Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Glyn 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 keep. LFaraone 05:56, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Glyn Brown[edit]

Michael Glyn Brown (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 little more than a local celebrity, if that. In my view, he does not meet WP:BASIC (for lack of depth of coverage) or WP:ANYBIO (as there is no substantiation of the notability of the award he did receive). All his coverage falls under WP:LOCAL, and he is simply not known outside of Houston media coverage. Everything else about his businesses out-of-state (apparently designed to show greater visibility) is drawn from public records, which falls under WP:PRIMARY, as it is the business itself that files the papers. Half of the article is about random court cases the subject was involved in over the years. His supposed unique surgical technique isn't, and overall, I don't see how this subject really meets notability criteria. MSJapan (talk) 01:26, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - This is a BIO article, not an article about the company. If it is the company that is receiving the coverage, it is not pertinent to show notability of Brown, because notability is not inherited, and I'm pretty sure we follow the idea that a CEO/president/founder of a notable company is not necessarily notable. Secondly, you're showing by citation that the article was published in WSJ, but the link is to the WSJ blogs. I'm not entirely sure that that is considered the same level of reliable coverage as if it were to be on the main site. MSJapan (talk) 16:15, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The decline of Brown's company corresponded with the end of appearances of Brown-centered commercials. Since he started the company, any coverage of the company talks about him as person. In any case the WSJ article talks about Brown as a person. As for "blog" sections, Wikipedia:RS states ""Blogs" in this context refers to personal and group blogs. Some news outlets host interactive columns they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professional journalists or are professionals in the field on which they write and the blog is subject to the news outlet's full editorial control. Posts left by readers may never be used as sources; see WP:NEWSBLOG." WhisperToMe (talk) 08:44, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Yeah, I thought it looked like a local controversy, too, but it turns out that he's got some national coverage: WSJ newsblog, ABC News, NY Daily News. Most of the coverage is indeed local, but he seems to be just barely notable enough to perhaps squeak by. I also noted some articles in tabloids that I ignored, plus some local papers outside of Texas. Apparently, the man made enemies in all the border states, too. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:37, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: He has coverage in the UK too: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2493413/Michael-Brown-hand-surgeon-bankrupt-dies-heart-attack.html WhisperToMe (talk) 06:41, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yeah, that's one of the tabloids that I discounted as a reliable source. The other was the New York Post. If they said today were Sunday, I'd check it with three different sources. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:04, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • The Daily Mail isn't a tabloid like the Weekly World News. In the UK many papers are in a tabloid format. There have been questions about its reliability brought up on the RS noticeboard but I think in this case it can be used. See Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_23#Is_the_Daily_Mail_a_reliable_source as an example. In Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_112#Daily_Mail a Wikipedian warned not to use the Daily Mail as the only source of a sensational claim, but for what I sourced from the article the details don't sound fantastical. WhisperToMe (talk) 07:18, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • Except these are a rehash of what we already know from the article and other sources, and I'm personally not fond of deciding somebody was notable in life just because their obit went viral on the newswire. If all we've got is that he was married four times and in court all the time for domestic assault, what's the point? Because he's a doctor and has money from a business it makes a difference and he's somehow notable for it? MSJapan (talk) 16:15, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
            • MSJapan, the quotes from the various journalists say why he was notable: Because A. he appeared in prominent advertisements promoting his business, B. because of his association with the rich and famous and his jet set lifestyle, and C. because of his embarrassing scandals involving domestic abuse, divorce, and drugs. One of the non-Houston sources, the WSJ source, is about the failure of his business. Another, the New York Daily News source, is actually about a person filing a lawsuit against Brown WhisperToMe (talk) 16:25, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:24, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:24, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:24, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, salvage contents about the company -- If the most notable thing about him is his company, suggest rework this article form a BIO to an article about the company, and salvage what we can. Per notability is not inherited, I do not think the person is worthy of their own article. Lesion (talk) 17:14, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Considering Wikipedia:GNG, why do you feel it does not meet this notability requirement? I believe, due to the extensive coverage, it meets GNG, which means he is notable. WhisperToMe (talk) 06:41, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Here are additional non-Houston sources which further illustrate it meets GNG.
    Staff of the Phoenix Business Journal. "Brown Hand Center founder faces DV charge." Phoenix Business Journal. August 25, 2010.
    "Here is the latest Texas news from The Associated Press." (Archive) (includes short blurb on Michael Brown) KRGV-TV (Rio Grande Valley region of Texas). November 9, 2013.
  • WhisperToMe (talk) 06:46, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: To the closing admin I added sentences that state explicitly why he is notable. Hopefully these sentences should clear things up. WhisperToMe (talk) 08:21, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 00:45, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Fairly notable and article is of good quality, no reason to delete. Cexycy (talk) 19:37, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: This is a lot of sources for a person claimed not to be notable. EdJohnston (talk) 07:01, 19 November 2013 (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/Michael_Glyn_Brown&oldid=1138076478"