing falls, quite appropriately enough, under WP:OTHERSTUFF. Qworty (talk) 01:31, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep His many books published by presses, his appearances in prominent Television shows, his work in leading publications, all support notability. Please don't be swayed by personality attacks like the one Qworty offers on this page, and look at the body of work of this author, journalist and scientific researcher.Rosencomet (talk) 04:26, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- His books and articles and TV appearances are all primary sources, not the secondary sources that are required for notability, as short-handed at WP:42. In other words, anything by him is unusable for notability; there have to be significant, multiple, independent resources about him. Qworty (talk) 06:08, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- It should also be mentioned that as on the article talk page Rosencomet seems to have a vested interest (WP:COI) in the Rosencomet website and this subject. This whole discussion is reeking with WP:COICOICOI. History2007 (talk) 09:16, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. The extent of his publication record makes me think that he's passing WP:PROFESSOR #1. I'm not wholly sure of that, but it looks that way. Note that the current form of the article follows WP:NPOV quite well; the only reason that we discourage conflicts of interest is that they can lead to non-neutral content, and that result has not happened here. Nyttend (talk) 14:06, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What's his college/university affiliation? -- Green Cardamom (talk) 16:52, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. GScholar shows a significant body of work published or cited in reputable sources. There's a tremendous amount of inappropriate invective here, very little of it bearing on legitimate notability issues. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:31, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article needs work, but there's enough information in it already to demonstrate notability. Folklore1 (talk) 00:19, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The subject is notable based on the content of the article. He is a published author and deserves to retain his article.JuliusAaron (talk) 02:03, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Read WP:AUTHOR. Just being a published author does not confer notability per Wikipedia standards. Qworty (talk) 02:13, 19 November 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.