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. No significant coverage in third party sources, and while the article rescue squadron and many others are keen to vote keep, they offer no new convincing arguments. Finding nothing to assert notability on LexisNexis is pretty damning, and I would expect a gentleman from this field to have several interviews or articles appearing on it. As it stands, I recommend waiting a year or two until he's advanced his career. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 20:39, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Petrick[edit]

Robert Petrick (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Unable to find any significant coverage in unrelated reliable sources. There is a Robert Petrick who appears to be notable, but that is a convicted North Carolina murderer, not a graphic artist. Bongomatic 00:44, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No evidence provided to support that either (a) the works are "reliable sources" for notability purposes; or (b) that the coverage is significant. If the subject is intended to satisfy WP:BIO generally, the coverage should be about the artist, not simply a sampling of work. If the subject is intended to meet WP:CREATIVE, then his works being reproduced in a niche books will not suffice. Bongomatic 01:19, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Petrick fits under the following, from WP:BIO:
  • The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by their peers or successors.
  • The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique.
You can see this in the cited works, which are not niche books. They are a good chunk of the books on ambigrams. Hofstadter's book is the only completely scholarly work on the subject. That book does not contain any of Petrick's artwork, but discusses his work (i.e., the coverage is about him). Polster's book devotes at least two pages to Petrick, maybe more, with text which is about him, plus some samples. I would not be surprised if Langdon's book discusses Petrick, since they worked together, but I haven't looked through my copy to see. I do know that Petrick's history of ambigrams discusses Langdon. Petrick's work has also been cited elsewhere (e.g., U&lc, ref'd on the Ambigram page).
As to the murderer with the same name, he doesn't seem notable in the least. Murdering your wife doesn't make you notable and his case got very little non-local coverage.
RoyLeban (talk) 04:36, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, it received a lot of non-local coverage due to the search histories used in his prosecution. Bongomatic 04:51, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe so -- I just did a quick Google search and saw mostly NC coverage. I'd never heard of him and I've heard of search histories in other cases. But, forget the murderer. This discussion is about the ambigramist/artist/graphic artist/font designer. RoyLeban (talk) 05:01, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Most importantly, of course, is the notability and verifiability of the subject underdiscussion. Secondly, I would say is the interest of User:RoyLeban who, as you can see from the revision history on the Ambigram page, is an enthusiast and ardent defender of these pages, for some reason. Is there COI going on? Deadchildstar (talk) 18:48, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There's an interest, not a conflict of interest. The interest is in completeness and accuracy. RoyLeban (talk) 18:18, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
regarding "completeness" - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NOT#INFO Deadchildstar (talk) 19:28, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I mean "Wikipedia completeness". Petrick is one of three people who are responsible for the popularization of ambigrams. Even though Peter Jones was apparently the first to recognize the generality (that's according to Hofstadter), I'm not suggesting we have a page for him (though he does deserve mention on the Ambigram page). Inappropriate completeness would be a list of every one of Petrick's ambigrams or of everybody who's ever created an ambigram. And certainly there are oodles of such complete lists on Wikipedia I'd like to kill. RoyLeban (talk) 18:00, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding Petrick, I'm inclined to support his *minor* notability as an American graphic designer. He had his day in the 70s and a bit into the 80s. In depth and too-long interview here: [1] -- Print is the perhaps the best known graphic design magazine in the US. Interestingly, skip to about 11:30 in the video, he talks about his Wikipedia page and how many hits he gets to his own homepage.Deadchildstar (talk) 18:48, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That interview predates this page. I assume he is talking about the link from the Ambigram page. RoyLeban (talk) 18:18, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Currently, he seems to be working on *non-notable* independent projects. If one were to strip the article to its verifiable 3rd party sources, it would be quite short. If all of his notability was in the 70s and 80s, it becomes difficult to verify without a trip to the reference library. Or, apparently, User:RoyLeban's bookshelf.
