Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Felix Colgrave

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 no consensus. Those voting or arguing for deletion were mainly either concerned that the article didn't meet specific or general inclusion criteria, or there wasn't significant mention in reliable sources. While those arguing for keep either point out that there are some reliable sources in the article, or that the subject meets one or other of the specific criteria, such as having a large following or having made an unique contribution. There are more delete votes than keep, which pushes this toward delete, however, some of the keep comments do point out the existence of coverage that is more than trivial in sources which are reliable, which negates to an extent the bulk of the delete arguments that there is no such coverage. I'm not entirely convinced that the coverage is much more than promotional, however, there is a doubt regarding that. In addition enough of the sources mention that the subject has a large following which puts some doubt on the arguments that the subject doesn't meet specific criteria. With such doubts this is a discussion in which neither the keep nor the delete arguments can be said to be clear, so I'm closing as no-consensus, but with no prejudice to another AfD being held if a nominator feels they can muster a clear and convincing argument that the article doesn't have sufficient coverage or notability to meet our inclusion criteria. Please note that comments such as "Fails XYZ" are not helpful or convincing arguments as they can be counted with "Meets XYZ". Details are needed. Also, incidental opinions such as "This is FOO" which do not relate to why the article under question is or is not notable are not helpful in deciding if an article should be kept or deleted. SilkTork (talk) 10:39, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Felix Colgrave[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Felix Colgrave (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable, fails WP:ENT. Andrew Base (talk) 15:10, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Andrew Base (talk) 15:10, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
FC is not an ENT, he is a Creative Professsional (Wikipedia:FILMMAKER) He fulfills not a couple but every single criteria of that rule. 1. Citation by peers, 2. Innovation, 3. not merely major but primary role in creating a body of work, and 4.Awards, exhibitions, all established by reliable sources. Anarchangel (talk) 00:49, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

