Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Gericke

Michael Gericke

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

I could find no real assertion of notability. This person is a graphic designer who is employed, and has created graphic designs for a number of companies. That's it, as far as I can tell. That describes every single graphic designer (except, well, unemployed ones.) I found no clue that he had ever done anything noteworthy.

There are a lot of references, and some work has clearly gone into the article, so I didn't want to speedy-tag the article in case I missed something. If I didn't, then it's probably a candidate for speedy deletion. Ashenai (talk) 03:09, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. New Media Theorist (talk) 03:50, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As a designer, the actual work he has done is high quality and very notable: e.g. One Laptop per Child. I wonder though, at what point does a designer cease being an employee and become a notable designer on their own? It happened for Massimo Vignelli, the designer of the NYC subway map and signage. But has it happened for this designer? not sure. New Media Theorist (talk) 03:58, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The answer to your question, New Media Theorist, is the reason this article should be deleted. Plenty of independent, reliable sources devote significant coverage to Vignelli. With this person, there are only passing mentions in reliable sources, and several of the sources do not discuss him at all. Company bios and university magazine blurbs about alumni do not confer notability. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:41, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I understand exactly what you are saying. But I think the projects might be notable in themselves. See this NYT article on the logo he did for Air Trans, for example. Doing logos for FIFA, Air Trans, 1LPC and the like is notable work. Millions see that kind of work. This is the guy you call when you need a graphic designer for the Rainbow Room, as demonstrated here. He appears to be a heavy hitter in the graphic design world. I see a number of museum collections as well on the list. Sorry but I think I just answered my own question about the tipping point. For now, I will vote keep and watch this discussion with interest. (Regardless of the outcome, the page needs improvement.) New Media Theorist (talk) 04:56, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

PS: Ask a New Yorker if they know who the uber-well sourced WP:NOTABLE Ayah Bdeir is. Probably .02% do. Ask them if they have seen the Airtrain logo. Probably 80% have. Yes, it doesn't have his name on it, but he did do it, and it's a notable accomplishment. I guess I am arguing that massive public dissemination of an artist/designer's work might be grounds for WP:GNG. New Media Theorist (talk) 05:03, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reply If he has designed a truly notable logo, then we should have an article about the logo, not the non-notable designer. Name recognition among New Yorkers is not in any sense an indicator of notability here on Wikipedia. There is extensive coverage of Ayah Bdeir, therefore she is notable. This is a biography of Gericke. Wikipedia biographies must be based on significant coverage in reliable, independent sources of the person, not of their well known or recognizable work. This is a well established point here on Wikipedia. In the future, the New York Times and two or three other reliable sources could publish profiles of him as a person and then he would be notable. But where is the significant coverage of him now? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:20, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Tutelary (talk) 14:09, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Thank you, Cullen³²⁸, for taking the time to explain this for me. I'm old in human years but young in Wikipedia years, and I learn little bit every time someone takes the time to explain. I am still going to stay with a keep vote, as it turns out there is alot of coverage that has not yet been included in his article. I did some sleuthing and found

five articles in the NYT alone where he receives mention of his work, and the occasional quote: one, two, three, four, and five;
this PBS television site where he discusses his work,
a few more minor sources like this book that published an image of his work, this article where he is described as a co-designer of the a memorial for the Freedom Tower, and this paragraph in an article from Advertising Age.

I think this is enough to satisfy the WP:ARTIST requirement for wide coverage in the case of small mention sources? If not, then in terms of the work on the Freedom Tower monument, that seems to satisfy WP:Artist 4.a: "The person's work (or works) either (a) has become a significant monument". He also says he is in four museum collections, which is also a WP:ARTIST "(d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums." The verifiability on this claim is low as those museums do not seem to have searchable collections. ( I am really not trying to be a PITA newbie on this-- I had a hunch that he was notable, did the research, and I think he is.)New Media Theorist (talk) 16:58, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Thank you for your kind words and for doing the work and finding the sources. I wish that one or two of them had even a few biographical details: his age, hometown, education, previous work experience, and so on. What you have found are commonly referred to as "passing mentions" but cumulatively, I think they add up to something. I would place far less weight on the NYT articles where he is a spokesperson for Pentagram as a company, as opposed to those that include discussion of his own work. At this point, I will stay with "delete" but I encourage you to improve the article using the best of those sources, and I will reconsider if you do so. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:18, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I feel the exact same way. For me, those sources don't quite add up to notability, but they do come close. Thanks for posting them. I'm quite willing to reconsider my nomination if there proves to be enough coverage in enough independent sources. Right now, I'm still in favor of deletion, or possibly merging into Pentagram (design studio). --Ashenai (talk) 18:24, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

thanks folks for your comments and attention to this. I took a shot at improving the article by formatting the sections better, toning down the promotional nature, and removing sketchy refs. I think you are both right that there's something to question here re: notability, but I do think he just squeaks by. The research I did turned up a permanent public memorial to 9-11 victims that he co-designed. Added to article under the modest "public memorials" section. That's about as good of a condition as I can get it to. New Media Theorist (talk) 23:45, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]