Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Firth (2nd nomination)

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 of the debate was Keep, even after discounting "votes" by new and anonymous users. Deathphoenix ʕ 13:40, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] David Firth

ATTENTION! If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on a forum, please note that this is not a majority vote, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus among Wikipedia editors on whether a page is suitable for this encyclopedia. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. Nonetheless, you are welcome to participate and express your opinions. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments by suspected single-purpose accounts can be tagged using {{subst:spa|username}}

Already been through an AFD here back in early 2005, and the result was to redirect to Salad Days Salad Fingers. The article was unredirected and filled out with information and references to blogs and forum posts. I can't find anything in it that is actually encyclopedic. I keep hearing people say he's notable (on AFDs for articles about minor flash animations), but if he is... there must be some source for solid reliable information to fill out a biography article... or this should (at least) just be redirected to Salad Days Salad Fingers again. - Motor (talk) 18:45, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Comment. If the result is to redirect, it should be to Salad Fingers, his most (?) famous creation. (This is not my vote.) --Billpg 20:13, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

• Weak delete or Merge with Salad Fingers. He keeps a list of press mentions on his website here, and while that's more than a lot of our AfD subjects can say for themselves, it's a short list indeed and they're all pretty obscure/minor mentions. There's only 5 of them, and probably the most major one is a mention in "FHM Estonia", which I guess is the Estionian edition of FHM. Getting there, but not notable enough at the moment, IMHO. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:31, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
• Merge per Andrew Lenahan; but the Salad Fingers article already seems to contain everything there is to say about the chap, so it's more a case of redirect really... — Haeleth Talk 20:39, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comments (A) I assume the nominator means Salad Fingers and (b) the fact that all these pages are being created by people and have sopme detail in them, and that his cartoons seem to be a memetic phenomenon suggests to me that this more than just a mere vanity page, although it needs more work. SM247 21:30, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comments -- yeah, I've been typing Salad Fingers in messages beforehand, and for some reason I brainfaded into using Salad Days for this nom. - Motor (talk) 22:18, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Is "Salad Fingers" the reason for his notability? Yes. Does he meets WP:BIO? Yes. --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:21, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment, WP:MEME... "People associated with memes: If a person is only notable for their meme, then any information related to them should be at that meme's page. If that person is notable under WP:BIO, they can also have their own article." Or the short and sweet version: It is a meme, barely. Does the creator meet WP:BIO, no. - Motor (talk) 14:55, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Meets WP:BIO. Yanksox 22:22, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per badlydrawnjeff. DarthVader 01:39, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment, could someone please explain why this meets WP:BIO? I've been googling, and get this flash animator, stats professors and an actor. Apart from a single mention in FHM Estonia (noted earlier) relating to Firth (the flash animator), that appears to be it for reliable information. Right now we seem to have an article full of opinions from "Jeffy's ultrablog" and web forum posts. - Motor (talk) 07:29, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep- If Salsd Fingers is notable, how can the person that created it not be? Deyyaz ^{[ Talk | Contribs ]} 14:02, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment, the Salad Fingers article should have this "Created by David Firth of Doncaster", which appears to include every single bit of reliable information available on him. That's his level of notability. - Motor (talk) 14:22, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep as per Yanksox. Jono 15:49, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

"maybe just leave in what actually is reliable. there's plenty on there that's obviously uncorroborated speculation and which could reasonably be removed." - guy with no grasp of Wikipedia formatting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.81.102.48 (talk • contribs) 14:58, June 3, 2006

• Keep - Popular if contraversial web animator. This page at least should be kept. michaelCurtis ^talk+ _{contributions} 21:56, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete or redirect. Salad Fingers is his his 15 minutes of fame as an internet meme (equivalent to 15 nanoseconds of actual fame). We don't need two articles. -- GWO

• Strong Keep: Meets WP:BIO, and is very well-known in the internet community. --Wizardman 15:56, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Keep it - if you had created what this boy has then i'm sure you would want your own page detailing who you are.