As for the other stuff, I'm actually more concerned that there's an *entire page* on ambigrams! If you read it, it says: "The earliest known non-natural ambigram dates to 1893... [timeline deleted for brevity]... According to John Langdon, ambigrams were independently invented by himself and by Scott Kim in the 1970s.[7] Langdon and Kim are probably the two artists who have been most responsible for their popularization, but other artists, notably Robert Petrick, who designed the Angel logo, claim to be independent inventors." So Petrick claims to have invented something that was invented 80 years previous. Deadchildstar (talk) 18:48, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Whoever wrote the original text in the article was unaware of earlier ambigrams, as were Kim, Langdon and Petrick, so it was quite reasonable for them to call themselves inventors. For many years, I thought they were the inventors. However, I came across a reference to Borgman's book, which I own, and found the ambigrams in there. Then I went looking for the originals in The Strand. And I also found the ones in the Topsy & Turvy's books, which I also own (reprint books are available on Amazon, feel free to buy them). And it wasn't until I was reading through Hofstadter's Ambigrammi that I was reminded of the story about Peter Jones in 1963 (I'd heard the story before but had forgotten about it). So, Jones, Kim, Langdon, Petrick, and lots of others (yes, including myself) independently invented the general concept even though actual specific ambigrams had been created earlier. The Ambigram article should be changed to reflect this acurately and I'll do that when I have time (remember: there is no deadline). And, no, I shouldn't be in the article as another "independent inventor" -- I did a few, then stopped until I saw Kim's work in OMNI in 1979. RoyLeban (talk) 18:18, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So, if you live in a hole, you can say you invented anything? Anyway, there is no source cited here and the way this is all phrased puts words in the artists mouths, basically making them sound stupid ("Hey! I invented typography!"). This should cite a source that says they think they invented it, or be rephrased. Deadchildstar (talk) 18:56, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There are independent sources that say these people invented them. But the sources are wrong, as can be proven from the earlier ambigrams. The assertions that each of them lay some claim to inventorship is also well-sourced, in their books and web sites. But a more accurate statement is to say that Jones was the first person to generalize them and that Petrick, Langdon, and Kim (that's the chronological order) popularized them. I've been meaning to rewrite the first section of the Ambigram article, but keep wasting time on stuff like this. RoyLeban (talk) 19:41, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Anyhow, I'm inclined to say keep, but poor justifications such as the above claim make me want to sway towards delete. Deadchildstar (talk) 14:32, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, Polster devotes two full pages to Petrick and discusses him in the "Who invented ambigrams?" section (though inaccurately, he gets the dates wrong, as we can see from other sources). Maybe elsewhere too, but there's no index. RoyLeban (talk) 19:49, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You're kidding me, right? I never said Print magazine wasn't reliable, but it's the only such source of its kind I turned up, and the portfolio work is trivial compared to real coverage, and I am unsure of what exactly the coverage in Print entailed. As far as defending his design skills, I only pointed out that his font work is amateurish, an assessment which I stand behind, but it was just an aside anyway -- there are no sources calling his font design notable, just proof that he did some fonts, which, again, goes for thousands of people. Obviously his print work is going to be what makes or breaks his notability. DreamGuy (talk) 21:51, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • (smile) When Borgman wrote his book, he didn't know about the Newell ambigrams, nor did he call them ambigrams (he named them vertical palindromes, of all things). When Kim wrote his book, he didn't know anybody had done them before. When Langdon wrote his book, etc.... Polster knew about Borgman and thus The Strand ambigrams, and found the Newell ambigram (personally, I'd owned both the Borgman book and the Newell books for years, but had never recognized the significance of the ambigrams). Polster did his research, but missed some things. This is the way the world works, and is certainly the way Wikipedia works -- when new information comes to light, we update. Would you rather that things were never corrected? RoyLeban (talk) 17:48, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Don't think "more" is what's needed (you alone have contributed 6,473 characters). It's broader feedback from more people that would be helpful. However, it's only been listed for three days, so really no need to "relist" yet. Bongomatic 09:17, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Is that arguing just to argue? AGF! Clearly, I meant feedback from more people. RoyLeban (talk) 18:57, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You keep asking for good faith, Maybe you should show more yourself. You asked for a relisting three days into a seven day listing. No need. It was reasonable to wonder why you made such a request. Duffbeerforme (talk) 15:09, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Huh? It had turned into a conversation between a few people and no new contributors. I wasn't looking at the clock. RoyLeban (talk) 17:14, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Odd that you should magically wander onto this article AFD considering the personalities involved. Seems like you have personal reasons for these votes instead of ones per Wikipedia standards, because your arguments are not consistent from AFD to AFD. Here you say it's lacking sources and should be kept anyway, elsewhere you say articles with sources should be deleted. DreamGuy (talk) 20:09, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please respond to the comments, not the commenter. RoyLeban (talk) 06:13, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Uh, how about physical books? Aren't they prefered over online anyway? All three of the references are on my bookshelf. Polster spends 2 pages on Petrick and mentions him elsewhere. Block & Yuker feature some of his work (I think this book is up on Google Books). Hofstader, whose book is about ambigrams and nothing else, discusses him and calls him a pioneer. RoyLeban (talk) 06:13, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Roy: yes, that was my suggestion, thanks for reiterating it. However, 3 books may not be convincing enough for notability, and often more information comes up in a periodical search through a specialized database, especially with non-current sources (as it seems our designer-at-hand was most notable in the 70s and 80s.) Also, Roy, your insistence alone won't help the case. Everyone on this discussion currently has said all they can on the topic. Deadchildstar (talk) 14:19, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't want to go into "other stuff exists", but I come across articles all the time that have zero sources, zero citations, zero references. And they're fine articles. Why isn't 3 books enough, especially given the fact that he's a pioneer in a field? RoyLeban (talk) 18:28, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 16:38, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's a bit of a problem with this because unless you own the books which are used as references you can't really comment on their relevance or importance. However, Eye Twisters especially seems to be a collection of artwork, instead of coverage of the artist. Maybe the person who created this article would like to post what is written in the books so that the rest of us can judge more accurately?
Looking at Googlenews, Google and LexisNexis I can't find anything about this artist except for the aforementioned Print interview and one article in Adweek (April 2, 1984) which isn't about the artist on a wider scale but is instead a 92 word description of one of his pieces. The two main claims to notability this artist seems to have are A) He invented ambigrams, this obviously isn't true and that was an honest mistake on the point of the article's author and the artist himself. The second one is that he made an album cover for the band Angel. This in and of itself does not seem to be enough to establish notability and as I've pointed out, there are no other reliable sources available. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 18:05, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • FYI, Eye Twisters is not just a collection of artwork. I would guess it's about 50% text. It's still in stores, so it's easy to see it without having to buy it. RoyLeban (talk) 18:28, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do you own it? Because as I said above it would be very useful for this debate for everyone to be able to see what was written in the book. Seeing as we can't all find a bookstore which has the book, and we can't all buy it, if someone could post the text it would be helpful. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 18:56, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you can put the updates in now and they show notability I'll happily change my vote! PanydThe muffin is not subtle 00:35, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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.
More