-Felix Colgrave is an pretty notable internet animator. He has over 1 Million subscribers, and his most known work has 30 Million views. I am pretty sure if we have Cyriak and David Firth on wikipedia, we can have Felix Colgrave as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PolePoz (talk • contribs) 15:17, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Online following is not of importance. What DOES matter is notability per WP:NBIO, which this clearly lacks. Kirbanzo (userpage - talk - contribs) 19:19, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You are mistaken about followers. Your assertion of NBIO noted. Any substantiation for that?Anarchangel (talk) 00:49, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:13, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Assertion noted. Care to elaborate?Anarchangel (talk) 00:49, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:31, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:32, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:35, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would love to hear about the real life adventure of this AfD being created six minutes after the creation of the article. That's some "speed hacker typing furiously montage" level searching for notability. Anarchangel (talk) 23:40, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this is another exhobit of why we need to make all articles go through AfC.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:52, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Any particular reason why? Anarchangel (talk) 00:49, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, @Johnpacklambert: I do believe in the not so distant future all articles would have to go through the AFC process before they are moved to main-space. For example in Nigeria related articles I’m getting irritated at the exponential growth of non notable WP:BLP’s created via WP:PAID editors and sock puppets. Celestina007 (talk) 12:21, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I share your concern with paid editors. I am not paid, and you have no reason to believe PolePoz is paid, do you? Also, please don't vote to delete this article because of your problems with other articles. Anarchangel (talk) 00:49, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete Non-notable individual who lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable media hence fails WP:BIO & WP:BASIC. Celestina007 (talk) 12:24, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment-I Updated the page as much as i can. It has much more references now. I'm honestly trying my best to keep this article alive on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PolePoz (talk • contribs) 12:50, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@PolePoz: Perhaps you don’t understand WP:RS and you need to familiarize yourself with it before creating more WP:BLP’s
In the references you provided almost half are based on his twitter page which isn’t a reliable source independent of him. You need to provide sources showing he has been discussed significantly in secondary sources which are reliable & independent of him. A persons follower count doesn’t necessarily establish notability. A google search doesn’t portray him as being notable. Also before commenting indicate a bold Comment (e.g Comment) then make your point. I have helped you to do that in your comment above. Furthermore always sign after your comment. Celestina007 (talk) 14:17, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"doesn't necessarily". I hope you find the additional sources satisfactory enough to change your Vote. Anarchangel (talk) 00:49, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Four of the twenty-one sources are FC's Twitter, and they are verifying the less important facts of the article. Canadian Broadcasting Company and Sydney Opera House are more than reliable sources; the rest are reliable enough to establish his work and awards. Closer please note that none of the WP:VOTEs were made before the current sources were found. I do not use that rule lightly, as none of the Voters attempted to find sources and not a single one saw fit to open their arguments with evidence for their assertions. Anarchangel (talk) 00:49, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep He did work with famous people like Nicki Minaj and DJ Mustard. He made music video for them, and barley any references are from Twitter. A little bit of them are, but i added much more references and expanded the page. His most famous animation even won the reward for the best of the month video on Vimeo... by PolePoz (talk • contribs) 12:50, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - doing work with other musicians is what all musicians do. Bearian (talk) 18:26, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • He released only ONE album. And he worked with the musicians as the animator.. He animated the videos for them.... by PolePoz (talk • contribs) 12:50, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • That would be a fine rationale, Bearian, if that was his only work, and the focus of his work was music. I wouldn't say this if your assessment wasn't so far off the mark, but I suggest you read the article again. Anarchangel (talk) 21:11, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Anarchangel. I would qualify that statement though by adding that the article needs to be cut down in size, removing self-published and subpar sources except when absolutely necessary. There is already enough to make this specific case notable, though this of course doesn't apply to every youtuber with a video that got viral once. This article can be salvaged. Jerry (talk) 23:43, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Of course I remember Jimbo famously saying there should preferably be nothing, rather than uncited facts (naiive since there would be a whole lot of nothing), but I don't recall a rule saying there should be no citation rather than self published if the subpar source is the only one available. Mind you, it has been a while since I edited. Anarchangel (talk) 22:18, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Redirect. A user reached out on WP:Discord about advice for this article. I said I wouldn't !vote in the AFD, but I'm changing my mind because I am a dynamic human being with diverse thoughts and emotions. I think that Colgrave meets WP:ENT per the the third point Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment. It can be rather trivial to say, though the sourcing is limited in this article, that the subject has made rather unique contributions in the field of entertainment through his distinctive animation style which has been noted in multiple WP:RS.
    Side note: @Anarchangel: Please don't try to WP:BLUDGEON the process. You don't need to respond to every delete !vote. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 16:01, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Changed !vote per below. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 15:26, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Girth Summit:, could you pls weigh in here? Andrew Base (talk) 16:11, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I'm not sure why Andrew Base pinged me here - Andrew, you need to be careful to avoid the appearance of canvassing editors likely to agree with you. I have no particular interest or knowledge in Australian film makers, I have not looked at this article before, and my opinion is of no more weight than that of anyone else, and our history of interaction could open you up to an accusation of canvassing. Now that I'm here however...
What we should be discussing is WP:BASIC. NCREATIVE is a useful indicator that someone is likely to be notable, but it doesn't guarantee that, and its criteria are somewhat subjective; BASIC, on the other hand, is pretty clear-cut. From going through the sources currently on the page (and without having done a WP:BEFORE myself), I'm not quite decided yet. There are some reliable sources in there, but they only give him the briefest of passing mentions; most of the information in the article is coming from affiliated, unreliable and/or primary sources. I'd invite any of the keepers to suggest THREE sources that they feel best demonstrate the notability of the subject, so we can focus discussion on them. Cheers GirthSummit (blether) 16:38, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not that I want to spend too much of my time on this (because I kinda don't), but I did find Colgrave pops up in lot of different places. Here's what I got:

Sources n' stuff
Reviews
Features
Other

A lot of those sources are straight-up trash, and I can't really review much of it since a lot of it is in languages I have zero familiarity in. There's nothing bulletproof here. His notability comes from a surrealist collection of viral animated videos. There only so many sources you're going to find on such an obscure topic (even if his channel rakes up millions of views).
We might want to consider WP:WOOD. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 23:06, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

