Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Firth (4th nomination)

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 redirect to Salad Fingers. Despite the long discussion, nobody here is for keeping the article, but there is no strong preference for deletion as opposed to redirection to his series which is an obvious WP:ATD. Whether any content should be merged to Salad Fingers can be figured out through the editorial process. Sandstein 08:44, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

David Firth[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

David Firth (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

After having done my WP:BEFORE, I just don't see the significant coverage by reliable independent sources necessary to warrant a standalone article per WP:BIO. When it comes to sourcing, nothing much seems to have changed since the article was last deleted. Instead of deletion, this article might be redirected to his popular internet series Salad Fingers. For anyone voting to keep, please provide sources upon which one would be able to construct a viable article as I would be happy to improve it. Throast (talk | contribs) 17:44, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: They did not. As I have already outlined in my rationale, the most recent nomination was successful because there was consensus that the subject failed to meet WP:BIO. Actually, the only nomination that failed was arguably decided not based on the quality of arguments but on the sheer number of votes. Keeps did not substantiate their arguments beyond "meets WP:BIO".(talk | contribs) 19:06, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • So, "the most recent nomination" was 14 years ago? What did the article actually look like, then? So we can make a valid comparison. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:46, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • What the article looked like back then is irrelevant to this discussion. I'm arguing that the sourcing (meaning the sources available) has not changed in a way that would meet notability guidelines. The rationale is the same as it was 14 years ago. Throast (talk | contribs) 23:07, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • And I'm saying it's wholly relevant, if you wish to say "because there was consensus that the subject failed to meet WP:BIO." On my Talk page you say "The article has seen no significant improvement since it was first created in 2004 or so." So, just to be clear, you're saying that the article is 'no better now than it was in 2008? Martinevans123 (talk) 08:33, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • This thread is pointless. I've stated my rationale for deleting the article very clearly in the first sentence: I just don't see the significant coverage by reliable independent sources necessary to warrant a standalone article per WP:BIO. That's the thesis you should refute if you're voting to keep. Let's stop needlessly cluttering up this page. Throast (talk | contribs) 09:48, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Possible merge with Salad Fingers, except that David Firth seems to be a wider topic than Salad Fingers, and so should be preserved as the main article, i.e. Salad Fingers should redirect here. But would first advocate a discussion at the Talk page to clarify that no more sources can be found. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:05, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: If you're voting to merge Salad Fingers to David Firth, you're essentially voting to keep, hence the burden is on you to prove that the subject is notable. Throast (talk | contribs) 10:36, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure how Salad Fingers can be notable and David Firth not, when he has created much more than just that one series. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:17, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Notability is not inherited but has to be proven for each individual subject. Just because a person has done (or in this case created) something notable doesn't necessarily make themselves notable. Throast (talk | contribs) 13:26, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see, so we're really dragging this out. That source would be about David Firth. It's also promotional because it advertises an event of his and hence probably shouldn't count as an independent source (It literally has a "Buy tickets" button at the bottom). Throast (talk | contribs) 13:50, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • What you describe as "dragging this out", might also be seen as relevant discussion about possible sources. What about this one? Martinevans123 (talk) 13:55, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm sure you've accidentally put in a wrong link. That article has nothing to do with David Firth. Throast (talk | contribs) 13:59, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • That article is obviously centered around Salad Fingers and mentions Firth only in passing. It's also promoting a tour of his. Throast (talk | contribs) 14:07, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • That source is, in essence, also about Salad Fingers. It's also an interview, hence a primary source, which generally shouldn't be used to base notability on. For more on that thought, see Wikipedia:Interviews. Throast (talk | contribs) 14:15, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Obviously. Significant coverage of Salad Fingers, not of Firth. I guess it would be better to compile multiple sources into one response instead of asking me about each one individually. I also can't imagine that you're this oblivious about what constitutes "significant coverage". Throast (talk | contribs) 14:24, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • And this this one from Pitchfork is really about "Locust Toybox" or is promotional? Surely reliable sources are intended to support only relevant claims? I suspect there are very many BLP articles at Wikipedia which have very many sources for small pieces of information, about individual works or projects, and none that constitute "significant coverage" of an entire career (perhaps until that person dies and gets an obituary). Martinevans123 (talk) 14:31, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Seems like you might be very busy, then. Gosh, as if I would ever want to "voice grievances". But yes, that guideline may be a bit too general. I'm sure it's far easier to find "significant coverage" of a single series like Salad Fingers, than it is to find comparable coverage of the whole life of the person who created it (and many other things). This discussion seems to demonstrate just that. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:55, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Exactly. So, can we agree that, until you've gathered consensus to eradicate "significant coverage" from GNG, this article should best be redirected to Salad Fingers for now? If we can agree, I can withdraw the nomination, as not very many other editors seem to be interested so far. Throast (talk | contribs) 15:01, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would strongly suggest that no decision is made before other editors have had an opportunity to express a opinion and offer arguments, with any sources if they have them. This nomination has not even been open for 24 hours yet? