Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Graham Gund


 * 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. Black Kite (t) (c) 00:10, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Graham Gund

 * – ( View AfD View log ) •


 * Delete. Ordinary architect. Attributions are for non-notable buildings for notable organizations. In other words, ordinary buildings designed by an ordinary architect. Apparently the Kenyon building is a single exception, but people can't be notable for just one thing. Else, all architects would be "notable" automatically as the result of their job description. Student7 (talk) 13:31, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions.  -- Jclemens-public (talk) 15:58, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions.  -- Jclemens-public (talk) 15:58, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep A prominent Boston architect with a national practice whose firm has won numerous awards - very far from "ordinary." The article does a poor job of describing Gund's work, which I'll see if I can rectify. There are at least two monographs on Gund/Gund Architects, one with a lengthy introduction by Paul Goldberger, the New York Times architecture critic. According to Gund's website there are five mentions in publications like the LA Times, Boston Globe and Architect magazine in 2010 alone, and half-a-dozen major awards, again just in 2010 so far. Architect places Gund in the top 35 architects in the U.S. this year, and the firm goes back to 1971. Described as "nationally renowned" in the Chicago Tribune in 1996. From the article history the issues seem to be more with content rather than notability.  Acroterion  (talk)  16:13, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
 * An aside: while recognizing that notability is not inherited from rich parents and siblings, the Gund family as a whole is distinctly notable: brothers Gordon Gund and George Gund own the Cleveland Cavaliers and owned the Minnesota North Stars. It's clear where Graham got the money for his art collection and endowments to the MFA. Their father George Gund II should have an article as a major philanthropist and businessman. As for Graham, the article as it stands makes a clear case for general notability, although I'm a little hampered in expanding it by paywalls and don't have much on Gund in my personal library. The monograph's bibliography (look in Google Books) mentions nearly all of the buildings claimed by the nom as "non-notable" on the talkpage, and references coverage in Progressive Architecture, US News, Architectural Record, the New York Times, the Washington Post and others. I am concerned at the circular logic evidenced on the article talkpage that essentially states that "if the buildings (themselves, as opposed to the institution) aren't covered in Wikipedia, they're not notable." Architectural coverage on Wikipedia is poor to begin with, this kind of argument doesn't help. Acroterion  (talk)  18:00, 14 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment'. There are hundreds of thousands of large building in the US (and world). I am concerned that "Big Building X" on Campus Y is "automatically" considered "notable." I would wonder why. It's just another big building constructed so it won't fall down (the West learned architecture the hard way in the Middle Ages, when indeed large Cathedrals fell down). So that is their major contribution. But that doesn't mean that it is notable and that all articles about any architect should be automatically considered notable. There is nothing in the article except braggadocio at the moment. And one notable building. If we evaluated all bios as generously as we do this architect I guess everyone would get a pass, your local gym instructor, convenience store operator. "Gee, we haven't got around to chronicling their real contributions. Just give them a pass, you troglodyte!"
 * Please dial it back a little. I very much doubt that your local convenience store operator has had a monograph published about him, nor has received coverage in major newspapers as documented in the article, nor been written about by the pre-eminent architectural critic in the United States. All this is referenced in the article, and fulfills the general notability guideline. I'm not sure why you're stuck on "one notable building", which is clearly not the case; notability, with rare exceptions, is based on a body of work that's been noted and documented in the press. The article could use improvement, better referencing and expansion, but that is not what AfD is about. I do in fact agree that a given building on a given campus is not automatically notable, but we are not debating buildings.  Acroterion  (talk)  14:15, 16 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep I agree with above statements from Acroterion. Not enough research in the resources that an architect would typically search within has been performed. In the short amount of time that I looked down through Yahoo hits, I also found Boston Globe and Washington Post articles about Gund's s work. I just have not had the personal time to go back through years of Architectural Record which has articles on the firm's work. Concerning awards, go to the Gund Partnership's web page at http://www.gundpartnership.com/ and you will find that the firm has an award porfolio of more than 100 regional and national awards for design excellence since 1971. I know that a good Wikipedia editor would want to verify that information, but fine architectural practices do not lie when making statements like that. These awards may be vetted through third party sources such as the American Institute of Architects, the Boston Society of Architects, the Society for College and University Planning, the Connecticut Green Building Council, and others. Please understand that Wikipedia is hardly a complete compendium of information and that looking only within Wikipedia to determine notability is not prudent practice. Acroterion, if you want me to take on some of the tasking to help build this article, possibly we can apportion the tasks. One more point - remarks on the talk page of the subject article such as, "He couldn't have gone to school in a hall named for himself. (Harvard). This is just plain silly." display a gross lack of sensitivity and a real lack of knowledge of the subject matter. If Graham Gund himself were to read that (and he could), I can just imagine how he would feel about Wikipedia. Please keep the page, and also please consider deleting the talk page discussion that includes the above quote (for Wikipedia's own good reputation). Doc2234 (talk) 20:35, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. Hurting his feelings! What? Right now there is no reason he should have any space in an encyclopedia. Anyway, somebody who is really notable won't get his little feelings hurt by any remark, even one that is so obviously true. If his feelings are hurt by such remarks, I doubt that he belongs here. Just one more reason. Student7 (talk) 13:40, 16 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment. Graham Gund, FAIA is a Fellow of the American Institute of Architects

2010 Housing Award, Multifamily Living

Society for College and University Planning, SCUP/AIA-CAE Excellence in Architecture Addition

Boston Society of Architects, HIGHER-EDUCATION FACILITIES DESIGN AWARDS PROGRAM/2009, CITATIONS FOR DESIGN

AIA Columbus, Ohio Chapter, 2009 Design Awards

BSA, 2000:The Year in Review

I could continue with research. The above should prove notability. This is only a glimpse of the awards. Graham Gund has FAIA stature. A small percentage of AIA members have that stature. Please keep the page. Doc2234 (talk) 00:55, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Keep -Sources indicate notability.♦ Dr. Blofeld  15:38, 16 November 2010 (UTC) Keep The references added since the AfD nomination show clear notability. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 22:37, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep I see a lot of coverage in reliable secondary sources, including 165 Google News hits and over 4,000 Google Books hits. The article already utilizes many of these good sources. Thus, it passes the GNG and should not be deleted. / ƒETCH COMMS  /  03:29, 17 November 2010 (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.