Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Julian Sprung


 * 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. Sr13 06:50, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Julian Sprung

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Fails WP:BIO Stellatomailing 14:55, 6 June 2007 (UTC) Comment Self-claimed aquarium expert, biggest claim to fame is authoring a non-notable book.Stellatomailing 14:55, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Author of a number of aquarium and marine biology books per Amazon . Volume 3 of the reef aquarium series does pretty well at number 19,953 in sales (out of about 4 million titles) at Amazon, for a $56 nonfiction book. Lectures widely, author of magazine articles. Edison 19:41, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Just for clarification, I used the Notability (books) as a base for saying the book is non-notable. Stellatomailing 20:22, 6 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment Notability (books) is a guideline to whether a book is notable enough to have an article, not whether the author of multiple books is notable or not--or that's what it says in its introduction. Not all of Picasso's sketches are notable enough to have their own entry, this does not mean that Picasso does not merit an article--so don't use that argument, stick with the criteria listed.  KP Botany 20:58, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Calm down, people. I am just citing that to show the basis of the comment the book was non-notable. Stellatomailing 21:10, 6 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep per User:Edison. KP Botany 20:58, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletions.   -- John Vandenberg 18:53, 7 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Reviewing the data, looks like the subject has much more importance than what is in the article. Maybe somebody who knows about aquariums could expand/validate this view?Stellatomailing 20:53, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
 * It doesn't have to be expanded to be kept, though. I posted a note at WP:WikiProject Aquarium Fishes for what it's worth.  The guy appears to have written more books on marine aquaria than I thought existed.  KP Botany 21:11, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment -- This is a tricky one for me, because I'm a professional writer within the aquarium industry. I've also written books and articles, but don't have (and don't expect) a Wikipedia article on the strength of them. On the other hand, I do accept that some aquarium writers are influential and productive, and should be recognised at some level relative to their output. I don't like the Julian Sprung article as it stands for a variety of reasons though. Primarily, I'm not sure how he can be a "recognized expert". There's no BSc or PhD awarded to 'expert' fishkeepers. Writing for books or magazines doesn't bestow peer-group recognition upon you. It isn't like winning an Olympic medal or Academy Award. Saying he was "a zoologist by training" could mean anything. Does this mean he did a biology degree at university? Or does he have a PhD? Has he ever published anything in the scientific journals or been part of a scholarly research group? The rest of the article seems about promoting his books and company, something not really in the spirit of Wikipedia. So while I accept he may be worth an article here, I'm not at all convinced the article as it stands contains anything of real value. Cheers, Neale Neale Monks 10:36, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Fixed these issues. He's a zoologist, that implies BS in zoology.  It probably took me less time to fix these issues than it took you to write about them.  They are the sort of thing that generally should be fixed on Wikipedia.  So, now that these issues are fixed, do you have an opinion on keeping or deleting the article?  KP Botany 20:36, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * It's much better now. Keep. I'd perhaps dump the "zoologist" bit though -- a BSc doesn't really make someone a zoologist, all it says is they have a zoology degree. Let's face it: unless you sleep through all four years of college, you can't really fail to get a BSc or BA in most modern universities! Anyway, a "zoologist" is a scientist who studies animals, and unless Sprung has actively researched and published in peer-review journals, he's not really a zoologist. By all means say he studied zoology at the University of Wherever, but to me, a zoologist is someone who was or is active in the field of zoology. Cheers, Neale Neale Monks 21:02, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, that's debatable, but I don't actually know what his degree is in. If it is a BS in zoology, you're right though, it should simply say that.  Can you check?  KP Botany 21:33, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * He has a zoologist BA.Stellatomailing 02:34, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Do you have a source for that? this says BSc. John Vandenberg 02:38, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
