Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richard Shaw Brown

Add links
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 no consensus --Durin 21:39, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Shaw Brown[edit]

Richard Shaw Brown (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Work through this with me and let's see if we can figure this one out. Here we have a person with two careers, neither of which seem notable enough for an article. First, some metainfo:

  • An article on this subject was speedied as nonnotable bio, recreated, speedied as repost (which was wrong, repost only applies to AfD-deleted articles), recreated. So clearly deletion of this article via speedy is contested, thus we are here.
  • It appears that the subject of the article is also the author of the article, for whatever that's worth.

Moving on the content:

  • Brown was the singer/songwriter for The Misunderstood, who have an article, and per their entry in allmusic.com certainly should, notwithstanding that Brown appears to be a major contributor and perhaps creator of the article.
    • But, are The Misunderstood notable enough so that any of the members deserve their own articles? They are not really a very notable band, so I do not think that they are. There is nothing useful in Brown's article that isn't in The Misunderstood article. Sky Saxon has an article (which I personally think he shouldn't), but then The Seeds are a lot more notable than The Misunderstood.
  • Then, there is material on Brown's later career, as a jewelry maker.
    • It seems clear that this material is vanity/spam, which doesn't prove that Brown is not notable, but is seldom a good sign. We have this article on a piece of jewelry he made (same author), and we have this: Planetary Gemologist (same author). It is as a Planetry Gemologist that Brown claims notability - but he himself wrote the Planetary Gemologist article, and recently too.
    • But then, on his website, he claims several books (but the only one on Amazon is listed as "self-published", and at least some of the others appear to be just catalogs of his jewelry) and several interviews etc. on Thai television, which ought to count for something, I suppose.
    • And as an aside, claims to have founded several schools, which if true would in my opinion be the main thread on which to hang his notability - but no information beyond the bare name of the schools are given, which seems odd. Certainly founding several schools would get a bigger place in his CV, you'd think.
    • And this is all on his website. I didn't find any useful third-party material, although I could have missed it.

