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. There's consensus within the established group of editors who have participated here that the article should not exist on Wikipedia currently. This AfD has now had 12 days when we normally allocate 7, and no coherent arguments have been put forward which explain why this article should be kept or how it complies with our policies. I see no benefit in leaving this AfD to run for another 36 hours before formally closing it, given the disruption and particularly the unacceptable allegations being leveled against participants. Nick (talk) 18:58, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dave Salanitro[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

Dave Salanitro (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Non-notable graphic designer with little in the way of actual coverage and who's article serves as little more than his resume. I can find nothing beyond passing mentions of this person as an individual. Fails GNG. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 13:19, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 14:30, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:02, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:02, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: On behalf of my colleague, Dave Salanitro, I'd like to weigh in by saying that he deserves a spot here on Wikipedia given his contributions to the craft and evolution of design and the profession at large. Please see my extended argument on the talk page of the article. I interviewed Dave Salanitro for the cover of HOW Magazine in the fall of 1997 (I was the Senior Editor there at the time). All of us at HOW were in awe of the work they were creating--absolutely dynamic, original, and cutting edge. Their original work stood out even more starkly in San Francisco, where there seems to be more design studios than coffee shops. I then went on to work as the Web Director for Chronicle Books, where I was thrilled to see the Oh Boy Artifacts line thrive. Lisabagg (talk) 19:49, 1 August 2017 (UTC) Lisa Baggerman Hazen — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lisabagg (talk • contribs) 19:46, 1 August 2017 (UTC) — Lisabagg (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Note: As Vice President and Creative Director at Mohawk Fine Papers, I was always searching for breakthrough talent to create aspirational promotions that would appeal to other designers. When I hired Dave Salanitro, of Oh Boy Design in 1998, it was because I was struck by the firm’s clear voice and singular vision. The resulting work won design awards and is on many designer bookshelves to this day. Dave’s greater contribution, I think, was in the area of product design. Oh Boy Artifacts was a pioneering example of design entrepreneurship and featured paper-based products that were smart, stylish, beautifully produced, and covetable.FarmShare (talk) 22:45, 4 August 2017 (UTC)Laura Shore— FarmShare (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

FarmShare That's nice but this simply isn't what Wikipedia is for. It's not a popularity contest and advertising/promotion is not allowed. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 23:12, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Without ceding the rest of FarmShare’s contribution to the page as mere promotion; instead rather evidence of notoriety. I suggest that focus be given to the passage reading “Oh Boy Artifacts was a pioneering example of design entrepreneurship.” Maxxheth (talk) 01:12, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Notoriety and notability are not the same and what some internet stranger has to say is completely meaningless when there are no sources to back it up. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 10:40, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• The statement “Oh Boy Artifacts was a pioneering example of design entrepreneurship " goes to notability. "He was notable for..." The article itself contains several references to notability. Is being profiled in dozens of publications not evidence of notability? If he were not of notability, would a major publication care to write about him?Maxxheth (talk) 00:30, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Agree with nomination; this does not meet WP:GNG. All the "support" from WP:SPAs is nice praise for him, but does not prove notability with reliable sources. only (talk) 19:06, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Why delete? This is a discussion. The content of a discussion, so long as no barbs are thrown, is posted to gauge a wider response. I have made a point. Let the final record reflect if the point stands. We certainly are getting no where saying "User talk:Only#top|talk]" I'm making a different point; if someone would care to rebut it, they should do so openly.Maxxheth (talk) 21:33, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Further, please suggest who in your mind would be a reliable source?Maxxheth (talk) 21:37, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• This has been noted before and I will note it again, in the interest of providing what you are looking for specifically. Per ((WP:GHG]] guidelines "before proposing or nominating an article for deletion, or offering an opinion based on notability in a deletion discussion, editors are strongly encouraged to attempt to find sources for the subject in question and consider the possibility of existent sources if none can be found by a search." I am unaware of any such courtesy (certainly the vocal among Wikipedia do not consider forthcoming existent sources as of any value regardless of strong encouragement from the guidelines) and any explanation that defines a what the vocal WP source seek beyond the, the many cited in the article and those that have come forth to write here, which and who I an only repeatedly told are unsuitable, clearly signal that a small minority of WP staff are simply unwilling to see this article pass. What other type of reliable sources that others listed among graphic designers listed on Wikipedia have provided you that we have not?00:30, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
• I understand that Wikipedia looks at the three individuals who have spoken up in David's defense as a single unit. I must point out that behind the flattery, someone makes a separate and unique case for why Dave deserves a place on this forum. And though the flattery itself may get him nowhere, perhaps it should illustrates this: David has left an indelible mark along his path to where he sits now, accomplished in his profession."Maxxheth (talk) 02:28, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Wikipedia states that credence is given to arguments against deletion if they reflect the criteria required to qualify a page for staying published. If you read the supporting arguments here, plus all the text and resources written about Dave on his current page, all 4 of the criteria listed under "Notability for Creative Professionals" are clearly met, which warrants keeping his page active: 1) he is regarded as an important figure and is widely cited by peers; 2) he is known for originating a significant new concepts;^{[1] [2]}; 3) he has created a well-known body of work that has been the subject of multiple articles and reviews; 4) he has won significant critical attention.