 * BSc it is. Sorry about the mistake. Stellatomailing 03:19, 9 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep; he is a big fish in the small bowl.. John Vandenberg 00:41, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - Not sure that's true at all. Big fish would be people like Dick Mills (publishing over 40 years, literally hundreds of books, or Herbert Axelrod, who set up what's become the largest publisher of books on pet animals in the world (TFH). To be honest, I'd not even heard of the guy until I read this thread, and I work in the trade (admittedly, on the freshwater site of the industry). So while he may be a significant figure in the world of aquaristic publishing, I'd not say he's any bigger than, say, Bob Fenner (US), David Sands (UK), or Frank Schaefer (Germany). Cheers, Neale Neale Monks 08:09, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - This could be a good opportunity to set the bar here. Neale, I understand that the coverage of aquarium books must be naturally small in the media - limiting the verifiability we could get, how could we attest the notability of a particular author? I.e., somebody can write 100 books, but maybe all of them are bad.Stellatomailing 15:57, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Stellatomailing, you're right, but I'm not sure how to answer your question. But as a first pass, you'd perhaps go with writers who have published with mainstream commercial publishers (as opposed to vanity presses, self-publishing, or club/association publications). Such books will usually have a brief biography for verifying details (I certainly know this to be true in my case). The nature of commercial publishing will also mean that such works will [a] have to have reached a certain quality standard; and [b] will have been printed at a certain volume such that the books are available and potentially significant. Beyond this, I'm not really sure how objectively one can "set the bar". I don't know Mr. Sprung's work at all, so can't say whether his 3-volume self-published work is a standard textbook or a vanity project or something in between. But I think I'm being fair to him by saying that while he may be a recognised writer within the marine aquarium field, he isn't in "the big league" as far as publishing goes any more than I am. Cheers, Neale Neale Monks 16:23, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Neale. Looks like his work is widely cited as good, but the sources are not RS (no NYT, Reuters, etc) but this comes with the niche as we discussed. What would be "big" conventions and magazines in the Aquarists' world?Stellatomailing 16:32, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Ah, difficult to answer. The biggest publisher of aquarium (and other pet books) in the US (and indeed the world) is TFH Publications. Then there are smaller pet-specific publishers such as Aqualog and Interpet Publishing. Most other publishers who do non-fiction books, such as Dorling Kindersley and ...for Dummies have done aquarium books of one sort or another. For magazines, the two major league ones in the English language are Tropical Fish Hobbyist (part of TFH) and Practical Fishkeeping (part of EMAP). These two will have circulation figures comparable to other hobby magazines, though rather less sports or lifestyle magazines. There are whole bunch of smaller magazines in the US and UK. I'm not aware of any "big" convention that stands out as the worldwide meeting place for professionals. There are lots of regional ones, but many of the speakers at those won't be writers but breeders, collectors, and businessmen. Not sure how much this helps really. It's a niche market, so you're never going to have fishkeeping writers who get awards from media professionals in the same way as, say, journalists or biographers. On the one hand, you have people like Axelrod who set up multi-million dollar companies, so obviously deserve recognition. On the other hand, you have people like Bob Fenner and Julian Dignall who run web sites that get million+ hits per month as well as being prolific writers in books/magazines. On the third hand (!) you have the likes of David Sands who may be a aquarium writer but is also a scientist and collector, and has published taxonomic works on catfish that get used by other fish scientists, and are honored by the science, for example by having species named after them. So I think people like that obviously deserve recognition. But on the fourth hand you have people like Julian Sprung (and, dare I say it, me) who are basically doing this as a job. He (we) aren't any more influential than any other non-fiction writer, and such recognition as he (we) get will be primarily from the hobbyists. It's basically the Notability (academics) situation. Cheers, Neale Neale Monks 17:12, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, looks like this article is going to be kept, so I am waiting for your article on WP soon. :-) Stellatomailing 17:44, 9 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep. The article provides reliable sources, which support the assertion that he is notable per WP:BIO. The article does not articulate them all very clearly, but that's cause for expansion and cleanup, not deletion. —C.Fred (talk) 16:02, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep as a notable expert within the field of fishkeeping, no need to extend any sort of WP:BIAS about it. RFerreira 07:56, 10 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep As a marine aquarium hobbyist for a few decades, I have found very few "experts" that I trust. Sprung is one of the best. As a speaker for local reefs clubs, national and international conferences, he is great. I think comparing him to authors of freshwater aquarium books is like comparing apples to oranges? The above references to authors of other hobbies are moot? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.35.218.63 (talk • contribs)  — 71.35.218.63 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * 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.