Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Harry Partridge

Harry Partridge

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

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

No way this passes WP:ACTORS, WP:CREATIVE, WP:NBIO, or WP:GNG. ––FormalDude talk 03:33, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ––FormalDude talk 03:33, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Harry Partridge is not first and foremost a voice actor but an animator. He easily passes WP:AUTHOR #3 & #4 through his collective body of work in general and through Saturday Morning Watchmen especially, whom he was the sole creator of(!). The article also meets the general notability guidelines as he and his work has received plenty of coverage. The article is well-sourced with plenty of WP:RS. 101.50.250.88 (talk) 03:37, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Easily passes WP:AUTHOR is completely false. Though that may be his best case for notability, it is still not at all a strong one. Given the lack of any significant coverage on the subject, I am still convinced it does not meet WP:GNG either. ––FormalDude talk 03:47, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
How can you claim it's "completely false"? Please read WP:AUTHOR point 3: "The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work" and point 4: "The person's work (or works) has: ... (c) won significant critical attention". Again, I'm trying to assume good faith here but if you don't see how Saturday Morning Watchmen obviously qualifies, you haven't even tried to understand the policy. Several of his other animations have also been covered in WP:RS including the BBC, El Diaro (Spain), and The Japan Times (for the full list, see the References section!).101.50.250.88 (talk) 03:52, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There's no good significant coverage at all, let alone significant critical attention of his work. It doesn't pass WP:NBIO and it doesn't pass WP:GNG. All the sources have no depth of WP:SIGCOV. ––FormalDude talk 10:47, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV are different links to the same policy. The only thing that part has to say about "depth" is this: "There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage, but multiple sources are generally expected." A reasonable interpretation is that there is no absolute requirement regarding depth of references, if there's sufficient breadth. There are however several in-depth articles about Saturday Morning Watchmen, which is all that's needed to clear WP:AUTHOR.101.50.250.88 (talk) 11:15, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material. ––FormalDude talk 11:26, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The absolute majority of the references listed are obviously more than trivial mentions. Some of the information has been "extracted" from trivial mentions (like the bit about when he was 12... which you've of course bastardized in your edits) but I don't expect those to be used to establish notability, just to flesh out the article. 101.50.250.88 (talk) 11:40, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; no, doesn't pass WP:ACTORS, probably because he's not really an actor. He's an animator, and one who's managed to get himself written-about by a lot of unconnected people, in a wide range of sources - which is more-or-less WPs definition of notable. Animation is quite a big theme in the UK, and it would be rather sad were an English language WP unable to provide information on the important people in this theme. Elemimele (talk) 05:52, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. 101.50.250.88 (talk) 09:17, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. 101.50.250.88 (talk) 09:20, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. 101.50.250.88 (talk) 09:21, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: User:FormalDude is bastardizing the article, removing several reliable sources, removing content wholesale to push through with this deletion, and refuses to engage in conversation on the relevant talk page. Is this really in accordance with Wikipedia policies? I'm sure trashing the article you've decided YOUDONTLIKE is an effective way of getting it deleted, but could you maybe stop sabotaging other editors work trying to improve the article while this vote you've initiated is on-going? If you were actually trying to improve the article, you could tag statements you don't think are supported by the current sources with "citation-needed" rather then just tearing it all out.101.50.250.88 (talk) 11:08, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- My edits are cleaning up the article and removing unsuitable content, and have been consistent