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:06, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I can only find one short article almost about him, in The Scottish Sun. It gives his date of birth and where he's "from" but the rest of the article is about his works. The WP article mainly uses non-independent and non-reliable sources, and these need to be removed, especially references to his tweets. What we seem to have here is a pretty comprehensive biographical article with no reliable sources for the biographical information - Twitter, IMDB, Youtube, ISSUU (which is a pay-to-play site for artists). It just can't stand as it is. Lamona (talk) 18:06, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Long Comment - Hey @Throast:, this is PantheonRadiance commenting on this AfD outside of my account. I saw the arguments you proposed and I have a few concerns about them.
First off, I wanted to address your use of WP:Interviews. It seems you dismissed the Narc magazine interview as a primary source seemingly because it contains statements directly from him. While I’m unsure of the reliability of this magazine, I don’t think it automatically qualifies as a primary source for that reason. From what I’ve seen, text-based interviews are a double-edged sword; they can either work as primary or secondary sources, or sometimes blur the lines between both. However, to dismiss an interview as an unusable source for establishing notability is a bit much. Many in-depth articles that grant notability to BLP subjects on Wikipedia are often interviews of the subject that contain quotes directly from them. However, they also have independent synthesis, summary and/or analysis of those quotes and the person in general. See these for example:
Meanwhile, a primary source interview which merely consists of information straight from the "horse's mouth" would generally look like this. This Q/A interview solely consists of bolded questions along with statements straight from the subject itself, with little to no explanation of the subject beyond that. Comparing the Narc source, it seems more in line with the three SS interviews rather than the Q/A one. That interview in particular contains “evaluative quotes” from the author about Firth and Salad Fingers, conveying both the elusive nature of both him and the web series.
Second off, the argument of notability not being inherited is honestly a faulty precedent when it comes to creative professionals and the works they make (to clarify: NOT works they were marginally involved in). If it weren't for the person creating the series, then that series wouldn't even exist in the first place. So it only seems natural that sources that discuss the subject also discuss the works they created in tandem, and vice versa. In this regard, the works an artist creates is often an extension of themselves and an important part of their careers. However, that doesn't automatically mean a subject is notable solely because they created such a series. Rather, a single source can be balanced between coverage about the web series and the person itself. And looking at the provided sources, these could still be used to establish the notability of the creator as there is still some usable information about the subject that falls into the article (like the Ladbible source mentioning other works he created: “Firth has since gone on to put his talents to other projects, from web series such as Spoilsbury Toast Boy and Burnt Face Man to flash animations like Musical Predictions 2009 and Jerry Jackson”). Martinevans123 proposed a merge, but I don’t agree with that. Merging information about the subject to their own work would risk the article being too out of scope, mainly because information on him and his other contributions would be irrelevant to Salad Fingers’ notability. In this case, a WP:SPLIT is more applicable here.
Finally, one specific guideline you failed to mention was WP:NARTIST. Specifically, criteria #3 which aptly applies to Firth: "The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series) or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." While notability isn't inherited, David qualifies as this because he himself created the already notable and significant Salad Fingers which passes the notability guidelines. Not to mention, the essay you linked states this: "four of the notability guidelines, for creative professions, books, films and music, do allow for inherited notability in certain circumstances." Even that essay acknowledges the inheritance of notability through the work a subject creates. Seeing as how notability-granting sources do exist that cover Salad Fingers and David Firth together, the Artist guideline should be taken into consideration moving forward in this debate.
Anyway, I'm not officially voting on this discussion because frankly I don't care much for Salad Fingers or Firth. I merely wish to highlight the issues present in the AfD and comment on the failings of the notability guidelines in the presence of multiple significant, reliable and independent secondary sources. But if the sources in the article aren't enough to convince you, then here's a couple more that editors should discuss.
Also @Lamona: The Scottish Sun isn't a reliable source, so that source shouldn't be used at all. 2601:204:D981:8130:B595:613D:C7D8:5E46 (talk) 22:51, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • That sure is a lot of text for someone who doesn't care enough to vote. The little bit of secondary info in the Narc interview is pretty much exclusively about Salad Fingers. The rest is primary. Again, no significant coverage of Firth there. The argument of notability not being inherited is honestly a faulty precedent, you say. Notability can simply not be inherited. Anyone who has a clear and unbiased understanding of what notability means on Wikipedia would conclude that. In a few cases of so-called "parent-child" relationships (outlined in this essay), it is inherited. However notability is not inherited "up", from notable subordinate to parent. David Firth, the creator or the "parent" of Salad Fingers, the work or the "child", can therefor not inherit his work's notability. WP:NARTIST does not override GNG, which I'm arguing is not met. The three sources you provide at the end do not change my opinion. Throast (talk | contribs) 00:49, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What many people seem to forget in these sort of discussions is this: If a person is notable by Wikipedia's standards, editors should be able to produce a well-written, somewhat elaborate biographical article about that person. With the sourcing available, that seems to be an impossible task. There's just not enough in-depth info about the person out there. Throast (talk | contribs) 01:00, 22 March 2022 (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/David_Firth_(4th_nomination)&oldid=1086850899"