Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ian Mackenzie-Kerr


 * 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.   A rbitrarily 0   ( talk ) 03:10, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Ian Mackenzie-Kerr

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

No claim of notability (unless one counts the obituary on The Independent). Just a good book designer doing his job. Damiens .rf 15:33, 13 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep. I do count an obituary in The Independent as a mark of notability. — Jonathan Bowen (talk) 20:58, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete I do not. Alio The Fool 21:10, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. There is also an obituary in The Guardian. I would argue that obituaries in two of the UK's leading quality national newspapers is a serious indication of notability. — Jonathan Bowen (talk) 19:34, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete, a non-notable person who did his job for 50 years. I don't know that there's a bright line on whether obituaries make someone notable; but when a person gets an obituary like this without having had any significant coverage during his life I can't believe it amounts to very much.  A beloved, but otherwise completely low-profile, local figure may get an obituary upon death, and while WP:BLP1E doesn't, strictly speaking, apply to a deceased person, I think the principle is worth remembering: "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."  To my thinking, that pretty much applies to someone's death as well.    Glenfarclas   ( talk ) 22:55, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. A professionally written and published obituary is not about someone's death. It is about their life and their contribution to society, especially in the context of articles in national newspapers such as The Guardian and The Independent. So I strongly disagree with you conclusion above with respect to obituaries. — Jonathan Bowen (talk) 19:41, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Google book search up top shows plenty of results, the first one being him, showing a picture of one of the book covers he did, his name mentioned. How often does that happen?  The other books that mention his work, are probably about him also, it not too common of a name.   D r e a m Focus  00:31, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - after finding this, this (click on View all), and this. "Just a good book designer" is one thing; a good book designer featured in books about book design is another. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 05:39, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * With all due respect, what you've found is (1) a six-page chapter he contributed to a non-notable book, (2) another book where he's thanked in the acknowledgements and mentioned in one paragraph, and (3) a book where he's quoted briefly on a single page about being a typography student, and never mentioned again. I just can't believe this stacks up to notability—and under what, WP:CREATIVE?  These short mentions hardly show that he's "regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by [his] peers or successors."  In fact the paucity, in a highly specialized field like typography and book design, would tend to show the opposite.    Glenfarclas   ( talk ) 06:40, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * What you may have missed: ref #1 also mentions him on the back cover as a contributor, ref #2 has 3 mentions of him, not 2 (Google book search may not want to display the discussion of him on pg 1481, but it still counts), and ref #3 describes him as having "had a long and distinguished career as a book designer." When a book on book designers describes someone as having had "a long and distinguished career," I'm happy to take their word for it. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 03:50, 15 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep. per RS and V. Kittybrewster   &#9742;  11:02, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Doesn't appear to have significant coverage by reliable independent sources . One obituary doesn't make an article.  -- Kraftlos  (Talk | Contrib) 12:05, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. I believe WP:CREATIVE #3 applies. There is a body of work (many books designed by him) with reviews (in multiple obituaries – The Guardian and The Independent – and other journals, books, etc.). I have added some more references. — Jonathan Bowen (talk) 17:18, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Change to keep - At the time of my initial comment, I was only aware of the one obituary. -- Kraftlos  (Talk | Contrib) 05:08, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Quite obviously notable from the sources given, particularly national press obituaries.  Ty  21:10, 14 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. –  Ty  21:11, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Obits in national papers are not typicaly writen merely about "beloved, but otherwise completely low-profile, local figure"s. The coverage in books about book design would alone be enough to establish notability IMO. Together I think the result is clear. DES (talk) 22:00, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Absurd nomination - we do not discount substantial sources for no reason. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:10, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. I believe that WP:BEFORE was not followed correctly in this case. In particular, under section 3, it would have been appropriate to add a  tag before proposing deletion for this article. I would request that the original proposer follows WP:BEFORE before nominating any further AfDs in future. — Jonathan Bowen (talk) 12:20, 18 January 2010 (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.