Talk:Harald Geisler

I consider any reliable source to be acceptable towards notability as long as there is specific subject coverage more than just passing mention or primary sources that are independent of the subject. I also think three is a good number to serve the purpose. I marked the Analyse This reference as requiring a subscription as any pertinent information is not visible without registering.

Notability: Being worthy of notice, determines notable topics. "For people, the person who is the topic of a biographical article should be "worthy of notice" or "note"—that is, "remarkable" or "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded" within Wikipedia as a written account of that person's life.. The "property of being worthy of notice" belongs to the subject. The none primary and independent sources indicate the Albert Einstein Font has received attention. This begs the question: Is the subject notable because of the works or is the works the subject of notability?

In my earlier comments I made notice of the article title and pseudo biography. A struggle I am having is the notability of the subject (as a BLP) versus the notability of the work so am looking for sources that provide a biographical tie-in. The Wall Street Journal could potentially offer biographical information but it requires a subscription. I don't have access to these types of sources. With all the free information in the world I don't feel I should have to succumb to the "advertising to subscribe" to read the source and the reason I have just made comments as opposed to actively working to approve the article. Another source (that needs translating), appearing to back up biographical content in the lead, is only a list of alumni.

There is some under-sourced biographical lead content, with nothing biographical in the article body only works (art or invention), and this is the source of my hesitancy. In my opinion (someone feel free to point out any error) there is just not a biography here (possibly yet) which happens to be the subject of the title at this time.

Please note: I don't feel notability is an issue just if the notability is on the subject or the works at this time. Otr500 (talk) 14:19, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

@Otr500: have you considered writing an article on Albert Einstein Font? Also have a look at WP:NCREATIVE points 3 and 4. ~Kvng (talk) 14:27, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

@Kvng: Thank you for initially asking to point out the WP:THREE best sources that establish notability of the subject.

@Otr500: I agree with you that sources should be available freely. Initially I wanted to point to a similar article published in The Wall Street Journal from 2013 that discusses the subjects work ->here and secondly an interview published in the Times of London from 2015 ->here — both are insightful but behind a paywall which is not helpful, alternatively these three articles are freely accessible but not as in-depth:

1. Washington Post: "There’s now a font based on Albert Einstein’s handwriting" (2015) article by Rachel Feltman
2. NBC News: "'Albert Einstein Font' Lets You Write Like a Physics Genius" (2015) article by Tanya Lewis
3. Vice: "New Project Lets You Reenact Einstein and Freud’s Remarkable Correspondence" (2017) article by Noémie Jennifer

Thank you for pointing out "Is the subject notable because of the works or is the works the subject of notability?" and @Kvng: for referencing WP:NCREATIVE points 3 and 4. The person has created or played a major role in creating a significant or well-known work: the reference list shows that a variety of the author's works have been primary subject of multiple independent articles and reviews over a longer time period. What I find significant about the subjects body of work is that it continues to appear in new places — typefaces are usually not discussed in NBC News (2015), Huffington Post (2013) or Physics World etc. nor is historic handwriting usually covered in Vice (2017). Therefore it is reasonable to say that the person's works has won significant critical attention.

@Otr500: regarding "under-sourced biographical lead content" I was able to extract some basic biographical information like age and number of typefaces created from an article published in the Star (a newspaper from Canada) that seems to not yet be behind a paywall. Further I removed the link to the list of alumni you've mentioned - this information is covered in the article mentioned before. I am going to add the new information to the article page. While reviewing the Times and Science Alert article I was able to extend the biographical lead. Thanks for the kind and helpful critique, I hope that I could address the issues @Kvng: and @Otr500: mentioned.

Amanda Twigs (talk) 22:35, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

@Amanda Twigs: Definite improvements. Use the paywall articles. Someone may be able to use their account or provide an archive. This is less of an issue when there are accessible sources along with less accessible. I would have liked to have seen some biographical information referenced in the body as opposed to just in the lead which is normally a summary of referenced content found in the body of the article. However, that is article improvement stuff and not if the article should or should not exist. One of a reviewers goal is to approve articles that are more than likely to pass if brought to AFD. As an actually substandard pseudo biography I would likely have !voted delete or keep under a name change so I used this as a rationale in suggesting improvements. To me this is a better scenario than approving an article and then someone bringing it to AFD where a battle has to ensue trying to save it. I REALLY want to save articles as I have self-painted myself as a deletionist. I really am not. My twist is that I am an inclusionist when an article conforms to WP:policies and guidelines. I do like win-win situations better.

