- 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. Stifle (talk) 10:58, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Daniel Eatock (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This article clearly fails WP:CREATIVE, in that this person is solely notable for designing one particular logo. Being nominated for an award, and working for a particular design consultancy, are not in themselves claims to notability. ╟─TreasuryTag►hemicycle─╢ 09:10, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: This article meets WP:GNG. This artist has received Significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject as demonstrated by close to 50 hits on Google News. Article should be expanded with referenced information, not deleted. Pooet (talk) 15:00, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:28, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:28, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - being the creator of a logo used in a televised game show is insufficient for WP:CREATIVE (and it's not even worth the redirect to the article on the show). Much more needs to be demonstrated to meet WP:BIO. B.Wind (talk) 17:32, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Another comment: This is an award
winningnominated artist. The "Big Brother" eye is not his only accomplishement. Per WP:GNG it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article if the topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources. A google news search alone shows close to 50 hits for this person, and there are many more websites that carry independent and significant coverage to satisfy the inclusion criteria. Pooet (talk) 15:51, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]- Is he an award-winning artist? Can you back that claim up with a reliable source, and you yourself add several more to the article to bring it up to the required standard? ╟─TreasuryTag►inspectorate─╢ 15:54, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It took me all of one minute to find dozens of websites to verify that this artist was short-listed for the Design of the year award. Here's links to five of those sites (you can look up the rest yourself):
- Design Museum in London shortlist for Design of the Year
- Brit Insurance Design Awards 2009 - Shortlist Announcement
- Brit Insurance Designs of the Year 2009 now on View at the Design Museum
- Design awards announce shortlist
- Most Comprehensive Design Awards in the World Announces Shortlist Pooet (talk) 16:13, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It would have taken me all of one minute as well. But he was not an award-winner as you falsely claimed so those links are irrelevant. The relevant guideline requires him to be a winner, as one threshold of notability. Can you not see the difference? ╟─TreasuryTag►estoppel─╢ 17:34, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Those links are relevant in that he is an artist who has been nominated for the Design Award. The "threshold is met per WP:GNG (I am repeating myself so it must be true) - "topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources".. Now that we have both made our points (repeatly), I suggest that we allow other editors to have their say. Pooet (talk) 02:30, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It would have taken me all of one minute as well. But he was not an award-winner as you falsely claimed so those links are irrelevant. The relevant guideline requires him to be a winner, as one threshold of notability. Can you not see the difference? ╟─TreasuryTag►estoppel─╢ 17:34, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stifle (talk) 14:27, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Doesn't seem to pass WP:BIO, WP:BLP1E. Concerning the above sources, I really don't think that "Daniel Eatock, Big Brother Logo" constitutes significant coverage. [1] is a press release. — Rankiri (talk) 16:00, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete (weak). One of the sources talks about Terminal 5 as his work, too, as I read it. So, it's not BLP1E. I think he's clearly near the threshold (nominated for a major prize, but didn't win it, in particular), but I don't think he's over it yet. David V Houston (talk) 16:33, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I think you misread it. The shortlist says "Bartle Bogle Heagarty, BA Terminal 5 “Live” Adverts". — Rankiri (talk) 16:40, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I have tagged this article for rescue. SilverserenC 20:28, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I don't see what exactly about him doesn't meet notability standards. He created the new Big Brother logo, he's one of the founders of Foundation 33, he was nominated for a major Design Award, and there is significant coverage about him. He seems perfectly fine to me. SilverserenC 20:28, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You don't see what doesn't meet notability standards? This is the standard—which numbered-point does he meet? ╟─TreasuryTag►UK EYES ONLY─╢ 21:27, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- He doesn't have to meet those points to be notable. As the Additional Criteria says "A person is generally notable if they meet any of the following standards. Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included. A person who fails to meet these additional criteria may still be notable under Wikipedia:Notability." However, he does meet the GNG, which is what is primarily necessary for him to be notable. SilverserenC 21:30, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Significant coverage means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. The source that discusses Foundation 33 only contains one trivial mention that says that "[t]he design studio was formed in March 2000 by Daniel Eatock, a graphic designer and Sam Solhaug, an architect". Secondly, the design award was issued by a British insurance company, so I wouldn't exactly call it "major". The category had about twenty other nominees, and the subject, who was only nominated because of the logo, didn't win. If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event, and if that person otherwise remains, or is likely to remain, a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having an article on them. — Rankiri (talk) 21:34, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- He doesn't have to meet those points to be notable. As the Additional Criteria says "A person is generally notable if they meet any of the following standards. Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included. A person who fails to meet these additional criteria may still be notable under Wikipedia:Notability." However, he does meet the GNG, which is what is primarily necessary for him to be notable. SilverserenC 21:30, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Many sources appear to exist, but none of them provide significant coverage. Fails WP:GNG. VernoWhitney (talk) 23:03, 23 April 2010 (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.