Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2022 May 1

So I heard tell of Mr. Firth's Twitter thread re: Wikipedia deleting his wiki page, and I took a look. I am surprised that the article was deleted.

David Firth has substantial coverage that should meet Wikipedia's general notability guideline. Ignoring news articles that are focused solely on Salad Fingers, I was still able to find a good handful with Google. I've created articles with less sourcing than this.

First off, you've got a news article on the deletion itself as a newsworthy event, published literally today:

Foster, George (May 1, 2022). "Salad Fingers Creator David Firth Wiped From Wikipedia After Being Deemed "Not Notable Enough"". TheGamer. Retrieved May 1, 2022.

Next, you've got multiple magazine articles on David Firth's other projects, including collaboration with wiki-notable individuals (music and film, not related to Salad Fingers):

Minsker, Evan (May 30, 2017). "Flying Lotus Appears in David Firth's Creepy New Short Film: Watch". Pitchfork. Retrieved May 1, 2022.
"Flying Lotus features in a short film by David Firth". DIY. May 31, 2017. Retrieved May 1, 2022.
Kim, Michelle Hyun (October 30, 2017). "David Firth ("Salad Fingers") Shares New Locust Toybox Album: Listen". Pitchfork. Retrieved May 1, 2022.

The deletion discussion mentioned that there was an interview with The Scottish Sun, which is not a reliable source. Well, here's an interview with a local NPR affiliate, which should be more reliable:

Eicholtz, Kayla (August 14, 2013). "Youth Report: A Conversation With British Animator David Firth". WKMS-FM. Retrieved May 1, 2022.

And, last but not least, David Firth being extensively quoted in a BBC News article as an expert on Flash animation, after Adobe Flash was discontinued:

Fox, Chris (January 1, 2021). "Adobe Flash Player is finally laid to rest". BBC News. Retrieved May 1, 2022.

All this together should be enough to establish his notability for Wikipedia purposes and the suitability of the page existing as a standalone article. Hopefully I've fixed the formatting that I initially screwed up. Please let me know if I missed anything, as this is the first deletion review that I've requested. RexSueciae (talk) 21:00, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse: I don't believe this is what deletion review is for. Deletion review is for challenging AfD outcomes based on the arguments provided at that particular discussion. If you believe there is sufficient sourcing to establish notability of the subject, you should present it at Draft:David Firth (animator) and re-submit for review.

Basically all of the sources you provide have already been presented at the draft article, and it has been declined regardless. Throast (talk | contribs) 21:47, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

- Declined stuff at AFC is no bar to, well, anything. Hobit (talk) 22:00, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  Something which occurs to me is that the draft -- which is not great -- doesn't just have the (reliable, independent secondary) sources listed above; it also has a whole bunch of other stuff that may not be usable. Same with the original article. Prune out all the cruft; what you have left is a shorter article with a handful of good sources. RexSueciae (talk) 00:03, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RexSueciae, go right ahead, that's what AfC is for. Submit your version and get further input. Throast (talk | contribs) 00:08, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

endorse-ish and restore It wasn't a great discussion frankly. The closer did what they could. But the sources do look good. But I think Pitchfork (website) and Vice (magazine) are reliable. The NPR interview is probably not worth much (local, an interview) to most people but I find those to be both useful for (mostly primary) sourcing and indicative of notability. And most importantly, TheGamer (which is generally considered reliable for things published after August 2020) has a new article pretty much solely on him. It was a poor discussion, new sources have been brought forward, and frankly this person appears over the bar for a WP:BLP based on WP:THREE if nothing else. Hobit (talk) 21:59, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTNEWS in regard to the TheGamer article, that's been published literally hours ago. Vice and Pitchfork don't amount to significant coverage of David Firth, but of his works. Throast (talk | contribs) 22:08, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So where would Salad Fingers (and quite a few other internet creations) be without Firth? He's some kind of shadowy unknown figure, that no-one has ever heard of? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:25, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RexSueciae, tagging editors, who haven't been involved in the deletion discussion and have already taken a favorable position to your proposal elsewhere, is canvassing. Throast (talk | contribs) 22:23, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How exactly was I tagged (and canvassed)? I was watching already. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:26, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've provided a diff above. Throast (talk | contribs) 22:29, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't brought to that discussion by User:RexSueciae. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:32, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That does not matter. RexSueciae didn't know you were watching. They saw your comments at Talk:David Firth and tagged you. That's the extent of it. Throast (talk | contribs) 22:35, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In that edit he moved my comment to the bottom of the page. So he "canvassed me"?? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:40, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For god's sake. Look at the entire diff. I can't do more than link it to you. Throast (talk | contribs) 22:42, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You can explain your rationale, thanks. You're saying I "haven't been involved in the deletion discussion"? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:49, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Throast pardon me, but on these discussions I thought it was best practice to notify as many involved parties as practical. Hence I posted on the talk page of the article being reviewed. I did not cross-reference users involved in the deletion discussion and users commenting on that page, as I assumed they'd have been already involved. RexSueciae (talk) 22:44, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse AfD decision. The sources provided by RexSueciae don't provide significant coverage of the person and they don't meet WP:BASIC. (Interviews generally don't contribute to notability because they aren't considered independent.) Schazjmd (talk) 00:35, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn AfD decision. The new TheGamer source which talks significantly about Firth taken with the Vice, Pitchfork, and various other sources should constitute enough published material to meet WP:Notability. Mistipolis (talk) 08:29, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]