It all seems a bit fishy to me. I do not think this person is notable, what do you think? Herostratus 08:47, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak delete, there is hardly a quarrel with notability, certainly though with WP:NPOV. Unless somebody cleans it up by end of this AfD it should be deleted Alf photoman 15:16, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I do not find anything notable in a member of a minor band turned artisan. He is surely great at doing what he does, but so are billions of people. --Goochelaar 18:04, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete if not cleaned - I have been in comms. with User:Rsbj66 (A.k.a. Richard Shaw Brown) for a few weeks and either he does not understand what is stated on WP:V or is ignoring my suggestions/warnings. The Misunderstood is notable enough of a band for draft-dodgers during the Vietnam War, and several articles about them have been published by third party sources. They even appear in one book titled "100 Greatest Psychedellic Bands", but the selection process for this list is unclear. Since RSB is the center of the draft-doging history of the band, RSB on this subject alone, is notable. The fact that RSB escaped to India, like many other hippies, is part of his notability, and being baptized a Hindu is very important to his character - but his notability stops there. His later life as a "gemologist", a spiritual profession, is worth only a blurb in his biography. Readers, may they be fans of the band or not, would probably find the story more fantastic if he doesn't bring himself down to earth with awards and accomplishments. As for the other articles of his, I have also tagged them for speedy deletion, as it only adds fluff to his own self. Rsbj66 has no need to infect Wikipedia when he has so many of his own sites at his disposal. -- Emana 19:28, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This seems to be well referenced and I'm not seeing a lot of promotional hype etc. The award is not prominent in the article and demonstrates that he has minor notability beyond the music. I think that there is more interesting information here than can be practically merged to the article about the band. An autobio is not prohibited, although it should be a red-flag for closer scrutiny --Kevin Murray 21:14, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The problem with those references are that they are mostly original research by Brown himself. Also, they lack information on how to get a hold of the source material (URL, publisher, ISBN, etc.). I know they are not there, because I asked Rsbj66 for the info when I was reformatting the page. It could be all made up. Just listing names of books don't mean that the article is well sourced and well cited. I agree that Brown does have an interesting story to tell, and doing so without following good Wikipedian practices does himself a disservice. -- Emana 21:29, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • What award? The only awards I see are here, and these are the kind of awards anyone should be able to pick up in return for a ride to the airport. Finalist (not winner) in one small category, by a marketing association that only exists to give out awards and do other marketing-type stuff, I assume. Who doesn't have a plaque like this in their cubicle? And that's the best one. Unless I'm missing a more notable award? Herostratus 04:57, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notable as an unconvential lead singer of a band with an article. Has published books at the Institute of Oriental Philosophy. [1] and was Asssitant editor of a quartely journal. --Mallarme 21:02, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, so he can be mentioned as the central figure in the The Misunderstood. But publishing books doesn't make one notable... unless the book has become part of some large scale phenomena, like Harry Potter or Grapes of Wrath. -- Emana 21:54, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. by Mallarme at 21:19, 26 January 2007. (John Vandenberg 11:54, 27 January 2007 (UTC))[reply]
  • Keep - There seem to be enough refs in the article to cement notability.Bakaman 22:02, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep WP:Notability satisfied, listed reasons are not criteria for deletion. Cleanup where necessary. Rumpelstiltskin223 01:30, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. I dont see obvious notability, and verifiability is pretty poor. The journal has had little exposure: "Indian philosophy & culture" "Vaishnava Research Institute" - 3 hits, "Indian philosophy and culture" "Vaishnava Research Institute" - 3 hits, "Indian philosophy & culture" "Institute of Oriental Philosophy" - 5 hits, "Indian philosophy and culture" "Institute of Oriental Philosophy" - 12 hits, "Indian philosophy & culture"+journal - 13 hits, "Indian philosophy and culture"+journal - 111 hits -- most of this hits are directory entries because they are journal listings by libraries. The journal name pulls two results on google scholar. The Benjamin Franklin award is by a publisher, and the publisher lists 50 winners for last year and records only go back as far as 2001; the articles source is not independent, listing Richard Shaw Brown as its founder. I cant find the book "Rishi" in OCLC; 'UT Magazine' is http://www.ugly-things.com/, which is described as a Rock fanzines, and doesnt have archives; likewise I cant find a "Taste Makers" article in International Herald Tribune that mentions Brown. John Vandenberg 11:43, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. a member of The Misunderstood finds a mention in the International Herald Tribune and gets an AfD slapped on his article here. Ironic? Freedom skies| talk  14:33, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • So you found the article in the International Herald Tribune? who wrote it and when was it published? John Vandenberg 16:05, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi friends, The International Herald Tribune article was in "TasteMakers" ("An occasional series about people for whom style is a way of life") by Andrew Ranard On Oct 31, 1995. Article was named "Gemologist Focuses On the Spiritual" by Andrew Ranard--Rsbj66 17:43, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a link to 30 TV Shows in Thailand. No foreigner has ever been 30 times on Thai TV (all stations) http://www.richardshawbrown.com/rsb-tv.html Thanks--Rsbj66 19:14, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I added more substance (Later Music) with references. I didn't even mention the Movie project. Thanks for the help. I'm a clutz with code and don't known the Wiki rules, but I'm learning.--Rsbj66 22:21, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • The Misunderstood are extremely significant historically. Their single, "I Can Take You To The Sun", was released at the beginning of December 1966 by Philips/Fontana Records in England.. It is considered one of the first authentically "psychedelic" records, predating the first releases by Pibk Floyd and Jimi Hendrix. Legendary BBC DJ John Peel referred to it on many occasions as one of "the best records ever made." In fact, he kept a copy in a special box of records, see this article in The Times of London online: http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,14932-1836864,00.html

In Rolling Stone (Sept 2, 2004) David Fricke wrote: "Two weeks after that September '66 session, Jimi Hendrix arrived in the UK and became all the rage, the immigrant acid king. But the Misunderstood got there first. Hear the proof." Mikestax 18:04, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • The group's entry in the All Music Guide was not written by Richard Brown, but by Richie Unterberger. Unterberger also devotes an entire chapter to the group in his book "Unknown Legends of Rock 'n' Roll" (Miller Freeman Publishing, 2004. ISBN 0-87930-534-7)Mikestax 18:04, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Mikestax, thanks for the references, but nobody is thinking about deleting the article about The Misunderstood. The issue at stake here is whether or not Richard Brown in himself, and his activities during and after his association with the Misunderstood, are notable enough to deserve an independent article. --Goochelaar 18:35, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, for current day standing please see http://www.richardshawbrown.com/rsb-gem-articles.html to choose from 200 articles about subject Pleased advise which ones can be used to establish standing. Thanks--Rsbj66 23:32, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, to help establish post-music notability I have listed 11. published books with ISBN, plus links to 200 articles published, and 30 TV appearences, which is a large amount of exposure for any expat in Thailand in history.

