Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Salad Fingers (3rd 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 was Keep, references were produced Steve (Stephen)talk 10:27, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Salad Fingers

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

This article was previously nominated for deletion here, and the result was keep. Now, I am aware that nominating this article will bring down the wrath of all that is Holy, but I must point out that it remains totally unsourced. The arguments on the previous debate basically fall into a couple of categories - "I've heard of it, therefore it is notable", "It gets lots of views, therefore it is notable", "I like it, therefore it is notable", "I see no reason to delete it, therefore it is notable". None of these are compelling arguments for it being encyclopedic content - and that is the crux of this. Encyclopedic content - it is beyond debate that it is a popular flash animation. However, the hallmark of encyclopedic content is notability - which must be backed up by reliable and verifiable sources. This article had none at the previous debate, and it has not gained any since then. I have done my best to try and track down some, and have had no luck. The fact that, in the time between the two debates, none have been added strongly shows that this is not only totally unsourced, it is, in fact, unsourcable - especially from a notability standpoint. Without reliable sources that back up the notability of an article, it cannot be considered encyclopedic content - and this article has none. The previous debate felt that it was acceptable to overlook this, for some reason not explained, but I would either like this reason explained, or this article deleted.

In short, this article has no reliable sources and totally fails notability guidelines, popularity notwithstanding. See below! Fixed! Haemo 22:36, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per well-reasoned nom. There has been plenty of time since the last AFD (seven months ago, so there is no issue with the renomination) to add sources, and none have been added. Without them, the claims of popularity (even though I know the series is popular) are not verifiable or attributable. --Core desat 22:51, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, for same reasons as above. I can't argue with this. --Releeshan 00:14, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom and per all the delete arguments in the first nom. That AFD never should have been closed as "keep." Otto4711 01:13, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Just because it's on Weebl's site doesn't mean it's notable, it just means it's on Weebl's site.  -- Dennis The Tiger   (Rawr and stuff) 03:04, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Change vote to Keep. Ghostieguide's arguments are compelling.  Clean it up.  The usual counterarguments on WP:AADD, however, still apply.  -- Dennis The Tiger   (Rawr and stuff) 19:07, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Per nom. Stoic atarian 06:27, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep It might be something of inferior nature, but it's documenting its existence, and THAT is what encyclopidiae are all about. It's well written and thorough and fun to read through. I've always considered Wikipedia as a source for information about everything conceivable, so I vote KEEP. --Bjrndlw 14:17, 11 May 2007 (UTC) — Bjrndlw (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Comment WP:ABOUTEVERYTHING, plus something being well-written doesn't mean it doesn't have to have reliable sources. --Core desat 18:48, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep I'd suggest we edit the entry down to sections that can be sourced to the episodes themselves (as primary sources), such factual-only episode summaries (no speculation!), and other short, relevant bits. That seems in line with the countless other episode summaries, book and story summaries, etc. found throughout Wikipedia. Exerda 15:27, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Yes, cut it down to pure facts and it'll be a fully legit entry in any encyclopedic collection of articles. Salad Fingers doesn't have to be deleted in it's entirety because it might have some unclear sources. Watching episodes provides information like names and places and themes. David Lynch' and Michael Haneke's cinema never gives any resolution or answers, and still there's articles about their work. Furthermore, speculation can actually give some more insight in the series and the characters, as long as it's marked as such. Still a keep. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bjrndlw (talk • contribs)  — Bjrndlw (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * The problem is that it doesn't have any reliable sources. How can we cut something down to "fact-only" levels if we have no reliable sources for the article?  Again, this article has no sources which either assert, or support notability.  How do you justify disregarding Wikipedia guidelines in such a manner - beyond asserting that other stuff exists and so this should too?  --Haemo 20:52, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The facts are in the animations and in at least one interview with David Firth. The facts are the characters, their names, the atmosphere, the means of animation, its creator, the music used, and all that together creates the Salad Fingers universe, which thereby claims its identity. That's the source. What examples of sources are you looking for then? It appears Salad Fingers is being banned due to subjective taste-matters. I'm sorry, but I don't understand what more sources, apart from these existing and verifiable pieces of art, you need. Is it documentation of some kind?--Bjrndlw 22:22, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes - of course it's documentation. What interview?  Why isn't it cited?  Why are there no reliable sources talking about these aspects of the show?  Why is the "source" for everything a subjective judgment call about the content, rather than an encyclopedic source?  Most importantly - why are there no sources that back up notability?  Why is this article unsourced after literally months, and a previous deletion debate?  None of these questions have been answered sufficiently, and there is nothing subjective about enforcing notability guidelines for articles.  --Haemo 22:30, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Fine, then someone should clean up the article. And since no-one is willing to do so, I guess deletion is the best option. There are interviews and there are pretty cool ideas on this matter. There's just no-one to enter it here. But you didn't understand my question. Where should Salad Fingers be documented? Is it only worthy noting once Leonard Maltin has written an essay on it? Or when some newspaper thinks it was Salad Fingers that made some 12-year old kill his grandmother? I'll just mirror the entry, look it over a few times and maybe recreate it again once this one has been deleted. I still don't understand and it's still a keep for me. Bjrndlw 22:38, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, if you read about reliable sources and notability, you can see that it outlines guidelines for what kind of documentation is needed in an encyclopedia article. And I did look for sources of this nature before nominating this article - but I couldn't find any.  I hope this helps explain my rationale for deleting more clearly. --Haemo 22:55, 11 May 2007 (UTC)