^[3]. LISA FULMER LisaFulmer (talk) 20:25, 6 August 2017 (UTC)— LisaFulmer (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Delete despite the repetitive lawyering by the SPAs, this individual has not received sufficient coverage in reliable sources to demonstrate his notability. Lepricavark (talk) 11:34, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Regarding the continued assertion that Dave Salanitro lacks “sufficient coverage in reliable sources to demonstrate his notability,” please refer to Dave Salanitro's "Awards, Commendations, and Honors" page, which lists 245 commendations for design excellence and his inclusion in 116 national and international dailies, periodicals, and volumes. His work is also included in the permanent collection of the Denver Art Museum.^[4]Maxxheth (talk) 04:51, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I am Dave Salanitro. I had previously said I would bow out of further discussion, but I have not always been able to resist and have dropped a few remarks without signing in. I was not sure if I was allowed to speak on my behalf, or as an interested party, or as some WP:acronym, so when sparks were flying, I ducked under the inadequate cover of my IP address. I wish to clarify a few things. I understand that you will not take me at my word; that seems to be the general bent of the conversation; nevertheless, no one who has come forth to make a case for my inclusion on these pages is anyone but who they say they are. They are, of course, people who know me and learned of a determined campaign to defame me—I have not been quiet nor have others. They read this transcript and have, with no script and only their convictions defended, in their own words, my reputation, clearly at the expense of their own. Maxxheth, in particular, has taken quite a beating, even as he asked how the article might be made to comply. I cut it once; he cut it again; we got no reply. Secondly, I believe that this article has not been given due diligence, but instead got caught up in a maelstrom of accusations intent upon its deletion rather than a collaborative effort to better it and help it along. For an article criticized as being self-serving and promotional, what such entry wraps up with the subject's business failing? On the positive side, What of the citations of multiple publications in the article? At what point did the critics stop reading? Your concerns are addressed. It would be nice to be listed on these pages. And, there is certainly some advantage to it, but the gain should not require one to withstand smug retorts and sanctimonious behavior. Please don't take this as surrender. You may take down the page as is your prerogative, but I am not picking up my toys and going home. Throw your barbs my way and let the well-meaning others be.Dssalanitro (talk) 03:26, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Is it the financial metrics that bother you? I dawns on me that you might take them as gloating. I'm sure they can be removed. The intention I believe, and Maxxheth would have to back me up, that they are there only to illustrate the firm's rapid growth.Dssalanitro (talk) 21:02, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The financial metrics that have led to relying on Kickstarter now...? only (talk) 21:09, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you for your direct communication. The Kickstarter reference was removed a while ago when it became clear that it was clearly unappropriate. Currently, the last paragraph reads "Rights to Oh Boy Artifacts reverted to Salanitro in 2016. The brand is slated to relaunch late in 2017." Would it make a difference if the sentence "The brand is slated to relaunch late in 2017," were omitted?Dssalanitro (talk) 21:18, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • No...that wouldn't make a difference in establishing the notability of yourself. only (talk) 21:39, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • It occurs to me after rereading your first response that I took your meaning the wrong way. My intentions to do with Kickstarter or my finances are none of Wikipedia's concern. I took your remark initailly as thoughtful. I read them quickly and didn't catch how snide they were. Shame on you for your presumptions. That may have been the lowest anyone has gone yet. Now I regret that we are back on the topic of notability, which has been addressed in all manner of ways. You list hundreds of designers on Wikipedis, many with less notability than has been cited in this article, and far less than what Maxxheth refferred you to above. There are aproximately 16 citations on the main page, and another 116 publications listed by name and date online (see Maxxheth's post, if you were to take take the time to look and allow that little of what was print has been digitized, you would see that you are flat out wrong. You have far more evidence than you care to reference.Dssalanitro (talk) 23:01, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
          • Im just saying it's a little convenient that you're making and pushing for this article at the same time you're trying to raise money via a KickStarter. You have sources, sure, but they're not verifiable and seem to be trade publications at best. That does not make you notable enough for Wikipedia. You have not received significant coverage and met any of our criteria. Just because you and your supporters/friends think you're notable does not mean you actually are per our standards. only (talk) 23:13, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Note to closing admin: please be sure to look at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Maxxheth before closing (in the event this AFD closes before the SPI is acted upon). only (talk) 23:17, 8 August 2017 (UTC)o[reply]
  • • • • • Is the San Francisco Chronicle a trade publication? How aboout the Boston Globe? New York magazine. How about the San Francisco Business Times? Wallpaper*? Lucky? Real Simple? Inc. magazine is about as far away from graphic design as you can get. (For godssake!) As for the trade publications, others shoud have such good fortune to be so frequently and prominently noted in their field.Dssalanitro (talk) 00:03, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Note to closing admin: Maybe admins Only and ChrissyMad discussed an agenda prior to ChrissyMad's leave.Dssalanitro (talk) 00:08, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Re. only's comment above: "Im just saying it's a little convenient that you're making and pushing for this article at the same time you're trying to raise money via a KickStarter. THIS IS OUTRAGEOUS.Dssalanitro (talk) 02:49, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• I have worked with David Salanitro for 20 years, both as his client and as a service provider. He is very well known and regarded in the field. He is very much a real working person who has been profiled in many publications over the years. I don't see a problem with this article! Elizabeth von Radics Vonrad (talk) 17:16, 9 August 2017 (UTC) — Vonrad (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Not true. I maintained the Wiki page for Ashland New Plays Festival for 10 years.Vonrad (talk) 17:35, 9 August 2017 (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.