David Firth – No consensus, but allow AfC process. This discussion has lingered for several weeks with no close and no input, probably because it appears to be all over the place. Was the original close correct? Was it the best possible close given the poor state of the discussion? Are the sources on the draft (Draft:David Firth (animator)) OK? The draft itself is waiting for a review. I am not seeing a clear consensus in favour of keeping the AfD decision or overturning it, but it appears that most people are OK with letting the draft review play out. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:43, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
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:
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):
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:
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:
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.
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]
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]
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]
Using a very recent news piece as the main pillar of significant coverage, especially one that's been written in response to the subject decrying the deletion of his own Wikipedia article and one of Wikipedia's fundamental policies, doesn't sit right with me. Throast (talk | contribs) 09:06, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is a 254-word article. The article notes: "If you think you've seen it all when it comes to web animation, you haven't been to a little site called Fat-Pie.com. British animator David Firth offers up a brilliant and original hodgepodge of hilarity, stupidity and unshakable creepiness. ... When he was 13, Firth got a camcorder and started making stop-motion shorts using LEGOs and other toys. He still does some model animation from time to time but mostly creates 2D animation using Microsoft Paint and Flash. He describes his style as "a lazy, less brightly colored version of South Park with smaller eyes" and counts among his influences Chris Morris, Jan Svankmajer, Stanley Kubrick and Franz Kafka. He was recently asked to create four new animated pieces for the British TV series Screenwipe."
This is a 527-word article. The article notes: "Created by David Firth, who studied animation at the Hull campus of the University Of Lincoln, each episode follows this lanky character as he stumbles through a baffling world. ... And now David is set to enjoy a retrospective of his work at Glimmer: Hull's Seventh International Short Film Festival. ... David, who grew up in Doncaster, began animating at 13 after he was given a camcorder for Christmas. His first films became a hit with friends and a TV and Film course at the University Of Lincoln followed. It was while he was in Hull that David began to establish his animation techniques - and began to develop the work which has won him a series of contracts with the BBC. There have been animations for Screen Burn - the rantings of TV critic Charlie Brooker - and David is currently completing a cartoon for the new series from comedians Mitchell and Webb. But it's still Salad Fingers for which he's best known - and which all came about after some banter with his friend, and co-writer Christian Pickup."
The Hull Daily Mail is not a tabloid in the sense you mean. It is a regional newspaper. You appear to be confusing it with the Daily Mail (a middle market newspaper, which is national to the UK, widely seen as untrustworthy because of its political leaning) - or the American conception of a tabloid; a gossip magazine. Neither of these definitions applies. 51.6.79.19 (talk) 14:38, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"widely seen as untrustworthy because of its political leaning" No, it's widely seen as untrustworthy because they just make things up. --JBL (talk) 00:39, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Could you explain a bit why? There seems to be quite a lot of coverage of him and work outside of Salad Fingers in various well regarded publications including the BBC (above) or The Guardian, and he is a quite well known figure generally. Certainly the coverage of the deletion of this article alone is quite emblematic of that. LegateLaurie (talk) 00:46, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse but restore. I agree that Sandstein did the best he could with a low quality discussion. It was dominated by the nominator, Throast, who seems to have a number of serious misunderstandings about our notability policies, including WP:NARTIST with the claim that the author of a notable body of work cannot 'inherit' (in reverse?) notability from their work. Clearly if, as appears to be the case here, an author's body of work (not just one work) is notable, then we can have an article about it. But following Throast's logic, that article is only allowed to exist at David Firth's body of work instead of David Firth (animator)? Because somehow material about a work a person created is not "biographical"? And we can't use non-independent but otherwise reliable sources (e.g. interviews) to flesh it out with more direct biographical details? That serves no benefit to either us or our readers. This line of argument was in fact refuted by Martinevans123 and PantheonRadiance in the AfD but for whatever reason they didn't manage to sway the consensus. Based on the AfD discussion, I think Firth is notable – moreso now since coverage about this deletion have appeared in reliable sources (Throast's implication above that WP:NOTNEWS prevents us from using these is another misunderstanding of policy). I think the best thing to do now is develop Draft:David Firth (animator) and move it back to mainspace after this DRV has run its course. – Joe (talk) 11:09, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Joe Roe, I feel you're mischaracterizing my argument in the deletion discussion a bit. Never did I claim that interviews could not be used at all, of course they can. If non-independent, they cannot however help establish the subject's notability, which I believe we all agree with? WP:NARTIST outlines indicators of notability. I still feel that we need to discern between artists and their works, if only their works are subject to significant coverage. That being said, I've changed my mind now that new information has come to light thanks to Cunard's research. Martinevans123, these sort of discussions do become quite contentious at times, and I regret that you feel this way. You have to admit that you didn't exactly help diffuse the tension either, though. Throast (talk | contribs) 12:21, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse (tentatively) but would not necessarily object to a restore. The article was deleted under the correct conclusion that it was not verifiable enough to satisfy WP:BLP. The twitter thread is a little embarrassing, but honestly reading the last revision of the article is even more embarrassing to me: the first sentence alone was a string of nouns most not substantiated by the body of the article,
animator, director, writer, musician, actor, voice actor [...]
