Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andre Julian

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 --Mike Cline (talk) 13:32, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Andre Julian

Andre Julian (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

American financial expert. A lot of sources reporting on what he said but no detailed, independent coverage. Christopher Connor (talk) 05:12, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

• Delete Non-notable financial person using status as a cable news talking head to try to get an article here. No sources and reads as a spam article pushing his various products. I have removed the creating editor's name template from this nomination as it is not needed in an AfD process. Nate • (chatter) 07:07, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

• Keep The article conforms to Wikipedia's core policies: NPOV , V and NOR. Regarding the 4th policy of notability, within Wikipedia notability is an inclusion criterion based on the encyclopedic suitability of an article topic. As such, if someone wishes to access background information on an "Andre Julian" that they had just seen on television, it is perfectly reasonable that honest and factual information be available for that person on Wiki. Thus the article on Andre Julian shows encyclopedic suitability, in conformance with Wiki's charter - to compile and provide trustworthy information on everything.

In response to the contentions of User:Mrschimpf

• (Non-notable financial person): In Mrschimpf's usage, "notable" is being used in Wiki's secondary sense and - per Wiki's policies - is not of primary relevance. Even so, Mr. Julian is well known in his profession.
• (No sources): Mr. Julian's broadcast appearances speak for themselves. A Wiki user is able to view those appearances to verify that Mr. Julian is what the article says he is and verify that he is an expert in the field. Inline citations, per Wiki guidelines on identifying reliable sources, are for material challenged or likely to be challenged and for all quotations and for contentious material, so technically the article is in conformance. Nevertheless, if Mrschimpf is contending that a more rigorous association to the References may be in order, whatever editing needs to be done to satisfy the editors can and will be done.
• (pushing his various products): NO products are being pushed, for that matter NO products of Mr. Julian are even mentioned (other than Mr. Julian produces opinions), in the article. Any reader of the article would have to go elsewhere to identify what Mr. Julian's companies can offer. (Analogy - no one would possibly believe that the Wiki article on Steve Jobs has Mr. Jobs pushing the iPhone.) To repeat, all the Andre Julian article does is to provide biographical information on Mr. Julian.

In response to the contention of User:Christopher Connor

• (no detailed, independent coverage): All the relevant statements are supported in the article, in particular Mr. Julian's credentials: his position, his titles, his background. These relevant statements can be verified from within Wiki via the user clicking on References and External Links. Mr. Julian's Publications speak for themselves. If Mr. Connor wishes statements in the article to be attached to their own citations, we can certainly move in that direction.

Note: The article on Andre Julian was modeled after the Wiki article on Edward Witten. In the Edward Witten article, other than for quotations or awards, absolutely NO sources were cited. To be sure, the article on Dr. Witten belongs on Wikipedia. By any standards of fairness, Andre Julian's article should also be kept on Wikipedia.

Disclosure: User:Ann12h (talk) is one of the contributors to the article.— Ann12h (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 07:57, 12 February 2009 (UTC).

Comment Inserting links to his books in the Kindle store and his MMA record is clearly spam. Those are certainly not needed at all. Nate • (chatter) 04:27, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Maybe some of the info can be verified. However that's not enough to pass notability, which requires significant independent coverage. None of the sources are good enough for that. (I think the MMA fighter is a different person.) Christopher Connor (talk) 16:36, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:57, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Comment There are currently no Wiki criteria for Notability:People:businessperson or Notability:People:commentator. But with minor (i.e., no attempts to change the sense of the criteria) modification to Notability:People:Entertainers, Mr. Julian meets the following criteria for notability:

• Has had significant appearances in multiple notable financial television shows or other productions.
• Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following.
• Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of finance with his expert opinions. (Stress on prolific.)