MJL, this is why I suggested the approach outlined at WP:THREE. You just dropped a refbomb with 25 links in it, and you say you don't want to spend too much time on this?! I started with the reviews, and looked at the first eight: one was literally two sentences, two were outright blogs, and four were by 'contributors' on platforms that publish UGC content - none of these help establish notability. Only one was perhaps worth discussing here, the 'Quickdraw Animation Society' review. That's quite a short review (which spells his name in two different ways - not that it matters, but it doesn't say much for their editorial standards), with almost no information actually about the subject of this article (it's a brief description of the film itself, and doesn't discuss it in the context of his body of work). I also looked at a couple of the links in your 'Academic mentions' section (Google Translate is a thing - it's not perfect, but it's good enough to check the coverage a source is giving) and found only passing mentions.
So, again - does anyone want to suggest the three best refs that make up the strongest case for notability? That way we don't have to trawl through a load of stuff that clearly isn't relevant to this discussion. GirthSummit (blether) 15:08, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Girth Summit: I'm not the best at time management. A lot of the refs I gave are pretty much straight up garbage, but I opted for a comprehensive approach. Unless a source is completely offline (which I doubt), there will not be a single other source that comes up in this discussion that I have not already included in this list. My point in saying these things is that there is no WP:THREE even if we're being really charitable here.
I suggested WP:WOOD because we might want to redirect this article to something like Psychedelic art#Digital age (with a quick mention of the subject of course), just so that the article remains available to us easily if the subject gets better coverage. I believe the subject is notable per WP:ENT, but most WP:RS have yet to catch on to that yet. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 15:26, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
MJL, OK, understood - I can see an argument that he passes ENT, but without decent sources the article needs to go. I wouldn't be averse to draftify per WOOD; I'm not sure this would be a neat fit for Psychedelic art, and not sure where a better merge target would be; otherwise, unless someone can identify some much more solid sources, I would support a delete. GirthSummit (blether) 15:35, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Girth Summit: I just workshopped things with PolePoz, and together we were able to come up with the three best sources. Here are what we have:
  1. "Double King – by Felix Colgrave" published by Good Short Films which is supported by HuffPost Italy.
    OK, so this one is one of the type I mentioned above. It is a web platform that accepts content from 'contributors' - it's basically a sort of curated UGC, which would not be considered reliable, and would not contribute towards notability. See the discussion of Forbes Contributors at WP:RSP for a similar situation.
  2. "X COMPANY: ARTISTS - Felix Colgrave published by CBC/Radio-Canada
    This is an affiliated source - the subject is an animator at X Company, and this is the X Company website. It's a staff profile - it does not contribute to notability.
  3. "Cartoon characters perform a disco ritual in Fever the Ghost's Source music video" published by Dezeen which seems like a rather reputable source going by their about page.
    This is probably the best one - the author is a staff writer and editor for the website, which appears to be independent and I see nothing that would call the reliability into question. However, it's just a brief interview with the subject - see WP:INTERVIEW - whatever is coming from the subject's mouth is primary, and so is explicitly excluded from establishing notability in WP:BASIC. There's not much in this interview that isn't coming from the subject.
With those, I think the article is probably worth a keep. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 17:21, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
MJL, PolePoz - thanks. I've had a look, and I've inserted my thoughts about each of these sources above. In short, my opinion hasn't changed, the sourcing just isn't there to support notability. There's a lot of UGC, a lot of social media stuff, but nothing that ticks all the necessary boxes - independent, reliable, secondary, and giving the subject significant coverage. I wouldn't be surprised if this changed in the near future, which is why I'd be happy to see the article draftified - a bit of coverage in a couple of reliable sources would change my view on this, but for now it looks like he fails BASIC. GirthSummit (blether) 18:08, 24 November 2019 (UTC).[reply]
Im kinda confused on what should be updated for this page to stay on wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PolePoz (talk •
Hi PolePoz - basically, this article needs better sources. If you haven't already, read WP:BASIC - it's pretty short. We need multiple independent, secondary reliable sources, and they need to give him significant coverage - I'm not seeing anything that ticks all those boxes. You could construct an argument in line with the first bullet point at BASIC, saying that there is enough trivial coverage in reliable sources to warrant keeping the article; personally, I'm not convinced that there is enough of that though, the academic sources I looked at really were very passing mentions. What we have is a lot of social media, a lot of affiliated sites, and a lot of websites where fans of his work can write about him; what we want is coverage of him and his work in reliable sources, written by staff writers with proper editorial oversight. GirthSummit (blether) 18:54, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well how many better sources this page needs? Is there a limit for them or no? Im am honestly trying my best to keep this article alive. . — Preceding unsigned comment added by PolePoz (talk •
You still don't get it, do you? It's not that there aren't enough sources for this article...it's just that some articles aren't worth having on wikipedia in the first place. If not enough good sources can be found, it's not worth keeping on the site. I think most people right now are of the opinion that it should be turned into a draft, not visible on the regular site, but still existing. In case Felix does something in the future which gets him a lot of media attention, this article would be brought back into the mainspace of the site as a full article. Personally I think he meets notability right now, but it's not very obvious, and my opinion on that matter can be changed...Jerry (talk) 21:38, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I am pretty sure Felix Colgrave is worth having on the wikipedia. His animations are very unique, and as i said earlier since Cyriak and David Firth can have their spot here, why cant we allow Colgrave to have it's position on wikipedia as well? Plus there's a little bit of twitter references, most of the references come from various sites.. I fail to understand why cant we keep this article? If someone could help me detect and collect better references for Colgrave i'd be very thankful.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PolePoz (talk •
  • Delete - the only point of significance I can find in the entire text is the 2014 award from the animation festival, which was five years ago. The rest is WP:HTRIV. Just does not cross the line for notability. --Goldsztajn (talk) 01:55, 27 November 2019 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Felix_Colgrave&oldid=928186108"