which all may have been true, but not verified. Or more to the point, justified that much front-loading. I also understand there was a major point of contention over the inclusion birth date. It should not have been included; it did not have a good source, and honestly not that important for understanding the subject. This wasn't formally in the AfD, but I suppose that may have ultimately motivated the delete. With all that being said, I think the subject is notable enough for a concise Start-class article. I think here and in the AfD there is an inappropriate barrier being raised against concluding the notability of the subject that I'd like to address immediately, rather than circumstantially leave it to future AfC review (which isn't going to happen in a vacuum). I looked at the above sources and back-and-fourth between User:Throast and User:Martinevans123.
Y Eicholtz, Kayla (August 14, 2013). "Youth Report: A Conversation With British Animator David Firth". WKMS-FM. Retrieved May 1, 2022. — This is significant coverage of the subject. Would not even say this is a primary source, it is an interview by a radio station with a producer and editorial oversight, not a self-published vlog.
Y Fox, Chris (January 1, 2021). "Adobe Flash Player is finally laid to rest". BBC News. Retrieved May 1, 2022. — This is significant coverage of the subject. It might not be the main topic, but it directly deals with
So the case I'm making is that it was correct to delete the article for BLP reasons, but not notability reasons, and better off being recreated and reconsidered under the AfC process. JAYFAX (talk) 11:32, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
* Endorse close and go through the existing draft for an eventual restore - I agree with what others have said about the discussion not being great, but the close was correct based on everything presented there. I think JAYFAX lays out a solid list of sources that could be used and should be incorporated into the draft. Given how contested this appears to be (and the history of Draft:David_Firth_(animator)) I think it's best that the restoration happen thru AFC. ThadeusOfNazerethTalk to Me!16:34, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
AfC is not, and should never ever be, a required process. It's so backlogged and so riddled with problems it's basically where you send people when you don't want to deal with their issues. Not where useful things are likely to happen. Hobit (talk) 16:54, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say it is or that it should be, I said that I think it's best that, in this specific case, the restoration happens through AfC. That's certainly the least important part of my vote. Either way, multiple other voters in this thread have also voiced this thought, and even more have said they want to see a longer drafting process rather than an immediate restoration. ThadeusOfNazerethTalk to Me!17:33, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see a problem with "immediate restoration", provided that is accompanied, in the minutes and hours immediately afterwards, by addition of the new material and sources that the voters here agree are necessary. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:38, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have created a draft article in my userspace User:JAYFAX/David Firth. It is intentionally short, uses sources discussed here, and avoids running to BLP issues. I reckon it is certainly not what someone highly familiar with Firth's work would consider "complete" but that's not the intention here, just need to create a stub that justifies its own existence. The other draft over at Draft:David Firth (animator) is kind of run over at the moment (I'm troubled by that big table that uses IMDb links) and considering between moving my wikitext over to there, or just create the article straight from what I've drafted. Pinging relevant parties for thoughts: @Martinevans123, Throast, ThadeusOfNazereth, and Hobit:JAYFAX (talk) 13:22, 3 May 2022 (UTC) (update) adding @RexSueciae: who expressed interest in cleaning up the draft, and @Fenestre: whose edits would be overwritten by this. JAYFAX (talk) 13:58, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think starting with a clean slate would do the article good, and I like what you've written so far. It would also make editors' job a lot easier judging a person's notability if the article is short and to the point. ReneeWrites (talk) 16:45, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a little late to the conversation, but that draft looks good to me. I'd even go ahead and put it in article space, let editors take it on. Trial by fire. Of course, that might be a little bold. And I might put a stub template on it, although that's not strictly necessary. Anyways, well done. RexSueciae (talk) 21:39, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
JAYFAX, personally, I'm very satisfied with the draft as it stands now. Thankful for the productive and civil discussion, and glad we've finally reached an outcome that everybody seems to be happy with. Throast (talk | contribs) 21:51, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The Table seems to have been perturbing for some. The repeated claim was that Firth is not a notable person. One of the criteria is a body of work and that table did demonstrate that there was a body of work that comes from one person. That is not a claim that the person is magnificent or important but it evidences that they are, in fact, notable. Lack of notability was the original reason for deletion.