• Comment, see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jerry Jackson. - Motor (talk) 13:33, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep notability is clearly estabilished.  Grue  14:07, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per badlydrawnjeff. Does not appear to be a vanity article. -- backburner001 15:51, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. I came here looking for information, he has produced quite a few comedic videos, is about to be on TV. He was mentioned in prancehall's blog recently as devvo (prancehall) so there will likely be interest. Not vanity to me, informative.--Phatmattbaker 21:41, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, my choice. Not one person has said why it meets WP:BIO, and there isn't a source of reliable information. NOTE: Should this dire article survive this AFD thanks to fan voting, I will still be taking an axe to it to remove all the bias, cruft and unreliable information. It will likely end up looking (as I said above) like this: "David Firth, Doncaster, flash animator responsible for Salad Fingers and x,y,z"... and that's it. - Motor (talk) 22:41, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: it meets WP:BIO because if fulfils all of the requirements therein - surely it should be you who is telling us why it doesn't meet it. Jono 17:21, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment, how many times would you like me to restate the same thing. Read this submission again... you know, that bit at the top where I explained the problem with this article. One of the requirements of Wikipedia is "reliable information". There isn't anyway in this case. Notable people generally have solid reliable sources for information about them. People whose flash animations have 30 seconds of fame among a tiny section of newgrounds fans... don't. This article is entirely populated with cruft from blogs, personal websites and web forum posts... all of which are expressly ruled out by WP:RS. - Motor (talk) 17:50, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment: I wasn't contradicting your reliability of sources issue. But now you mention it, I will. Expressly ruled out? More like expressly ruled in: from WP:RS, "Neither online nor print sources deserve an automatic assumption of reliability by virtue of the medium they are printed in". Basically, take it on a case-by-case basis. In this case, I think the article should definitely stay. Although we can't quantify his fanbase, I'm sure you're underestimating it when you say 30 seconds of fame among a tiny section of newgrounds fans... I admit that I am a fan, but I've never been on newgrounds. And I certainly have been a fan for more than 30 seconds. Jono 18:01, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
        • Comment -- Well, I notice that you ignored the main part of of WP:RS that relates to this: "At the other end of the reliability scale lie personal websites, weblogs (blogs), bulletin boards, and Usenet posts, which are not acceptable as sources. Rare exceptions may be when a well-known professional person or acknowledged expert in a relevant field has set up a personal website using his or her real name. Even then, we should proceed with caution, because the information has been self-published, which means it has not been subject to any independent form of fact-checking.. There's nothing case by case about it. Nothing in this article comes from reliable sources. It's blogs, web forums and personal websites. What we have here is someone with no notablity outside of a small selection of people, who happen to also be internet users and show up to vote "keep" in AFDs. - Motor (talk) 18:21, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - very notable in his domain, meets WP:Bio Beltz 06:44, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Abstain traumatised from watching Salad Fingers. heqs 10:11, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Keep per Wizardman. --Billpg 17:37, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• STRONG KEEP - AND HOPEFULLY A CONCLUSION TO THIS NONSENSE! Dearest Mr Motor Billpg Gareth Owen etc and the others behind deleting this entry - with the greatest respect you have no idea what you are talking about!! I use Wikipedia almost daily as a source of information - I am not really part of the community and I do not really know the ins and outs of Wikipedia's rules and regulations. However I do know what I want from it as a user. I want Wikipedia to provide answers to questions that I have. Here is the prospective of a user:- When a year or so ago I first came across Fat Pie (The website of David Firth) I wanted to know more and so I searched Wikipedia. I found a number of entries and my knowledge of the guy grew. Surely the fact that one person found the information useful should be the end of the discussion? I am increasingly noticing that articles I want to read are marked for deletion due to certain members of the community having no knowledge or understanding of them. If this continues then Wikipedia is destined to only cater for the majority? Or be restricted by the very structure that has created it so far. I don’t want Wikipedia to become the McDonalds of Internet Encyclopaedias! Back to David Firth: (Because I know Mr Motor will ignore what I have said and bleat on about WP:BIO – Christ he is so anal!) David Firth has not just experienced 5 minutes of fame - He has steadily built a following over a number of years, his characters and creations are commonly known throughout UK, USA, Australia and around the world, particularly so amongst students and young