Talk:Kevin Brown (author)

Feedback

Thanks for the prompt feedback on format issues regarding this article. I will clean up as many of them as possible as time permits. Camilopinilla (talk) 11:29, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi Camilopinilla. As per our discussion on IRC, here is where you should discuss any further article issues. You already have an interested editor who posted below.. -- œ^™ 20:30, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

References

• I added a reference for 'Images of the Spirit". There is an existing ref, but the page it leads you to didn't seem very informative to me, so I added one with more information. Feel free to remove mine if it is appropriate, remove the first, or leave both.
• I consolidated two identical references into a single named reference (the link to the Nation)
• I changed the Desk Reference citation to include ISBN and publication date
• I improved the references for the Romare Bearder and Malcolm X books (the original refs lead to a LOC search page)--SPhilbrickT 22:02, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Sources

In response to the article creator's request at WP:EAR, I have reviewed the article and its sources.

1. This URL does not appear to link to a mention of the subject and should probably be removed from the references.
2. According to this, the 'interview' may have been submitted to the web site by the author, in which case the site does not meet WP:RS criteria for use as a referenced source.
3. Amazon.com product product listings and/or descriptions do not meet WP:RS criteria for use as a referenced source.
4. This URL does not appear to link to a mention of the subject and should probably be removed from the references.
5. This URL does not appear to link to an article about the subject. It appears to be a blog item written by the subject. It does therefore not not meet WP:RS criteria for use as a referenced source that confirms notability.
6. This URL does not appear to link to an article about the subject. The web site only carries an extremely fleeting listing of the subject as being the translator of something among a long list of woks by many authors/translators.
7. This cited web page does not appear to mention the subject at all and should probably be removed from the references.
8. This cited web page does not appear to mention the subject at all. In fact it appears to be about an Ana Cecilia Barragán interview, and should probably be removed from the references.

Unfortunately, the above sources do not appear to assert notability under WP:GNG, WP:BIO, or WP:AUTHOR. The article has been tagged again as needing attention. Kudpung (talk) 10:00, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Not trying to start an edit war here. It's better to have an imperfect article than no article at all. But, per <+OlEnglish>, I'm respectfully removing the most recent tag. The sources have all been meticulously researched. Camilopinilla (talk) 20:30, 21 February 2011 (UTC)camilopinilla

Before removing any more tags, you need to respond to the valid points that were raised by Kudpung. -- œ^™ 21:04, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree that the tags are appropriate at this time, and should not be removed unless/until firm evidence of notability can be provided, per WP:V and especially WP:BLP.  Chzz  ►  21:37, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

I looked at the first reference in the Kudpung list http://exchanges.uiowa.edu/splash/. It is a attached to a claim that a translation by Brown appeared in the journal. A reader seeing the reference would logically expect that the reference would identify the specific issue, not simply point to a generic page of the journal. The existing reference supports the notion that there is such a journal, but I don't view that as a reasonable use of a footnote. I tried searching to see if the journal had that issue online, but I did not find it. Please note that references do not have to be online. If you can identify the date and issue, that will work as an acceptable reference.--SPhilbrickT 21:46, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

(The following is copied from Kudpung's talk page)
Hi, Kudpung:

Glad to have the opportunity to discuss this with you one on one. First of all, please forgive my lack of savvy with regard to wiki style, format and quality standards.

That said, the writer featured in this article is at least as notable as several others of the same generation, many of whom the author knows personally. But that part is debatable. What's a matter of public record are the published books, articles, essays, review and translations, dating back to 1978 and appearing in many major national publications here in the U.S. In a living author, the quality or "notewortiness" of those is impossible to determine.

What's a matter of historical record is the fact that the author comes from a literary family with a major role in African American and American literature. If you do a wiki or google search on the subject's maternal great Ida Cullen Cooper (Ida Mae Roberson), you will find many reputable cites. Ida Cullen-Cooper's marriage to Harlem Renaissance poet Countee Cullen is well documented. There are living relatives and literary executors that can confirm this. Also, the name Countee Cullen appears in virtually every book published about the Harlem Renaissance. Countee Cullen's relationships with James Baldwin, W.E.B. Du Bois (both wiki article subjects) and many others is indisputable. The author has followed in the family tradition of writing to critical acclaim about subjects like James Baldwin and W.E.B. Du Bois for national literary publications in the United States. The author studied with one of the major Spanish-English translators in American literary history. Transcripts could be produced to support this in necessary. The author has followed in his mentor's footsteps by translating historically important articles and books from Spanish to English. Notability? How many people have done or are doing that?

In short, to argue whether this author is "notable" is a matter for literary criticism. To document the writer's involvement in the literary activitity of his time is a simple matter of public record, and is much easier to do. That is all I attempted in this article.

Kudpung, I'm happy to vet this article with you line by line and reference by reference. I'm quite confident that any references in it can be documented, whether by means of high school and college transcripts or any other means. But I'm sure wikipedia doesn't need that level of detail. After all, the subject is a professional biographer. If you're saying that the sources are unclear, that's one thing. If you're saying that the subject is "unimportant", that's quite a different matter.

Please let me know in each instance what documentation and/or online citation you need to remove the tags, and I'll be happy to comply.

As I said before, I'm inclined to leave well enough alone at this point. Better to have something imperfect than to have nothing at all.

Also, I have the author's permission to use a standard headshot in the infobox. Again, it's just a question of what proof you need. I have emails to and from wikimedia documenting the process.

