Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sol Sender

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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 15:06, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sol Sender[edit]

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

This is the guy who designed the Barack Obama O-shaped campaign logo (this one). He does indeed have a decent amount of news coverage (though a surprisingly large amount of the GNews archive was false positives, like the Sol Sender who was killed in an Indiana bus crash in 1955). However, unless I'm missing some significant coverage not related to the logo, this seems to me like a pretty clear BLP1E, where all his notability derives from one thing he once designed for someone else, and he is otherwise a low-profile individual. Glenfarclas (talk) 10:55, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As per Glenfarclas, pretty clear BLP1E. Geeteshgadkari (talk) 11:19, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:00, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't think 1E is so clear-cut when the one event is the creation of a work that's significant enough, for example writing To Kill a Mockingbird or designing the London tube map. The logo might not be an achievement of the same scale but Frieze features it in a round up of visual culture in 2008 [1]. There's an interview in the online edition of The New York Times [2]. An albeit passing reference in a book [3]. An online account of the designer's awards also supports WP:CREATIVE [4].--Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 18:25, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a relatively inexperienced editor, and I'm not sure whether I'm meant to weigh in, since I created the page in the first place, but looking at the arguments here, I'm on the fence and leaning slightly towards keep. I did check the notability guidelines before I created the article, and Sender certainly seems to meet the guidelines for WP:CREATIVE: 1. Sender's work on the Obama logo is widely cited in the graphic design community; 2. Similarly, the design of the logo is considered a significant departure from previous presidential campaign identities; 3. There have been multiple mentions in periodicals such as the New York Times, as well as trade publications; 4. The logo is featured in the most recent edition of the textbook "Designing Brand Identity" by Alina Wheeler and in the forthcoming book "Designing Obama". On the other hand, it's definitely true that Sender is known only for one thing; however the guideline for BLP1E doesn't seem to provide much of a bright line for determining whether "the event is significant" and whether "the individual's role within it is substantial". It seems pretty clear that Sender's role in the development of the logo was substantial. Is the logo itself significant event to warrant inclusion? From the point-of-view of the graphic design world, I lean toward yes. From the point-of-view of the general encyclopedia population, I guess I don't know. --Gotophilk (talk) 05:14, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's certainly a reasonable viewpoint. To my thinking, the issue is that although Sender designed a well-known logo, there's really not much to say about him beyond that—as the article currently reflects. There's already an article about the logo, and Sender's role in creating it is well covered. Is there anything else about his biography that needs to be contained in an encyclopedia of global scope? You're right that the logo is significantly covered in secondary cources, but that doesn't mean anything about Sender's life is covered in secondary sources; it's not as though he's suddenly become independently notable. Maybe redirecting his name to Obama logo makes the most sense (a merge would be unnecessary because the relevant info is already there). Thanks for your reply-- Glenfarclas (talk) 05:43, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have to admit that I find this persuasive.--Gotophilk (talk) 07:22, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Ethicoaestheticist's good research as above. This information[5] is significant and is not included in the logo article (nor in the Sol Sender article at the moment). It reinforces independent notability. Ty 01:48, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Ethicoaestheticist, seems particularly significant to me...Modernist (talk) 17:48, 18 January 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.