Talk:Max Fosh

New sources since last AfD

I scanned the references of the new article and compared them to the article's state since the last AfD; there's this article in The Guardian; not entirely about Fosh, but with a fair amount of content; There's also this on in Living North which has sufficient WP:DEPTH but seems to be a local source of questionable notability. Then there are a number of articles mentioning or interviewing Fosh relating to the London mayoral election, with varying degrees of coverage. User:Bondegezou, User:Drmies, User:0xDeadbeef, any thoughts on whether this merits going into a 3rd AfD? OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 19:59, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

• User:Ohnoitsjamie, I think there's enough chatter that passes for sourcing for it to be kept at AfD so we can call it "notable", even if it's by the lowest of standards. Drmies (talk) 21:53, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

I think it remains a borderline case and an AfD could go either way. The Guardian article is a fairly brief mention, but is there enough cumulatively here? Don’t know.

The article does need some work. I’ll start on that. Bondegezou (talk) 06:22, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

OK, I’ve trimmed a lot of unencyclopaedic trivia, but, yes, I think there’s enough sourcing to justify an article now. Bondegezou (talk) 06:39, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

The Guardian article borderlines on sigcov, but agreed with comments above that this is probably enough for a weak keep. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 11:35, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Personal details and sourcing

I've removed and Strugglehouse has restored various details about Fosh sourced to primary sources. In particular, I would like to discuss use of his full name and date of birth. The article, as now, cites one of his YouTube videos for his full name and an old tweet for his birthday.

WP:DOB is relevant here. It states, Wikipedia includes full names and dates of birth that have been widely published by reliable sources, or by sources linked to the subject such that it may reasonably be inferred that the subject does not object to the details being made public. We don't have the former for either full name or d.o.b. We do have one of his YouTube videos for the full name, so maybe that's OK under WP:ABOUTSELF. (That said, I am unconvinced on other grounds. The guy does prank videos. I don't see how any video he does can be trusted. He could well be making stuff up to be amusing.)

I am more concerned about his d.o.b. WP:DOB does say A verified social media account of an article subject saying about themselves something along the lines of "today is my 50th birthday" may fall under self-published sources for purposes of reporting a full date of birth. However, I note that only says may and a single tweet 11 years ago, when he was 18, does not seem to be very solid ground for believing Fosh is happy for this information to be publicised. We must err on the side of caution with WP:BLP. I think the d.o.b. should be removed (or alternate sourcing provided).

What do others say? Bondegezou (talk) 12:55, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

His full name should definitely be included. It is, without a doubt, Maximilian Arthur Fosh. It is mentioned in many of his videos. See here, here and here.

Perhaps his full birth date should not be included if a better/more up to date source cannot be found. We can instead use sources such as this this and this, which mention his age at the time of writing, and use Template:Birth based on age as of date  to give an estimated age and year of birth, to render as 1994 or 1995 (age 28–29). I will add this now. Strugglehouse (talk) 13:43, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for making those changes. Bondegezou (talk) 18:35, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

@Bondegezou No problem. Strugglehouse (talk) 18:40, 30 April 2024 (UTC)