174.65.126.37 (talk) 21:24, 21 February 2011 (UTC)camilopinilla

I, and our fellow Wikipedians do not doubt for a moment your sincerity in believing that the subject of your article is notable, and that you have worked hard to produce the page. I am sure also that you have taken their comments and advice on board. However, any number of sources, whether they are truly reliable or verifiable or not, do not confer notability - they can only confirm it. For example, a degree transcript or a copy of a PhD certificate only prove the claims to those qualifications, just as a jacket note or an ISBN only prove that a book has been written. What makes the holder of that PhD notable however, is not the doctoral title, but the amount of critical acclaim his research has received, and that the praise and/or awards have been documented in articles about him in the press, in books, and other established, reliable media. What makes him notable as an author will also be critical acclaim, proven best-seller statistics, and important literary prizes, and not the fact alone that he has written a book or two (or even a dozen) or done a couple of long translations. It is important to note also that a person's notablity comes from his or her own achievements such as those of Vincent van Goch, Beethoven, Charles Dickens, or Werner von Braun - notability is not inherited from one's family (unless perhaps your grandmother is Queen Elisabeth II), teachers, or personal connections As you have correctly identified, the matter of public record is easily addressed, and such detail may not be wholly necessary, but the literary criticism that asserts the all-important notability, must be found from other works and media, also of good standing, and independent of the subject, along with proof. The acid test is often: if the subject is truly notable, someone somewhere will already have written something substantial about the subject. For a quick example see Rose Garrard, a quick, ten minute bio I wrote recently. The bottom line is that if the sources are unclear, until they are, the subject is "unimportant", at least for the Wikipedia. The article would look great with a photo of Brown and you don't need his permission to use it. What you do need, because the photo will be copyrighted, is the photographer's permission, but unless you took it yourself, that's rather more complicated and we'll cross that bridge when we come to it. Kudpung (talk) 02:39, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Second review of referenced sources (all 16)

Let's try again:

1. (used twice) Kevin Brown (1995). Romare Bearden. Chelsea House. ISBN 9780791011195. Google books; unreviewed. Is proof only that he wrote a book; Any biographical info was submitted by the author himself, his agent, or his publisher.
2. (used twice)Kevin Brown (May 1995). Malcolm X: his life and legacy Google books; unreviewed. Is proof only that he wrote a book. Any biographical info was submitted by the author himself, his agent, or his publisher.
3. (used twice) Mirrored extract from The New York Public Library African American Desk Reference. Book sale web site. Quotes (probably) from jacket notes.
4. afterimageonline. No mention of the subject. Submission site: anything mentioned here would have been submitted by the author himself, his agent, or his publisher.
5. (used twice) The Nation Online States simply: 'Biographer, essayist and translator Kevin Brown has authored or contributed to four books. His articles and reviews on art, cinema, dance, literature, music and politics have appeared in the London Times Literary Supplement, Washington Post Bookworld, and others.'
6. (used 3 times) AbeBooks.com Book sale web site. Lists a quarterly journal The Threepenny Review; Subject's name appears in a long list of contributors to the magazine for two issues.
7. Exchanges – Journal of Literary Translation. No mention whatsoever of the subject. Site has no search feature. Submission site: anything mentioned here would have been submitted by the author himself, his agent, or his publisher.
8. (used 3 times) Delaware Review of Latin American Studies: an interview with Gregory Rabassa, the translation of which is attributed to the subject. Submission site: content was submitted by the subject himself, his agent, or his publisher. No further information about the subject.
9. (used 8 times) Printed or digital periodical publication (ISSN): Contemporary Authors New Revision Series: 'A Bio-Bibliographical Guide to Current Writers in Fiction, General Non-Fiction, Poetry, Journalism, Drama, Motion Pictures, Television, & Other Fields', Volume 116, pp. 47-50. Farmington Hills, Michigan, 2003. ISSN 0275-7176.
10. Amazon.com Book sale web site. Short description of the book contents. No further information about the subject. Submission site: content was submitted by the subject himself, his agent, or his publisher. No further information about the subject
11. carpe-datum.com No site owner masthead, not clear what this html page is - could be the search engine form for a book sale web site. Subject not mentioned.
12. Entrepreneur. Apparently a B2B directory site. Contains a blog-style review by Kevin Brown of Eyes to Fly With: portraits, self-portraits, and other photographs by Graciela Iturbide.
13. Exchanges. Contains only a list of works by various authors, one of which is jointly translated by Angel Estevez and Kevin Brown. List item was apparently submitted by the subject(s) themselves, their agent, or their publisher. No further information about the subject(s).
14. (used twice) Utah State University. Absolutely no mention of the subject whatsoever.
15. Utah State University. Latino/Latina Voices Digital Collection: Ana Cecilia Barragán interview dated July 27, 2007 Absolutely no mention of the subject whatsoever.
16. Utah State University. Latino/Latina Voices Digital Collection Jorge Rodas interview dated July 13, 2007 Absolutely no mention of the subject whatsoever. A PDF downloadable transcript of the translation of the interview is availabl. The translation is credited to Ubiqus, Inc., a run-of-the-mill translating agency.

I'll allow 7 days (the time we would allow for a WP:PROD) for the page to be referenced with sources that comply with WP:RS and WP:V, failing which I will have no alternative but to pass the article to WP:AfD based on the above information, for decision by the community whether the article is to be kept or deleted. Kudpung (talk) 14:00, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Kevin Brown (author). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110105215456/http://exchanges.uiowa.edu/splash/ to http://exchanges.uiowa.edu/splash/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110720085155/http://www.uiowa.edu/~xchanges/archives/winter06/contentshort.html to http://www.uiowa.edu/~xchanges/archives/winter06/contentshort.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100618045017/http://digital.lib.usu.edu/latino.php to http://digital.lib.usu.edu/latino.php
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm4/document.php?CISOROOT=%2FLatino&CISOPTR=186&REC=2
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm4/document.php?CISOROOT=%2FLatino&CISOPTR=398&REC=1

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:20, 4 May 2017 (UTC)