Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Etrade baby


 * 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   merge to E-Trade.  MBisanz  talk 02:45, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Etrade baby

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

An unnamed baby that featured in a TV commercial is notable enough for an encyclopedic article? I don't think so. My speedy got declined because "Advertising character is not a "real person" for A7 deletion". AFAIK a baby is a real person, but okay, let's bring it here.   SIS   21:56, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Not notable in any way. Unusual? Quite  TalkQu  22:08, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Verifiable corporate mascot and used in various commercials, most notably during Super Bowl XLII. How is this any different than the Taco Bell Chihuahua? Tavix (talk) 22:51, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. Well, for me, the difference is that Taco Bell Chihuahua became notable in its own right, appearing in other shows over a period of years. Unusual? Quite  TalkQu  23:03, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Exactly.   SIS   23:06, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay, fair enough. But still, it is a good illustration. Tavix (talk) 23:22, 14 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep. Ads has been very popular prompting lots of questions about how the ad was done, etc. Article serves as a reference to those interested in how it was done. comment added by --RobertGary1 (talk) 01:04, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd say Computer animation or Chroma key would be more useful articles to those interested in how it was done.   SIS   14:07, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Then put it in the See Also section. I don't see what your trying to say. Tavix (talk) 20:41, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm sure there are always people who will wonder how a particular ad (and that can be any ad, for that matter) was done. That's no reason to include all those ads in Wikipedia.   SIS   00:10, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * This isn't about an ad, but a baby that was included in a series of ads. And we are not including any other ads in Wikipedia to see "how a particular ad was done". I would like to see an example of this if this is going on. Tavix (talk) 02:49, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 04:41, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, now I understand your objection. "E-Trade Baby" is not meant to be the proper name of the child depicted in the ad; its the actual name of the series of ads. E-Trade's site lists them as "E*Trade Baby.....". So this article is not about a random baby; its about the interesting affets used to create the ad as well as the unusual excitement and following the ads have generated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RobertGary1 (talk • contribs) 19:11, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Additional examples Marlboro Man, GEICO Cavemen, Ronald McDonald, etc --RobertGary1 (talk) 19:31, 17 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Weak keep - It is not clear that this particular series of ad will sustain the test of time, and be more than just one event. However there is this, this, and this amongst many more so coverage in reliable sources exist.  At the very least, a merge to E-trade would be in order given the newspaper coverage.  I see no need for deletion. -- Whpq (talk) 17:51, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton Tropical  Cyclone  01:58, 20 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep or Merge. Given media Coverage seems to have notability. If not notable enough should merge with E-Trade article as documentation of publicity.--Beligaronia (talk) 08:14, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge to E-Trade. It is not particularly clear whether the baby is notable in itself, but it does fit perfectly in the company article which is on the small side anyway. - Mgm|(talk) 13:07, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge w/ E-Trade. Agree with MGM. The E-trade article is small enough to include it.  Gtstricky Talk or C 19:50, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge to E*trade seems reasonable. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:05, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Not every TV commercial deserves an encyclopedia article. Evidence to support notability is lacking in this case. This baby is no Marlboro man, no "Mr. Whipple (1965) squeezing the Charmin," no "Clara Peller" asking "Where's the beef?", no "Speedy Alka Seltzer," no "Cheerios kid with go-power," no "Little Mikey," no I'm a PC, no Mrs. Fletcher who fell and can't get up and no "Dunkin Donuts donut maker." Most characters in TV commercials are little noted and not long remembered. Wait for secondary sources to comment on how the "Etrade baby" was memorable  years later, like Mr. Whipple. Edison (talk) 06:35, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge per above. I have mixed feelings about this one, but it's not that original an idea, and I doubt it will be remembered five years from now, any more than the Quizno's Subs ad campaign of 2006 will be.  For the most part, ad campaigns are fleeting; they run for awhile, and then the advertiser either switches ad agencies, or goes to something different.  In some cases, the campaign is either a notable flop (like "Herb" from Burger King more than 20 years ago) or something new that nobody has seen before.  Although the E-trade baby is cute, it can in no way be said that the campaign represents anything original.  I think that most people have forgotten the ads that had a baby saying "um um um um good", or that the little actor was praising a product that baby teeth would have a problem with (toasted subs--mmmmm).  Baby Bob does have an article, but it's because there was a brief television series based on the character.  The E-trade baby is only the latest in a long series of talking babies-- and it didn't start with Look Who's Talking, as can be seen by a TV show  that is mentioned in TV encyclopedias, but hasn't been written up yet on Wikipedia. Mandsford (talk) 14:48, 21 November 2008 (UTC)


 * 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.