with other editors' contributions. It has nothing to do with me personally liking the article or not, and actually it seems you're the one who is way too personally invested in this page for some reason. ––FormalDude talk 11:16, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'd like to suggest future voters look at the most recent un-bastardized version of the article: [1] and decide for themselves whether the content is unsuitable or not, not leaving that judgement call to one single editor who dishonestly refers to WP:ACTOR when it's apparent that it's WP:AUTHOR which is the most relevant policy, and makes no effort to list the discussion in the relevant deletion forums, and has apparently decided that actually discussing your edits on the talk page is a waste of time. 101.50.250.88 (talk) 11:28, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - If you were to provide any logical or common-sense reasoning, I would respond. But that's yet to happen, so I would indeed be wasting my time. ––FormalDude talk 11:42, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      - I think we're getting into a bit of an unnecessary panic about this. I personally disagree with @FormalDude:'s nomination, but the edits he's made seem perfectly sensible to me. In my view, the references that remain indicate a strong interest in Partridge, and that he's got good press coverage. The fact that some weaker or less-suitable references have been removed by the nominator and yet plenty of good references remain is surely a good thing for those who believe the article should be kept. Also, it's best to keep these things impersonal. FormalDude has every right to bring the article to AfD, I have every right to disagree, and we all discuss it - though of course it's right that anyone reading this should be aware that changes have been made to the article during AfD. The ideal outcome of AfD is often to keep an article, but in an improved form. Elemimele (talk) 12:29, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        I'm not contesting anybody's right to bring this to an AfD, I'm not sure what led you to think that. I do however think that it's hard to consider nominator's edits to an article I was literally in the middle of improving and fleshing out as good-faith (my last edit was 10 minutes before he began haphazardly cutting out content! I had to throw out further improvements and sources I was working on or risk tripping WP:3RR). The nominator has made it clear on the talk page ([2]) as well as here ([3]) that he isn't interested in giving anybody the chance to improve it, nor to even discuss his edits. The version of the article we should consider for deletion has to be his version, and that's the end of it! No dissent from pesky IP editors allowed. And why on on Earth would you stick a "Notability" tag on the page when there's already a discussion underway to decide if the article is notable enough to keep or not? Again, I'm failing WP:AGF here but it seems like another successful attempt at making the article look even worse for wear. He's decided the article must go, and that seems to be that. Voters (like ILIL below) usually only give cursory glances at the articles being discussed. Why then delete several reliable sources containing coverage of him, like the Cartoon Brew editorial?101.50.250.88 (talk) 09:14, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete From a cursory look at the sources, it appears that the subject is only mentioned in passing. Fails WP:SIGCOV ili (talk) 18:23, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Here are several other WP:RS containing mentions of Partridge or his animations. Some are just "namedropping" and fairly trivial, yes, but the one's about his animations are not. (Also I'd like to remind voters unfamiliar with WP:AUTHOR that there's no hard requirement that there has to be in-depth coverage of an article subject's personal life as long as they meet WP:AUTHOR, which, as I've already stated, he obviously does). I've avoided Saturday Morning Watchmen stuff as there's so much of it it almost feels ridiculous. [4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18] These might not be impressive one-by-one, but taken together, esp. with all the WP:RS in the last un-bastardized version of the article ([[19]]), I think I've clearly demonstrated how Partrifge easily passes WP:AUHTOR. I agree that a lot of the sources on him, rather than his work, are definitely shallow, but again, this is irrelevant when the correct notability policy is applied. 101.50.250.88 (talk) 09:14, 18 September 2021 (UTC) (EDIT: added more sources, bolded. The Escapist one in is obviously "SIGCOV") 101.50.250.88 (talk) 01:37, 22 September 2021 (UTC))[reply]