 * SALAD FINGERS IS THE BEST CARTOON EVER! This guy took an extreme amount of time thinking these cartoons out and drawing them down. I think that he needs some credit for all his hard work. KEEP THE ARTICLE! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.72.20.171 (talk • contribs) — 208.72.20.171 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Keep- I think that as long as it remains popular and people wish to know more and talk about it, this article should be kept running. If the author wants to create this article, let him. Put up a section for opinions on the cartoons. They are deep and interesting and deserve their place in the Wikipedia. --Wrayth 10:35, 13 May 2007 (CST)
 * Please give WP:INTERESTING a read. Please also note that Wikipedia is also not a video review site. -- Dennis The Tiger   (Rawr and stuff) 19:31, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, since it has no reliable sources to back up the assertion of notability, and therefore is of questionable encyclopidity . :) --Paul Erik 16:22, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Good job, Ghostieguide, finally bringing some referencing to the article. I'm switching my vote to keep.--Paul Erik 13:27, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, possibly merge notable content into David Firth --208.96.106.167
 * Keep, notable Skuld&Dagger; insult 22:13, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Your compelling argument interests me - would you care to spell it out? --Haemo 23:19, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
 * No, go fuck yourself. Skuld&Dagger; insult 16:44, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Classy. --Haemo 23:00, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * ;-) Skuld&Dagger; insult 21:10, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep, notable, This article is interesting and I found it useful when the cartoon came up in conversation several times. It is certainly popular in modern culture and interesting as a new artistic medium, the article needs sourcing but there is a wealth of content about this cartoon on the net, Cant really understand how this got tagged. to lose the pages history would be a denial to future researchers looking up new forms of media effecting the internet culture. Ghostieguide 07:38, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Agreed I'm back again. I think the 'notability' of Salad Fingers varies quite a lot from person to person. The popular culture-argument is a good one. Just curious, Haemo, are you a fan of fiction and/or art? Because if you were, I think you'd be interested in keeping this. I don't think personal interest should decide over whether or not to delete wiki-entries. Again, it's about everything, and Ghostieguide has the best argument yet. Bjrndlw 10:14, 14 May 2007 (UTC) — Bjrndlw (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * You might check out WP:ABOUTEVERYTHING. In short, we're actually not "about everything". -- Dennis The Tiger   (Rawr and stuff) 19:09, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Sigh - Okay, the argument just advanced is this: It's interesting and useful, and will be useful to researchers in the future, and it can be sourced.  Of course, not only are all of those fallacious arguments, this hasn't addressed the problem in the first page.  This article has no reliable sources which back up, over even assert, notability.  None.  Zero.  Zip.  It's been around for literally years without any, and somehow survived an AfD with none - on basically the same hollow arguments as have just been given.  This strongly implies that it is in fact, unsourcable.  The encyclopedia has given this article ample time to source itself properly, and it has not been done.  How long do we keep an article on the basis of "can be sourced", before it becomes apparent that it's not ever going to be?  Two years?  Three?  Until the heat-death of the universe?  This argument is totally hollow, and if it's the "best argument yet", this article should be strongly deleted.  Oh, and my personal views have absolutely nothing to do with this debate.  --Haemo 21:51, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I found sources, Even a mention in court...I`ve also expanded the intro to add a little depth, hopefully fixed now. cheers Ghostieguide 23:37, 14 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep - notability can be tricky with this medium but I think they have been viewed widely enough.cheers, Cas Liber | talk  |  contribs 13:32, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Page views are not a means of establishing notability under the guidelines. --Haemo 21:51, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, someone added some sources, and I didn't notice. I removed the unreliable ones, but now it looks like there are enough to keep the article.  Good job everyone! --Haemo 21:54, 14 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep - This is a very informative article, with a few decent sources, and comprehensive descriptions of the episodes that more or less match with the content of those episodes. Given the sources (not many, though decent) it should be left, no reason to delete it. --Mattinasi 01:12, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep looks good, has some references, notable subject... why exactly is this on afd?  ALKIVAR &trade; &#x2622; 00:49, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Because originally, it didn't have any references. As I explained, even I, the nominator, no longer support deletion.  --Haemo 00:52, 16 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep because salad helps me digest more delicious foods. Jerkcity 06:39, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, just another internet flash cartoon. !vote above me should probably be discounted.-- Wizardman 03:53, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. I've added one more article to the list of references (now 5) and I believe that this article clearly meets criteria 1 of WP:WEB. Paxse 10:12, 18 May 2007 (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.