Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jesse Ragan

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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.--Kungfu Adam (talk) 16:02, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jesse Ragan

csd/a7 vanity page Tengwarian 14:43, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep as i don't see any obvious sign that the page was created by the subject. On the face of it it looks like a fairly valid typographical stub, albeit one that perhaps needs beefing up a little. OBM | blah blah blah 15:01, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per OBM. -Jcbarr 15:15, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - With respect, it's the responsibility of the page creator to show notability, otherwise Wikipedia becomes Who's Who. If there are citations that can justify this page, let's include them, otherwise I think it falls under 'non-notability' per csd/a7. Plenty of people design fonts. Tengwarian 15:25, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
    • To me, vanity is a distinct claim from nn, so perhaps you clouded the argument to start. 2nd, while this is a topic I know nothing about and have even less interest in, he is referenced in 2 other articles, so notability is at least a debateable point. -Jcbarr 15:25, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, his work is solid, his clients equally so, this professions historically gives credit to apprentice work, and he has gone well beyond that. O, just realizing that I have been accused of writing this article about myself. I am not jesse ragan, do not know him, I am Jim Hood, a desigenr,and teacher. I woonder in this world do we get to face our accuser? Who has accused me of writing about myself? CApitol3 20:18, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
    • I wasn't suggesting that you were the subject, but rather that the subject does not meet the criteria for notability. There are thousands of professionals who do good work, but to include them all is to turn Wikipedia into a directory. If there is something to distinguish this person from the many other people at work in this field, such as a critical review in an established publication, I would ask that you include it in the listing. Tengwarian 21:06, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Appears the tack has now changed from suggesting it is a vanity article created by subject, to now not being appropriately notable. Any chance you know this type designer? I Agree there are, thanks to software like Fontographer, countless numbers of people who could produce a technically functioning type. Those people do not recieve places on the American Institute of Graphic Arts' website. The subject's work is clearly acessible by links. CApitol3 04:09, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Please assume good faith here. My use of the phrase "vanity page" is consistent with its definition here, and was not a personal attack. I do not know him (her?) personally, perhaps you do? Such accomplished contemporary American font designers as David Berlow, Cyrus Highsmith, and Sumner Stone have not merited Wikipedia entries, let alone Robert Hunter Middleton, Bruce Rogers, or Chauncey Griffith. And yes, I can go ahead and create these pages. But I still cannot see the significance of distinguishing this person over these others. With respect, I don't believe that a single award given by a trade organization to thousands of designers annually meets the standard for notability. At this point I think it's best that we leave this decision for the editors, since the Wikipedia docs state that there is "no consensus regarding notability." Yours respectfully, Tengwarian 07:33, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
    • An additional apology, GearedBull. I see further down on that page that "the use of the word 'vanity' is discouraged in deletion discussions." Please chalk this up to the awkward elbows of an old academic - I did not mean to offend! Tengwarian 07:42, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

O, no harm done, but I'm disappointed that you continue to suggest I might know the subject. Please assume good faith when I have here twice, once on the article's discussion page, and once on your own discussion page professed I do not know the subject, and that I do not even know the subject's gender (though I would guess male given the ratio of type designers), or where s/he is geographically located (NY is my best guess, though Seattle comes up in some online returns). What I am more familiar with is the subject's work, which is what I based my article upon. Agree there should be a host of other articles: Robert Granjon, a longer bio for Anton Janson, more on Tschichold, and yes, I suppose Cyrus may have achieved more thus far, etc. But I don't see any precedence for thresholds (writing the big guys before the lessers). Wikipedians write about what they are more familiar with. In my own case here typfaces I have seen and worked with. Neil Macmillan's An A-Z of Type Designers, though not giving Ragan a full, separate entry mentions him as a co-creator of several typefaces. I will add that to the refs. The AIGA is not a commercial organization, this isn't an industry publication or award, pardon me if you already know that the AIGA is more akin to the American Institute of Architects than a commercial trade organization like Printing Industries of America, where the organization has a not very oblique reason for citing and awarding professionals: business. best, Jim CApitol3 14:45, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep per OBM --Arvedui 00:55, 8 November 2006 (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.