It is all very good and interesting, but not quite relevant with respect to notability as meant in Wikipedia. For instance, in WP, "a topic is notable if it has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works from sources that are reliable and independent of the subject itself and each other" (my emphasis). So, one tries to understand if the person/event/thing has attracted external attention from magazines, book, web sites, independently from the work by the subject himself. If you list your work, it might be useful for people interested in your work, but as for notability it just amounts to "I did lot of stuff". Everybody here has done lot of stuff (books, children, pies, travels...). It remains to be seen whether the person doing this stuff is notable or not. --Goochelaar 14:18, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, You wrote, "a topic is notable if it has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works from sources that are reliable and independent of the subject itself and each other" <---More than 200 magazines and newspapers have written news and praise about us, such as feature news articles in International Herald Tribune, Singapore Business Times, Asia Magazine, National Jeweler (USA), Jewelers Circular Keystone, and a list of others. We have all these published articles. Mainly, no Westerner has ever gotten so much coverage in Thai history. You ask for only a few, so in the article I list two references to international articles on our notability. So according to what you stated I DO qualify for Wikipedia.

I see your other pages, such as by Geoffrey Giuliano that are 100% original research without a single reference but his one-sided self-plaise page is on Wikipedia!?<---it is VERY misleading. At least everything I have written is "true" and my notability is "respectable." Please take another look at Richard Shaw Brown and I give over 15 references on the page now. And it's all true and notable. Best wishes--Rsbj66 15:42, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Richard, thanks for signalling the Giuliano article, which has been immediately tagged as possible original research, and perhaps will be proposed for deletion. You could have done so yourself! In fact, it is perhaps better for you to edit articles not directly pertaining you or your activity. Jimbo Wales himself has been frowned upon for having edited the article about himself. So, thanks for the material you provided. But apart from it, of course you cannot judge yourself its notability or relevance.
It seems that the general consensus is not against you. So what I suggest is, leave things alone, let people consider your article for its merits and, if you like, you are welcome to contribute to other articles! --Goochelaar 16:16, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Goochelaar, thanks for the good advice. I'll follow that. Best wishes--Rsbj66 21:22, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, who is User:Mikestax? His name sounds awfully familar. Oh, yes, he's the guy from UT magazine. -- Emana 21:39, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

---Mike Stax is also owner of UT Records as well as his magazine. He did a multi issue story on The Misunderstood in his Ugly Things Music Magazine, prior to which he did 4 years of research on the band, tracking down all the members and really getting the facts straight. His study is considered the full story, and may be expanded into another book on the subject. He has also written a 550 pages double screen play for a motion picture on the band and my aftermath.

One interesting thing to consider in my case is that during the time I played a major role in building 2 schools in India and One school in Nepal (all still running) during that time I was a fugitive from the Vietnam massacre and in India under an assumed (different) name. So it's a really strange situation where I built 3 schools but can't find credit for it in my real name. An example story of how one of the schools was built is at http://www.richardshawbrown.com/mysticarticles/nandagram.html and I think you might find it interesting as an adventure, worlds apart from the USA. Remember, apart from being a war objector fugative, I was a sudden Rock Star with ego, turned into a pennyless egoless monk in a stone age ashram with no electricity or running water. It was cave man style, where humility way MOST highly respected, and I was only Westerner. So it is quite a contrast from lead singer to nobody outcast. But the Point is I cannot take credit for building 3 schools because of different name and primative conditions. This was back in 1971, long before the PC, and WAY long before the WWW.--Rsbj66 22:55, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you have done other notable work, put it in the article, with a 3rd party source, and then perhaps draw it to our attention here. Regardless of prior history of the article, if all of it has solid sources it may well survive.DGG 01:42, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • No comment: I would like to comment but since I'm a sock I can't. Sorry as per WP:SOCK. Good luck. --SockingIt 07:33, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Stax is an open reference who has researched and published articles on Rick Brown and his band in his magazine. His magazine is one of the references given. He lives in California. I live in Thailand. I have no control over his mail or input. I did mention to him to see this talk page and give any reference if possible. He has written his own thing.--Rsbj66 19:20, 2 February 2007 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Richard_Shaw_Brown&oldid=1138301403"