people. No he not restricted to just the enormous success of Salad Fingers, he has many other popular individual cartoons and character series and his 'documentary' of Devvo is due to appear on both Channel4 and E4 in the UK in June and July. For some time he has showcased his animations on New Grounds an online community of 1,010,452 (As at 9th June 2006) flash animators where David Firth is known by all and has influenced a large majority, so much so that Newgrounds now pay him so that he can keep animating and submitting to them. (Mr Motor can you show that you have inspired nearly a million people?!) David Firth is a unique and prolific creative talent who has many many fans... Maybe some of these entries need to be cleaned up but deleted? Not if you want to maintain Wikipedia as an important resource. TO CONCLUDE MY LITTLE RANT! I would like to see Wikipedia continue to be the best and first source for information on the Internet. So Stop Bloody deleting it!! Would you delete Ricky Gervais because you have a section titled The Office? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.74.59.143 (talk • contribs) 17:06, 9 June 2006
  • COMMENT I have just realised that you have deleted DEVVO - thats just stoopid! Wikipedia appears to being edited for taste. Oh dear.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.74.59.143 (talk • contribs) 2006-06-09 17:21:28
• Strong Keep Salad fingers and it's artist David Firth are both very notable. There is absolutely no reason to completely remove this article. Look at all the people commenting here. People are searching for david on wikipedia so please keep the article, however cleaning it up couldn't hurt. PrettyMuchBryce 17:56, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment, and yet, as with all the other keep votes, you don't say why or explain how he meets any of the guidelines. Or why a biographical article should remain when there isn't a single reliable source of information for any of the information in it. See WP:BLP. But hey, you know... David Firth and his half a dozen flash animations on newgrounds are as notable as Ricky Gervais. Oddly I can point to hundreds of reliable sources of information regarding Gervais, so we can write a nice interesting and informative biography. Unlike, say, the creator of a minor internet meme who's had his 15 mins of blog fame. - Motor (talk) 18:28, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment A key player in a community of a million Animators not a half dozen... And the point about Gervais / office is that a creation and a creator can both be notable...
      • Comments, "can be" vs "actually is". Gervais is notable outside of the The Office. As I said, Firth is the creator of a minor internet meme. WP:MEME is a proposed guideline regarding this -- if the meme is notable (and I actually doubt that it is) then have an article, but do not create a biographical article for its creator unless there is something else worth adding. There isn't... because there is no more information available. It's forum posts from a few fans, blog entries and his personal websites. WP:VANITY. - Motor (talk) 07:26, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Noobs stop afding it --DragonWR12LB 08:38, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep and clean up the crap. Although i'm not sure where 'pedia stands on "Internet Celebrities", he's not really notable as a person - but notable for his works, which i think exceeds just Salad Fingers. I'm not a deletionist, but maybe it should be deleted and remade when he's actually Meatspace Notable and we have verifiable information on him. -- jeffthejiff 09:25, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep Wikipedia is designed as a source of information. If it is deleted, redirect it to Fat-Pie.com --PureLegend 19:34, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment, Wikipedia is supposed to be a reliable source of information. This is why WP:RS and WP:VERIFY exist, and why articles like this should be deleted. If an article topic has no reputable, reliable, third-party sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on that topic. -- WP:VERIFY, official policy. - Motor (talk) 20:13, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment: [1], [2] will do me. Jono 21:14, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment, yes... well... that does demonstrate where the confusion is coming from. Reliable sources are needed. Read the links I supplied above. "Stuff grabbed off misc websites and everything2.com" definitely do not qualify. - Motor (talk) 21:21, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep The page is still useful. I was extremely pleased to find the article, then at least equally displeased when i noticed that it had been marked for deletion. I was unable to find the information in the article anywhere else, and it answered several questions I had. It should be noted that pretty much everyone petitioning for the article to be removed seems to be ignorant of mr firth's contribution to and impact on the internet. Even if only a couple of people have been searching for him, that should still validate the article. I knew he created salad fingers; I wanted to know more about him and this article was the only source I could find. Instead of deleting it, we should all be researching David Firth in order to make the article more valid!—Preceding unsigned comment added by Sexy cam (talk • contribs)
  • Comment, user's one and only edit is to this AFD. - Motor (talk) 08:20, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

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.