Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael L. 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. While I sympathize with Basileias and Calabe1992, their rationale for keep is not related to the article. Consensus is to delete the article. v/r - TP 01:49, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Michael L. Brown

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Not a notable person, most of article has no references, needed additional citations for verification for 2 years, books are not notable either Red-necked Grebe (talk) 22:50, 7 September 2011 (UTC) — Red-necked Grebe (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Keep: User Red-necked Grebe has been deleting major portions of this article without really trying to improve it. The reasons they have come up with have been erratic. This user is a Single-purpose account. See their history HERE. The article, while needing help, concerns a published author. While some may not like the topics, deleting this article is not the answer. Basileias (talk) 00:20, 8 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep: I was one of the users who reverted one of Red-necked Grebe's nonconstructive removals. User seems to have an issue with the article and therefore decided to nominate it. Calabe1992 (talk) 01:33, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 01:52, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 01:52, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 01:52, 8 September 2011 (UTC)


 *  Comment Delete. About 50 citations on GS. Not much for pop-theology. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:25, 8 September 2011 (UTC).
 * Question: I haven't much experience with Google Scholar. Is it possible that with a rather common name like Michael L. Brown, that not all the citations are to the same Michael L. Brown who is the subject of this article? --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 05:26, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Further enquiry: I followed the "scholar" link above and got a page of links that says there are 405 results. They all look like science articles to me, nothing that would be what one might expect from a theologian. Could you post a link to the page of 50 citations that you mentioned so others can see what you're talking about? --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 05:30, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
 * You have to trawl through them yourself. The religious ones are easy enough to find. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:30, 8 September 2011 (UTC).
 * It's a bit of a slog because "Michael" and "Brown" are common names, competes with Michael Brown the FEMA director and other Michael Browns. The user who entered this AFD is a Single-purpose account.


 * http://www.lgbtqnation.com/2011/09/michael-brown-is-an-anti-gay-monster
 * http://www.charismamag.com/index.php/news-old/22059-brownsville-revival-leaders-students-reunite
 * http://www.cbn.com/spirituallife/ChurchAndMinistry/Charisma_Grady_Brownsville.aspx
 * http://www.christianpost.com/news/christians-urged-to-wake-up-to-reality-of-glbt-agenda-47244


 * I agree that the nominator is a SPA, but that doesn't make him automatically wrong. Where are the sources to establish notability? --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 13:11, 9 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete - There are six footnotes in the article. Four of them are links to Brown's own websites. The other two are links to Shmuley Boteach's site and truthwinsout.org. None of these are the kind of high-quality sources that are required to establish notability. To be honest, this doesn't even seem close. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 02:27, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Delete No reliable sources, non-notable article. --Cox wasan (talk) 09:12, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete sources need to be reliable. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:57, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - No high-quality sources that are required to establish notability, mostly using self as his own reference. --Gagg me with ah spoon (talk) 20:24, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Most of the books are not academic books, and Google scholar hits and measure f=derived from them are therefore irrelevant Looking at the academic ones (to a certain degree, one can tell which they are by the publisher: Zondervan is an academic publisher-- I see he wrote the section on Jeremiah for the Jeremiah-Ezekiel volume (v.7) of The Expositor's Bible Commentary , the standard Evangelical Bible commentary, held as a series in all theological libraries, even non-Evangelical ones--see the catalog entry in WorldCat for the series,  and his book Israel's divine healer  is also in all such libraries . this is very wide reach for a specialist, and I conclude he is recognized as an authority on the subject within his theological community. work
 * Weak delete. He seems to have written some notable work as per paragraph above, but references are all self-references and the article is purely promotional. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 13:04, 14 September 2011 (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.