It has already been asserted that the Wiki basic criteria have been met. There is

1. verifiable, objective evidence that the subject has received significant attention from independent sources (Evidence: many appearances on the most famous financial broadcasts in the US).
2. significant independent coverage or recognition
3. widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field

It seems that it is only with Item 2 that we may differ, where Mr. Connor is stressing the "independent coverage" part of Mr. Julian as lacking, we are stressing that the "recognition" part of Mr. Julian as fulfilled. Ann12h (talk) 01:04, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

I doubt Julian would be considered an entertainer. You've had to change the notability guidelines to try and make him notable; I think that says everything. I've already said that those reports aren't about him, they just report what he said. That doesn't qualify as significant coverage. I asked you on my talk page whether you could find sources that are reliable, independent, and give significant coverage, but you haven't done so yet. Merely quoting guidelines and asserting he meets them isn't enough. Christopher Connor (talk) 17:21, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Response You are missing the point(s). No one even remotely asserted Mr. Julian is an entertainer nor have any notability guidelines been changed. Currently there is no category for Notability:People:commentator. I just gave an example of notability guidelines in a media category, guidelines to which Mr. Julian would have conformed. Mr. Julian is not an entertainer. On another point, you keep harping on "independent coverage" on him, I keep harping on "recognition" of him (refer to #2 in Wiki criteria above). Mr. Julian is recognized by the top (notable) financial reporting media, enough to have been vetted and asked to participate in their analysis of and opinions on financial events (professional recognition does not get much better than that). The Wiki rules clearly state "or recognition", which his references do support. Are you changing the rules? You must be aware I get it - you have been insisting on "significant coverage". Are you insisting that your interpretation of the rules excludes recognition from consideration? That would be so wrong, in violation of Wiki rules.

Please note that this matter is too serious for you to go off on unsupported speculations or conduct erroneous logic. This has already been evidenced by your 'thinking' Mr. Julian the financial expert is not the same person as Mr. Julian the MMA participant. He most certainly is. I suggest you reassess the logical correctness of what you assert "coverage or recognition" to mean. I'll give you a little help. Or is a logical disjunction, only one assertion has to be true for the statement to be valid (and the rule satisfied).

Nevertheless, Mr. Julian's references are being revised to support your concerns. My objective is that those references conform to Wiki policies, guidelines and standards. Your interpretations of anything should not be in violation of these same Wiki policies, guidelines and standards. Your response is welcome, preferably one where you do not speculate and one where you specify any misinterpretations on my part. Ann12h (talk) 23:21, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Merely being quoted isn't "recognition" with regards to notability. If he is notable, the sources would be reporting on his life and career, not merely on what he says. Also, importance isn't equivalent to notability. Why bring up the irrelevant entertainer guideline if he doesn't fit under it (and then change it)? I said I thought he wasn't the MMA fighter because few financial experts participate in MMA, and I could find no sources that linked the two (none still in the article). I may have made a mistake, but in any case it makes little difference to this AfD because he isn't notable as an MMA fighter. It would be helpful if you could source the info in the article using inline citations. That would help in determining notability. Christopher Connor (talk) 00:51, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

• Keep I have deleted the references to the books on Amazon. I thought they were needed for verification. (I think the MMA fighter is a different person.) As far as the MMA record. It is in fact the same person. Andre does participate in MMA. He is in fact the owner of the gym, "Reign Training Center". That gym is operated as Mark Munoz's Reign Training Center. Mark is a middleweight in the UFC and currently ranked in the top ten in the world on most MMA polls. Mark is the face of the gym, but Mr. Julian infact owns it. I deleted it regardless. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrisb3637 (talk • contribs) 20:18, 14 July 2011 (UTC) — Chrisb3637 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:58, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