The table being 'reference bombed' is an unrealistic criticism since, as a draft it should be clear that the entire table would be significantly pruned or even vanish if the article were to proceed to the mainspace of Wikipedia. The repetitions of IMDB: where else do British creatives make their cultural contributions known? Yes it is a potentially contentious source, but some of the references are to BBC and Channel 4 entries. That gives a range of provenance to the works. Correlating IMDB references from Firth, BBC, and Channel 4 suggests that notability is there to be found.
Both BBC and Channel 4 commission work out of public money. That means a single animation on BBC and Channel 4 has gone through ridiculous amounts of committee 'value for money' vetting. Which, in turn means that Commissions are not just handed out to Creatives on request. An understanding of that, in terms of notability is useful. Hence the Table was simply a useful tool. It might have utility in a future article or it might not. That needs an understanding of British Culture that seems lacking in the process.
Overwriting my edits is not the end of the world. Not actually looking at them first is far sillier. I have confidence that you will do whatever you see fit, in any case. Which is just what happens in open edited documents.
The original article was a mess in terms of strict compliance with the arcana of Wikipedia. That really could have been improved instead of making a deletion that amounts to original research about the notability of a British Creative. It seems odd that a Northern British Creative gets mentioned in publications as far apart as San Franscisco, Canada, and Sweden, and has a reasonable body of video interviews which do speak to notability - but are of no consequence to the Wikipedia process and Wikipedia notability - yet has no article about them on Wikipedia; while, American Animators get three mentions in American commercial press warranting an equally poorly written article. That is an issue for another time and place.
It seems a lot of problems have centred on the lack of understanding of Popular Culture and how someone can be notable in the UK and not the US. That has resulted in a poor process that has not actually improved anything. I am happy to have my edits overwritten, hopefully in a constructive and productive way that actually builds a much better edit of the article. Which I trust is the outcome being sought.
I personally suppose David Firth is actually notable. He contributes to Northern Culture in way that might well seem vapid or insubstantial outside of the North. Apart from that I am not a great fan. I do not find lots of things on Wikipedia notable and their inclusion is simply because they are the hobby horse of an Editor who has put in sufficient work to establish that. Which may seem unkind. It is the basis for a lot of good editing. Someone championed the deletion of an Animator and someone could champion the inclusion of that Animator. Neither champion is me. The table was not some reference bombing idiocy but it has helped to provide indications of both a body of work and of notability.
Firth was featured in the 2017 Glasgow Film Festival, in the brochure, being described as "One of the UK's most significant independent animators".
This was a consequence of finding out that Cream had a first showing at the Glasgow Film Festival 2017 (Sponsored by National Lottery and British Film Institute). Which does actually suggest notability from an independent source. the BFI and National Lottery are, again, Public Money and not wont to throw around idle praise.
