Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Julian Monroe Fisher

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 concensus (default keep). JERRY talk contribs 04:48, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Julian Monroe Fisher

Julian Monroe Fisher (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Article appears to have been created by subject I am not an expert in the field of exploration and adventure, so am listing to discern whether the subject of the article is indeed notable. The article also lacks any references. Whitstable (talk) 15:50, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Keep – I admit I am an inclusionist, yes that is a made-up word, and to be honest this one is a tough call. However, I lean towards keep based on this information; [1]. Happy New Year . Shoessss |  Chat  17:46, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
Is that not just a letter to a newspaper? Whitstable (talk) 19:40, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
LOL you are right, however that was not the search I was basing my opinion on. Here you go [2]. Sorry about that —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shoessss (talk • contribs)
  • Comment - the guy wrote one book, which is ranked as the 1,483,908th top-selling book on Amazon.com. Most of the Google results linked above are nothing more than the same bio blurb. No real opinion here, just passing on some facts. --Badger Drink (talk) 07:35, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment – --Badger Drink (talk) please, if you like to make a comment make it more realistic 1,483,908th! Come on, Amazon.com would not even carry the book at that level. Shoessss |  Chat  02:25, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Did you actually follow the link? It's showing as #1,778,336 here now.  —SMALLJIM  17:35, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

For the record: Julian had 2 books published - see Amazon.com, one in 2000 and one in 2002 Julianmfisher (talk) 08:15, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JERRY talk contribs 00:41, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak delete. Since Autobiographies are discouraged, since the article fails to assert the notability of the individual (except for two books whose total readership is unknown), and since I could find no documentaries filmed by the individual as claimed in the article, I am in favor of deletion. Further, a chronological listing of the visited countries is not verifiable per WP:V and not notable per WP:N on its own. Mh29255 (talk) 00:55, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep and improve sources. Come back eventually if it can't be improved with sources (seems to be likely that RS could be provided, given the assertions in the article). Avruchtalk 03:37, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete Subject = author, Julianmfisher, so WP:COI is check. No WP:RS listed. Who cares where you've visited? Pure WP:VANITY. ΨνPsinu 03:55, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete, no indication of real notability through independent sources. (However, do note that many notable books rank well past a million at Amazon, especially if they were not published last week.) --Dhartung | Talk 07:48, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep, seems to be secondary coverage of him on "explorer" style websites. The WP:AUTO issues are not reason in themselves to delete the article (although all the unverifiable stuff needs to be stripped out). Lankiveil (talk) 11:27, 2 January 2008 (UTC).
  • Delete. The main guideline for inclusion of any article in WP is that the topic must have been the subject of "significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject" (WP:N) - in other words, there needs to have been significant discussion about the topic by independent people and those discussions need to have been quite widely published. I can't see that this is the case here.  —SMALLJIM  12:57, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep, guy is notable based on the single fact that he is a Fellow with The Royal Geographical Society which according to WP was formed in 1830 when merged with the "Association for Promoting the Discovery of the Interior Parts of Africa" which was founded in 1788 founded by Sir Joseph Banks. It was given a Royal charter by Queen Victoria in 1859. That makes it the oldest and most prestigous exploration society. A Fellowship is "an honour based upon the merit of contributions by an individual to the field of geography". Anyone can be a member of The Royal Geographical Society, but to become a fellow, you have to prove yourself by "involvement with geography (through research, publication, profession etc) and must be proposed and seconded by existing Fellows". Former members include Charles Darwin, Henry Morton Stanley, David Livingstone and Ernest Shackleton. The same applies for the Explorer's Club. According to that clubs website, to be a member of the Explorer's Club, you have to be nominated, then elected. Living members include Sir Edmund Hillary, the first person to climb Mount Everest, and Buzz Aldrin, the second man to walk on the moon. As for outside sources, Expedition News only reports on "significant expeditions, research projects and newsworthy adventures". I also noticed that Colonel Norman Dane Vaughan wrote the preface for Fisher's first book. WP search says Colonel Vaughan was a member of Admiral Byrd's first expedition to the South Pole, the 1928-32 South Pole flyover expedition. According to the Explorer's Club flag report linked in the article as a source, Fisher carried Vaughan's flag # 89 across Africa just last year. As an avid follower of exploration I know many of the most notable explorers past and present often distance themselves from the limelight, they are simply not self promoters. I see Fisher as a connecting point for many extremely notable people. Maybe he himself will be better known in a hundred years. --KaCelik (talk) 07:30, 3 January 2008 (UTC) — KaCelik (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Comment Fellowship of the Royal Geographical Society is "Open to anyone over 21 years and actively involved in geography or a related subject."RGS web site —Preceding unsigned comment added by Phil Bridger (talk • contribs) 21:13, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep – I admit I am an inclusionist, yes that is a made-up word, and to be honest this one is a tough call. However, I lean towards keep based on this information; [3]. Happy New Year . Shoessss |  Chat  16:38, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
You don't get to vote again when an article is relisted, Shoessss. And you've reposted that "wrong" link too (see above).  —SMALLJIM  17:35, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment – First, it is not a vote. The piece is listed by an editor to get a consensus of ‘editors’’ if the article should be listed in Wikipedia or not. Finally, an opinion can be expressed more than once. Shoessss |  Chat  01:43, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Point 1: my bad - I omitted the ! prefix to the word vote above (it is in the edit summary though). Point 2: pasting the same !vote after the AfD is relisted is hardly 'expressing an opinion more than once'; it looked to me more like unfamiliarity with the way AfDs work. Sorry if I've upset you.  —SMALLJIM  11:26, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep, looks to be semi-notable in the field of exploration. RFerreira (talk) 06:24, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete - not much independent coverage. --skew-t (talk) 00:57, 7 January 2008 (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.