---

• Delete. I don't doubt that Mr. Julian is an expert whose opinions are solicited, but the question here is whether or not he is a notable expert. Although Mr. Julian has been quoted in major media, he - as the article's subject - fails to pass WP:BASIC of WP:BIO which states: "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." The references and external links generally fall into one of two categories: 1) they support that he has been quoted (but not biographically covered) in major media, or 2) they appear to be affiliated with Mr. Julian, thus failing the "independent" clause of WP:GNG and WP:BIO. Location (talk) 04:06, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Response In fairness to Mr. Julian, he is far more notable than "David Muir" was when Mr. Muir's page went up years ago, and Andre Julian has had far more exposure than, until recently, David Muir had (in fairness to Mr. Muir, he has been assigned the weekend news anchor spot, so now the comparison becomes arguable). Why was not Mr. Julian's notability, by virtue of his appearances on and having been vetted by the top financial news networks in the country, afforded the same courtesy as, in this example, David Muir's article? None of Mr. Muir's references and external links are secondary, each link is either to to his employer or to Ithaca College, his alma mater. Wiki cannot have double standards.

I appreciate that Wiki reviewers currently stress that notability means significant independent coverage. Yet the rules (WP:NRVE of Wikipedia:Notability) clearly state "or recognition". I am stressing the latter interpretation, in conformance to Wiki criteria, for which Mr. Julian has been amply, significantly and independently recognized - as evidenced by the independent vetting by those notable financial news programs.

As a last comment, in Mr. Julian we have an individual who is providing expert assessments of the financial world. These assessments may be heeded by millions of influential people and may result in significant impacts on our economy. Common sense would dictate that a brief encyclopedic entry is in order. Ann12h (talk) 07:59, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

1) The article is not about David Muir. 2) Christopher Connor has elaborated on the "recognition" argument above. 3) There are lots of experts on television everyday who aren't necessarily notable experts. Location (talk) 12:56, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

• Strong Keep per sources; Andre is mentioned in many articles but more than that he is a corporate executive for several noteworthy companies. There is currently a detailed bio on Julian in Business Week [1].Silent Bob (talk) 10:49, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

The bio is copied from a company in which he has a vested interest. It's not an original write-up by Business Week. Location (talk) 12:56, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

I see your point but I think you are missing mine... Business Week has to get their information from a source but the two keys for this debate is that this link is significant coverage and proves noteworthiness because Business Week wouldn't go through the trouble of creating a profile page for the guy if he was nobody worthy mentioning. Now I'm not saying this page should be big, but it shouldn't be deleted because it just passes standards.Silent Bob (talk) 12:06, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

I guess we differ on the importance of the bio. The subject submits a bio to Business Week's IT guy and voilà... he has a profile page. There are many, many similar pages located there. Location (talk) 15:44, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Location I looked over the Business Week list and you are mistaken... Their list is editorially controlled and submissions/corrections are reviewed, researched and changed if information isn't verified by their team. This is a credible news site and the second most trusted outside of Forbes which also has a similar profile list for noteworthy executives. The point is that this source is a verifiable third party source that provides significant coverage on the subject of this article. Wikipedia policy on sources such as this are clear... and we all know that Business Week has editorial discretion over what it publishes on its site. Wikipedia can only rely upon sources such as this to verify statements made within articles. Newspapers obviously get their information from primary sources and original research it is Wikipedia's job to trust credible sources for its information. This source substantiates Julian and in my opinion buys his article time on Wikipedia. If he is notable then more news will follow and the article will grow; if not then some later day I might be inclined to with you... but not today.Silent Bob (talk) 07:57, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I noticed that you, Location, seem to deem murderers and aged or deceased somewhat obscure sports figures to be of importance (and that's perfectly OK), so yes, some of of do differ. I deem a financial expert who's comments may be heard by millions and who's comments may influence our economy as important. Although you may not have acquired a level of interest to identify prominent people in the financial field, it seems pretty clear via the many, many sites that pop up on Google that Mr. Julian is highly recognized by experts in his field.

But neither your opinion nor my opinion has that much weight. The issue at hand is whether Mr. Julian meets the Wiki standards of notability (see also WP:BIO). We know Mr. Julian has received significant attention and recognition in his field, in conformance to Wiki basic criteria. We are here to present arguments as to whether that's enough. Mr. Connor correctly, since at this time those are the Wiki standards, is emphasizing secondary and independent coverage. I am, also in conformance to Wiki standards, emphasizing secondary and independent recognition.