Yes, the table might well be an abomination but a useful one. An objective of deleting it systematical was the intent. Starting with a clean slate is not really a problem but please try to avoid slinging out the baby with the bathwater. Fenestre (talk) 00:31, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'd agree that IMDb can be very useful "bathwater" in suggesting leads to search for. You make some very valid points above about how notability can be assessed in terms of public funding. I'm sure you will collaborate in improving the new article for Firth. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:51, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn-ish. Keep the disambiguation page, but David Firth is notable enough as a person outside of his work on Salad Fingers to warrant a page at David Firth (animator), even if Salad Fingers is by far and away his most famous work. I'm annoyed at what's happening on the draft page, though, it's been reference bombed badly and the page is in a far worse state now than it was prior to deletion. ReneeWrites (talk) 19:54, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So it looks like any restoration of the deleted article is not going to happen? However poor you think the new draft is, those who have already contributed to it will not want their efforts to be wasted. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:32, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The article itself is perfectly salvageable, and I honestly didn't think the article on the main page prior to being moved/deleted was that bad either. I think notability could be argued without making significant changes to it. It's mainly the table on the draft page that needs to go (it basically contains the contents of Firth's IMDb profile with no regard for relevance/notability), but I don't feel comfortable removing it myself. I've already removed it once, and I gave an incorrect reason for doing so (the deletion was justified, but the argument wasn't). I also don't want to come across like I'm bullying this one guy who's obviously well-intentioned but is putting a lot of effort into something that's to the overall detriment of the page. ReneeWrites (talk) 21:29, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, while IMDb is acceptable for use as an External link, it is not considered WP:RS for use in the article main body. The table might be still be a good idea if any better source(s) could be found. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:55, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The fundamental argument for the original deletion was that Firth effectively produced Salad Fingers and no other of significance. In that case the Table would have had one line and notability would devolve to finding three acceptable citations for Salad Fingers' existence. Which would leave the situation as it is. You might not consider IMDB to be a reliable source, it has been used elsewhere as though it is. Place that remark aside. The IMDB listings - plural - pointed to Firth, BBC, Channel 4, and others which clearly points towards other more Wikipedia Reliable Source citations that should be findable. The purpose of the Table is purely to highlight the body of work which is the entire claim to notability for any writer, filmmaker or animator.
As a consequence of that Table, by examining IMDB listings and working outwards, some useful links were discovered such as Firth being interviewed by Alan Yentob of the BBC and for the work Umbilical World and Firth being invited to the Glasgow Film Festival. Where the Organisers described Firth as One of the UK's most significant independent animators in the Festival Brochure and a new film was premiered. (http://issuu.com/glasgowfilmtheatre/docs/gff_brochure_2017_digital_final/58). That suggests that the British Film Institute and the National Lottery think Firth might be notable. It might well be a really tedious way of proceeding. Deleting the table rapidly after it was inserted actively prevents discovery of notability and any rational progress to a consensus on notability. Which was the only thing deemed to be at issue. In that respect being productive rather than aesthetic directly addressed the issue of relevance and notability: the original underpinning rationale for deletion.
Did the Table look awful: absolutely. Could the Table be improved: hugely. Would the article be better off without it: visually yes; there may be an argument that a list of film works suits tabular presentation but that does not impinge on the reason the article was where it was. It was in that place because it was deleted and someone said it should not be.
To return to the IMDB remark. I have created tables in sandboxes for other Creatives and come out with the conclusion that I do not think they are notable in any way: their output is apparently work for hire that lacks personal creative agency and their Wikipedia presence is little more than personal brand marketing. I am not going to name them or to ask for their deletion because, largely, some other has determined what their notability is even if it is utterly unclear to me. Wikipedia rules allow for that. Wikipedia rules also allow for an over literal interpretation of Wikipedia rules when it intersects with material that is unclear, unpleasant, or simply from somewhere else. That kind of interpretation leads to long term nonsense when it comes to cultural subjects.
In short: it is a table, it can be tolerated for a few day as it gets whittled down. It is not the end of the world if it stays or goes. It is not bullying to delete it but it is a tad counterproductive. Fenestre (talk) 06:00, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
IMDb links can be useful as a way of confirming who took what part in a production, but an IMDb link does not by itself indicate notability. It mostly just proves something exists. IMDb and Wikipedia are two different databases that enforce different rules and standards, and serve different functions. Just because something's on IMDb doesn't mean it automatically belongs here, too.
The notable works Firth had created or contributed to had already been mentioned in the article. So all the table did was add a mix of duplicate notable data and filler, and taking a lot of space up in the process. It just made it harder to see the forest for the trees.
The word "reference bombing" has been mentioned a number of times, and I think it's a good idea to read the article on that (as well as the main article on overciting) before moving forward so we don't make the same mistakes with the new article. The intro reads this:
"A common form of citation overkill is loading up an article with sources without regard as to whether they support substantive or noteworthy content about the topic. This may boost the number of footnotes and create a superficial appearance of notability, which can obscure a lack of substantive, reliable, and relevant information. This phenomenon is especially common in articles about people or organizations (including companies), given that they generally have to satisfy conditional notability standards based on achievement and sourceability, rather than a mere verification of existence."
