Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of people who studied graphic design but are notable for other pursuits


 * 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   delete. postdlf (talk) 17:06, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

List of people who studied graphic design but are notable for other pursuits

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This is a case of non-encyclopedic cross-categorization. Should be deleted. Vanjagenije (talk) 11:51, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

It's a good list too see where graphic design takes people — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.128.188.180 (talk) 13:02, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete: per nom.Vrac (talk) 15:24, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete - Per nom. Great example of non-encyclopedic cross-categorization. NickCT (talk) 15:45, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep: The "intersection of those categories is in some way a culturally significant phenomenon": http://www.creativebloq.com/graphic-design/celebrities-were-designers-81412563 . Also "notable for other pursuits" isn't a category of its own, so I don't think this is cross-categorization. It's a list relevant to graphic design as a cultural phenomenon and as a career choice. Danmichaelson (talk) 15:55, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Danmichaelson, your very first Wikipedia edit is this comment above. It's a bit strange. Are you using multiple accounts? Or someone called you to join this discussion? Vanjagenije (talk) 16:10, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Vanjagenije The author of the article shared the article. I visited it and liked it, then saw it has been nominated for deletion (to my knowledge the author isn't aware of this). Since I like the article and feel it's relevant based on my experience in the field as a practicing designer and teacher, I posted as much here. Assume that's legitimate. I do not have multiple accounts. Danmichaelson (talk) 16:15, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
 * - Welcome Danmichaelson, and thanks for your comments. While the link you offered goes some way to demonstrate the intersection is significant and notable, unfortunately a single article in a web-based trade news source does not "significance" make. Can you point to other similar articles, perhaps in higher quality sources? NickCT (talk) 16:38, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
 * - I agree that article per se is a bit silly. Of the figures listed in it, David Bowie is one who has some potential weight in the graduate design program I teach in, as a figure who crosses artistic boundaries in a fairly deep way, with graphic design as one node in that path. Some others maybe less so, but of course different people and schools will have different values.
 * Here is an article from a respected design writer that speaks generally about graphic design education as an interdisciplinary trajectory. http://blog.linedandunlined.com/post/36674032078/school-days.
 * Article from a respected design journal that discusses the well-known artist Ed Ruscha's crossover between graphic design and art: http://designobserver.com/feature/ed-ruscha-when-art-rises-to-the-level-of-graphic-design/2307/ ; importance of that crossover to understanding his work within critical art perspective; as well as relevance of that crossover to graphic design
 * Ruscha's bio at Walker Art Center discusses same from art perspective
 * That's just using a couple figures as examples but the principle is a potentially important one for many figures and disciplines, and may become more important over time given current trends. Danmichaelson (talk) 17:00, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Blogs are no good. The second one doesn't even seem to discuss "people who studied graphic design but are notable for other pursuits". Neither does the third. Do you have any high quality sources (i.e. published books, mainstream media outlets), which directly and specifically discuss "people who studied graphic design but are notable for other pursuits"? NickCT (talk) 17:07, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
 * 1. Why are blogs no good to make the argument that the idea of crossover is important to graphic design? This isn't about notability it's about whether the crossover is "culturally significant". 2. Design Observer is about as mainstream as it gets when it comes to a graphic design publication, even though it's an online magazine. 3. The second and third links discuss a particular example of a figure whose crossover from graphic design (used to sometimes be called "commercial art") to painting was important from a critical perspective to both disciplines. And one of them is the artist's official bio from a major museum of art, not a blog. I'm not aware of literally other comprehensive lists published in printed magazines, but surely showing the importance to criticism by example helps make the case that assembling this list can help foster further writing and thought through interconnection, one of Wikipedia' goals.
 * - 1. It sorta is about notability. Intersections or cross categorizations like this still have to be notable. 2. Ok. Well Design Observer may be mainstream for graphic designers. Do you have anything which is mainstream for everyone who isn't a graphic designer? 3. Maybe. But taking specific examples from separate sources and tying them together into novel categories is a great example of synthesis. re "can help foster further writing and thought through interconnection, one of Wikipedia' goals" - Citation needed. Fostering further writing and though is all very well and good, but I'm not sure this is what WP or any encyclopedia is there to do. Encyclopedia's present notable facts. NickCT (talk) 18:11, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Not giving up. 1. I think the criteria is just whether the list "contributes to the state of human knowledge", i.e. is it overly specific or overly broad as Artw says, or "in some way a culturally significant phenomenon" as the CROSSCAT policy says. The individual members are subject to notability criteria. I've argued why it does contribute, from my perspective in the field, and included the perspective of other critics in the field through links in this discussion. I think the real issue is listcruf not non-encyclopedic cross-categorization or synthesis. Are the figures in this list notable figures? And is it important in many cases that they were graphic designers (important either to the figures' work or in the graphic design field)? Arguably the answer is yes in some cases, no in others; the list could arguably be edited though I'd say having the fullest context is helpful. 2. I've referenced published material from curators of a major art museum as well and doubtless there can be more, especially as the list grows. Besides, if this were an article about science wouldn't science publications be allowable? I've also cited a leading graphic design publication. 3. Synthesis refers to logical inferences in the text of an article, not in the justification for keeping an article. Danmichaelson (talk) 19:19, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
 * - Look. I appreciate your thought process here, and you're making some valid points, but I think you're majorly missing the mark. I'm not arguing that the members of the list are not notable. That's not the point. If lists could exist solely on the notability of the listee's, we could have an infinite number of lists. "curators of a major art museum" are moderately reliable sources, but they're not end-all and be-all.  "if this were an article about science" - This wouldn't be a list about science, b/c scientists wouldn't create this kind of list. What you've done is synthesis, b/c you've strung together things which are separate in reliable sources and made a novel and non-notable interpretation about how they are similar by putting them in this list.
 * Anyways, best of luck with convincing others of the strength of your arguments. I'm afraid I won't be convinced. Also, please don't leave WP. We can use more good folks like yourself. NickCT (talk) 20:32, 9 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete This seems really specific yet at the same time overly broad. Artw (talk) 18:08, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete: Per nom. Ljgua124 (talk) 12:16, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:18, 10 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete. Lots of people became notable in careers that weren't what they actually studied in college or university — but that's not an encyclopedically noteworthy thing in its own right, and there's nothing uniquely notable about graphic design in that regard. Bearcat (talk) 22:20, 10 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep On its own, it might be a too self-important. Designers, though, can more easily find personal, professional, and historical value in this information than others. So can others interested in topics/subjects related to the article contents. So, perhaps there should be a similar page for several other careers, that would in turn have value for more people. There doesn't need to be a page for graphic design specifically, but it would be good to have "List of people who studied X but are notable for other pursuits" pages, and a master page listing all the different careers that have such a list. Yaco Roca (talk) 05:14, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
 * This is a second new user whose first edit is to vote "keep" in this discussion. This seams like a case of wp:meatpuppetry to me. Vanjagenije (talk) 16:13, 15 December 2014 (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.