Your last statement is quite an exaggeration. There are exactly 2 similar references (and those, to his bio). The other references (with the exception a couple of sites that give his credentials) are to the different sites of different major financial news organizations that have and are broadcasting Mr. Julian's commentary. Ann12h (talk) 23:45, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

"Interest", "importance", and "notability" are all different terms. I certainly edit in lots of articles with subjects that meet the Wikipedia consensus of "notability". How about you? Have you edited any other articles but this one?

One not need be a financial expert to see that this subject's bio is one of thousands listed on the Business Week website, and that is no exaggeration. Just look at the bottom of their home page where it links to Private Companies and click it: "Your search for A returned 51,427 private company results." If you start clicking the "People" tabs under those companies, I think you'll find plenty of biographies. Then you can move on to letter B. The point here is that having a biography on Business Week does little to establish notability. Location (talk) 01:06, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Unlike with Mr. Connor whose statements are logical, cogent and usually on point (and let's be clear, I have an opposing contention with Mr. Connor re: Mr. Julian), any conversation with you is of no consequence. You are illogical, you obfuscate and go off point. To wit:

1. Business Week is not part of the Andre Julian article nor referenced in the article nor did I bring it up. Why harp on it?
2. Interest has nothing to do with anything (other than your lack thereof in many, many topics of consequence).
3. I will not embarrass you with a list of books and academic journals that I've edited, but let me just state that your Wiki editing might not qualify you to monitor kindergarten recess. Even you should be aware that quantity without quality is useless.
4. I would appreciate that you cite chapter and verse of Wiki policies, guidelines and rules and how articles do or do not conform to or meet the Wiki policies, guidelines and rules. Your hand waving is out of line.

To me, it is clear that two objectives of the Wiki community is to accept articles of encyclopedic suitability and to make existing articles better. It is really only constructive criticism that helps in moving towards those objectives. Ann12h (talk) 02:03, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Note. The article needs to be better written and the many many other sources added it to help make this at least a C or B level.Silent Bob (talk) 10:57, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

• Keep According to Wiki guidelines for notability it is stated that notability is an inclusion criterion based on the suitability of an article topic. Although there is a WP:Basic criteria of notability, there are many additional criteria. This article entry clearly falls into the category of Creative Professionals as Mr. Julian is a professional in the investment and financial field. In the WP:Creative professionals category, item 1. says that a person is notable if, "The person is regarded as in important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors". Grammatically, it is important to understand that an 'or' statement requires either of several inputs to be present in a group of inputs separated by the word 'or'. Although it can be argued that Mr. Julian is an important figure in the investment world, it is not even a necessary argument to make. It is clear that Mr. Julian is, 'widely cited by peers'. He is referenced by independent, verifiable and well respected sources that are not affiliated with Mr. Julian. His comments and opinions are cited in television media and in print by sources like Bloomberg, CNBC, Fox News, etc. This obviously supports the wiki criteria of a notable person who is widely cited by peers.Wikidawbomb (talk) 15:16, 20 July 2011 (UTC)— Wikidawbomb (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Keep. I think if we define entertainer logically as anyone who appears on a commercial braodcast medium that seeks to gain money by drawing in viewers, than Julian qualifies and he would thus qualify as notable. I know it is odd to call him an entertainer, but that seems a reasonable use of the guidelines, and since wikipedia is not a beauracracy we can use guidelines in reasonable ways.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:56, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Merely appearing on tv doesn't constitute notability. Regardless of whether a subject meets any subject-specific guideline, they still have to meet the GNG. We are past the stage of presuming there are sources, and have actually looked for them. People have been in contact with the subject in an attempt to find suitable references. A lot of text has been pasted explaining things. If, after all that, there are few good sources, it's obvious to me that the subject isn't notable. Christopher Connor (talk) 07:12, 28 July 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.