The third item on the list in particular is relevant here:
"Citations to work that the article's subject produced – A series of citations that Gish gallop their way through a rapid-fire list of content that doesn't really help to establish notability at all. For example, an article about a journalist might try to document every individual piece of work they ever produced for their employer, often citing that work's existence to itself; an article about a city councillor might try to document and source their position for or against every individual bylaw or ordinance that came up for council debate at all, regardless of whether or not the person actually played a prominent role in getting that motion passed or defeated; an article about an entertainer or pundit might try to list and source every individual appearance they might have made in media, all the way down to local morning talk shows and interviews on individual radio stations; an article about a musician might try to reference the existence of their music to online music stores or streaming platforms, such as iTunes, YouTube or Spotify, instead of to any evidence of media coverage."
There are a lot of small articles and stubs on Wikipedia, because an article doesn't need to be long to prove notability. And a handful of good sources do that better than over a hundred questionable ones. ReneeWrites (talk) 13:06, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comments at this time:
I see statements to Endorse but Restore. If that means to restore the deleted article to the history, it is already there. After the fourth AFD, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Firth (4th nomination) . the result was Redirect to Salad Fingers, and User:Sandstein correctly cut the article down to a redirect. User:JohnThorne then converted the redirect into a disambiguation page, also in my opinion correctly. So the deleted article is still there the history of the disambiguation page, David Firth.
I reviewed Draft:David Firth. In the course of the review I moved/renamed it to Draft:David Firth (animator). I compared the draft against the previous article (since it was still in the history), and saw little difference. I declined it because I saw less than a 50% chance that it would, if accepted, survive a fifth AFD, which would resemble the fourth AFD. One of the basic instructions for AFC reviewers is to accept if there is more than a 50% chance, estimated subjectively, that the draft will survive AFD.
When I declined the draft, I asked that any resubmitter not simply add more references, because at 44 references it had already been reference-bombed. So, since there is a myth, held both by some new good-faith editors and some bad-faith editors, that more references are usually the key to acceptance or retention, another 62 references have been added to bring the total to 106.
When I declined the draft, I asked that any resubmission either specify how the new draft differs from the deleted article, or request Deletion Review. Improving the draft would still be a good idea. Adding more references will be an exercise in formatting the references (either manually or with a tool).
I don't know how much free time I'll have, but once this discussion is closed, I might have a try at cleaning up the article. Remove questionable sources, add reliable ones, and call it a day. It doesn't matter much to me whether we revise a version of the original, pare down the draft on file, or start entirely from scratch, as long as the result is serviceable. It does feel an entirely manageable task. Anyways, I'm curious to see what sort of consensus develops in this discussion. RexSueciae (talk) 21:48, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The differences between the current draft and the deleted article are, in my opinion, not substantial, except for the well-meaning but misguided reference-bombing. I think that it makes little difference whether the improvement is to the deleted article or the draft. I think that improvement is both possible and desirable. (I do not intend to review the draft again). Robert McClenon (talk) 22:09, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Relist. WP:DEL-REASON#8, the policy-based rationale for deletion of non-notable articles, states that Articles whose subjects fail to meet the relevant notability guideline (WP:N, WP:GNG, WP:BIO, WP:MUSIC, WP:CORP, and so forth) (internal links omitted) can be deleted. This wording is very clearly reflected in WP:N, whose first criterion requires that an article meets either the general notability guideline (GNG) below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific notability guideline (SNG). Simply put, WP:NBIO is one such guideline, and while lots of people focused on how to apply WP:GNG (which was unclear), there was also an argument by 2601:204:D981:8130:B595:613D:C7D8:5E46(talk·contribs·WHOIS) that was explicitly made that the individual satisfied WP:NARTIST#3. Since NARTIST is part of WP:NBIO, and the article subject is certainly about a person, the relevant notability guideline is the notability guideline for people. In other words, the arguments for deletion that might have had some support in the WP:Deletion policy were largely refuted by the Sacramento IP. Among the remaining editor, they advocated for a reverse merge (Salad Fingers into David Firth). I'm not entirely convinced of the policy-based rationale that the editor is given, but I think that further discussion on this AfD would be fruitful in allowing the community to ascertain a consensus. This is a scenario where there was relatively little participation, arguments from !voters weren't really all that great from a policy perspectie, and additional editors might help in coming to a consensus. — Mhawk10 (talk) 21:43, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Agree with above that the disscusion wasn't great but the closer appeared to come to the right decision on the matter. Keep would have been wrong considering nobody liked the article itself but rather what the article was talking about. Swordman97talk to me21:58, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ii should probably be looked at through AFC considering the sorry state of the article before this all happened. It needed a peer review anyway. Swordman97talk to me22:34, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A well-supported peer review might have short-circuited this whole cycle. But, somewhat ironically, the reaction of Firth himself to the deletion, has in turn generated a lot of useful interest and suggestions. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:54, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Hey, it's PantheonRadiance replying here once again. I'm not officially voting on this discussion but I felt that I needed to leave my two cents about David Firth and the AfD discussion.