Redirect to Saturday Morning Watchmen. I'm not really persuaded that the subject meets the general notability guideline. WP:AUTHOR is only indicates that the subject is likely to be notable, and subjects are still expected to meet the GNG. The number of citations in the article, including large numbers of citations for individual sentences, suggest the article has been refbombed. Of the sources in this version, which is being touted as demonstrating notability:

Extended content

[20] is the subject's YouTube channel, not independent of the subject.
Reference #2 is not significant coverage, to judge from the exerpt quoted.
[21] and [22] are opinion pieces, which are not considered reliable for statements of fact.
[23] and [24] are interviews with the subject, even if the publication is reliable interviews aren't considered fully independent of the subject.
[25] does not mention the subject at all, or support the statement it's being cited for.
[26] is the subject's Twitter profile, not independent of the subject.
Reference #8 is a trivial mention to judge from the Google Books preview.
[27] is basically a repost of some stuff the subject posted on Twitter and therefore isn't independent of him.
[28] is a brief profile of the subject at a festival where he was giving a talk, unlikely to be independent of the subject and doesn't give much detail anyway.
[29], [30] and [31] are brief articles about the Watchmen cartoon which mention his name in passing, not significant coverage.
[32] and [33] don't mention him at all.
[34], [35] [36] and [37] are blatantly not significant coverage.
[38] doesn't give him much coverage and is mostly just reposts of his videos with captions.
[39] and [40] quote him in passing, not significant coverage.
[41], [42] and [43] are posts of his content on the BBC which do not devote significant coverage to him.
[44] is the best source there, IMO, but it still only gives him a short paragraph.

Hut 8.5 19:07, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your summary of the sources contains several mistakes. The Japan Times article gives significant coverage of his animation, American Akira. The Times Online article contains commentary on Saturday Morning Watchmen (you said these aren't about Partridge at all). The YouTube link is included automatically when using the YouTuber template so why does it even deserve commentary? Twitter (as are interviews) is allowed as a source for noncontroversial statements (it was a ancillary confirmation of what was stated in the referenced interview with Andy re: The Simpsons). The link on his sister doesn't mention that Holly indeed is his sister, but that her father is XTC's Andy Partridge - just like he is Harry's. Harry makes several references to his sister Holly on twitter and Andy makes references to both his children in several interviews. That said, I don't think anything that was in the "Family" section is at all relevant to Harry's notability, but the suggestion there's any REFBOMBing going on is insulting and wrong). The editorial sources are "reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author" and clearly help establish Partridge's notability. The Kotaku article is not a "repost of content" but a commentary on an illustration by Partridge i.e. coverage of his work which is obviously relevant for establishing notability per WP:AUTHOR. The sources you call "blatantly not significant" include what is indeed significant coverage in WP:RS of his animations. They're not mentioned in passing in for example scifinow.co.uk - the whole article (if short) is about the animation. I think it's disingenious to refer to the plentitude of coverage Partridge and his animations have received and say that WP:AUTHOR is only an "indication" of notability and that we still only should look at WP:GNG - it seems to me that some editors want to disregard WP:SNG entirely - is it policy or is it just meaningless blabber that can be disregarded entirely at a whim? It's also troubling that this vote is going ahead based on the bastardized version, where several RS remain "disappeared." Why not just revert the article back to my version, which actually made sense, unlike the weird stump we're left with now? I would like to be able to add more to it and improve it without having to resort to edit warring with the nominator (who refuses to engage on the talk page other than to tell me that responding to me is beneath him). If my improvements aren't enough then the article will be deleted anyway, so who would it hurt? 101.50.250.88 (talk) 23:35, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Re: reference bombing, I think you're talking about this line? "Many of his videos are accompanied by an original song, usually sung by Partridge himself, for example in Nicolas Cage Wants Cake (2010) and in his two 2011 Skyrim parodies.[20][21][22][23][2]"

But the sources all point to coverage of the 3 mentioned animations. I would agree that it's not really needed to include so many, but when the article is being contested and these references all help to establish his work has received plenty of coverage and therefore passes WP:AUTHOR, what's the solution? Anything unsourced (and even some things that were properly sourced) have been aggressively removed instead of tagged as "citation-needed". It becomes a Catch-22 situation and I really don't think it's reasonable to accuse me of editing maliciously.101.50.250.88 (talk) 02:42, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Same with this "refbombed" line: "Among his original popular original creations are Dr. Bees (2013), the episodic series Starbarians (2012-), and Dr. Bees Returns (2021).[25][26][27][28]". The sentence includes mentions of 3 different cartoons, is 5 sources for that really "refbombing"? I don't think that's a reasonable conclusion to come to. 101.50.250.88 (talk) 02:48, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]