@Kvng: From my point of view, as was first presented, the article was a biography less the biography part, which sort of made it not a biography. To me, the importance of what makes a person notable must still contain biographical information if that is what we are going to call it. Now I see biographical content. Add this to what I already mentioned as being notable, which would be what you mentioned as WP:NCREATIVE #3 and #4, and I feel this can now pass any AFD hands down. I also think we may have a future great editor among us. With that said I think this can be passed. As for as an article on Albert Einstein Font I would consider that this article could be expanded to include content about this as a lead in to the subjects creation. If content out-grew the subject then a new article could be created. An exception would be if there was enough sources to back a stand alone article from the jump. Might be something our new editor would consider?

@Amanda Twigs: Thank you for your cooperation and happy editing. Otr500 (talk) 02:36, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

@Otr500: Thank you for the kind words and pointing me into the right direction, this was helpful and improved the article. I agree with what you say about that the lead can be extended with mentioning the Albert Einstein Font as an introductions to the subjects creation. Also the idea to create stand alone article about it sounds great. I am considering it :-) - thanks for the inspiration. Amanda Twigs (talk) 14:24, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Issues

To ward off possible future article tagging:

• "The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important contents.". This means that content in the lead is generally found somewhere in the body of the article and as such referencing lead content would not normally be necessary (mentioned above).
• In the lead it states: "His work is "controversially discussed among designers" and aim to bring typography into a wider public discourse". This is unsourced, confusing, and begs tagging with for the "designers" and at the end. With sourcing this might read "with the aim of bringing typography into a wider public discourse.". Also with sourcing and some identity this would be good content for a Controversy section (with mention in the lead), giving balance to the article, while explaining exactly what controversy was or is being "discussed". Notifying: @Amanda Twigs: -- Otr500 (talk) 06:41, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

@Otr500: Thank you for pointing out the issue and potential danger of unsourced and confusing information. I changed the reference of the paragraph so that is closer to statement "His work is controversially discussed among designers" and aim to bring typography into a wider public discourse". The referenced article by Maria Jose says "All of his typefaces are bold and provocative. Some designers absolutely love them, others absolutely hate them, but none are indifferent." which I took as an indicator for controversy. Jose continues "What I appreciate the most about Geisler is his ability to experiment and share the end product with the world, no matter how unorthodox." which I converted to "and aims to engage a wider audience in a discourse about typography. His projects are often financed through crowdfunding." The "unorthodox" is the crowdfunding and "share the end product with the world" becomes "engage a wider audience in a discourse about typography." The "wider audience" can also be seen in the variety of sources outside the field of typography in the reference list. I do agree with you that Controversy section would be a valuable addition to the article — I am looking forward to it! Do you think these changes could address the issue you've mentioned? Notifying: @Otr500: -- Amanda Twigs (talk) 14:24, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Reply: I am satisfied that you have article (and Wikipedia) improvements as a goal and this is evidenced by your continued involvement. That is one reason I offered accolades.

Sometimes a source may not "answer questions" that might be raised. The content thrown in "His projects are often financed through crowdfunding" is unsourced and just seems unimportant and out of place. A more direct approach may not be the ideal answer but sometimes just using what has been stated will suffice.

• Suggestions:

Controversy

Writer Maria Jose stated in Canva: "All of his typefaces are bold and provocative. Some designers absolutely love them, others absolutely hate them, but none are indifferent. What I appreciate the most about Geisler is his ability to experiment and share the end product with the world, no matter how unorthodox." (with source). This allows for the vagueness of "Some designers" (who or which), by just using a quote, gives sourced substance in the body of the article, and allows your "interpretation" to stand as a summary in the lead. Just a thought! Otr500 (talk) 14:35, 2 May 2019 (UTC)