First, I initially didn't care about the outcome of the discussion because I wasn't personally invested with him or any of his works. Looking back at the discussion however, it should've never been merged/deleted in the first place, and honestly if I were to have voted again, I would've argued that the article should've been a Weak Keep. There were a bunch of other sources I actually found about Firth's other work, but because of Throast's rhetoric of notability "not being inherited," I only picked ones that explicitly described Firth as a person. Looking at the new sources here, had they been proposed in the AfD I would've voted a Keep. Speaking of the AfD, I need to address this.
Second, I know the discussion was already filled with overly long responses, and I certainly didn't help with that.* However, that AfD clearly should've been relisted for one more week. I was genuinely surprised that this wasn't the case. Ignoring the depth of discussion, it was basically a drawn out battleground between Throast and Martinevans with me and Lamona acting as spectators. I felt like other editors should've weighed in a bit more to discuss the arguments proposed in a more concise manner.
Finally, my rationale for my response came from a larger issue I personally interpreted and saw as a twisted "double standard" surrounding notability on Wikipedia, especially with e-celebs and YouTubers. Although it may not be my place to express my thoughts about it, seeing as how this discussion actually got some mainstream attention I feel I need to address it. While "what about X?" is considered a fallacy here, I don't see it as entirely invalid; how exactly is basic pattern recognition between articles of similar topics fallacious? If anything, comparisons often help us understand the bigger picture, especially in moments where it seems genuinely unfair that an article about someone gets deleted while others survive AfDs with even weaker sourcing, and WP's policies honestly don't do much to rectify it. As for this case, even with a legit policy like the ARTIST one there still seems to be some sort of double standards. This may be a bit of a stretch, but for example: how is it that game developer Toby Fox gets his own separate article solely for creating the Undertale series, but David Firth, someone who created a web series that demonstrably had a similar impact on internet culture, loses his four times? Why does the "not inherited" argument apply to Firth but not to Fox? One could argue that Undertale had a much larger impact on the world, but does that diminish the significance of Salad Fingers by comparison? Toby has also done other projects that have been significantly covered by the press... and so has Firth as shown in this discussion. So what gives? Is this because people here merely see Firth's influence as only extending to internet culture at large? It just seems like there's some ingrained bias when it comes to anything based on internet culture. And sure, articles about internet personalities are added here all the time. But the ratio of articles kept to articles deleted is abysmally low.
At times I honestly feel that some Wikipedia rules were created merely to prevent articles from being created regardless of the impact of their subjects, especially with anything internet-related. Even if memory was so boundless that Wikipedia could hypothetically create and hold an infinite number of articles, Wikipedia would still find some way to delete articles - even with enough sources about them. All I hope for is that someday Wikipedia's policies will become more lenient and understanding with the notability guidelines going forward. More importantly, I do hope David Firth gets his article back soon.
BTW Mhawk10 (talk·contribs), I was the one who wrote that long response from an IP.
Overturn. Consensus was not clear. The discussion was not complete, and had too few participants, and I do not read it as heading to a consensus to delete, and I think the compromise of “redirect” and leave it to others later to figure out how to merge was not ok, because merging is not working. “No consensus” would have been a better way forward. There was no urgency to act. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:13, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to Relist Consensus was all over the place; we've seen a lot more consensual discussions than this be relisted more than once. This wasn't relisted at all. Nfitz (talk) 06:52, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]