Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Darren Korb

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. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:06, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Darren Korb

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV from reliable sources. The entire article is sourced to trivial mentions from reviews of the games he composed/voice-acted for, or primary coverage interviews. I suggest merging to Supergiant Games, which he is predominantly known for as its main composer and one of its voice actors. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 21:54, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Bands and musicians, and Video games. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 21:54, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:15, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/Comment. I'm struggling to see how Korb fails GNG. Primary coverage interviews are valuable. I'm supposing you're talking about these sources

* https://web.archive.org/web/20150708231904/http://videogamewriters.com/interview-darren-korb-64357

* https://kotaku.com/the-best-game-music-of-2011-bastion-5871695

* https://web.archive.org/web/20150209221752/http://herocomplex.latimes.com/games/grammys-soundtrack-category-has-yet-to-embrace-video-game-scores/

I don't see how if a composer and his soundtrack work on video games is so acclaimed that he garners interviews in a high-profile gaming-related source deemed reliable (Kotaku) and a high-profile general news source (LA Times), that those interviews somehow shouldn't count as far as helping establish notability (?)... but, here are a couple more reliable sources that go beyond "trivial mentions from reviews of the games" and also are not interviews:

* https://www.polygon.com/2014/5/26/5751006/transitor-soundtrack-new-genre-old-world-electronic-post-rock

* https://www.gamespot.com/articles/the-music-of-transistor-in-the-key-of-red/1100-6420099/

Those are the ones already included in the article.

I didn't have to search much at all to find these, which I guess I'll spend the weekend and/or Monday & Tuesday incorporating into the article. Please note, I'll have to sift through these to see which ones can actually be suitable for the article and where exactly to place them within it, but the sheer amount of them should give you some sort of insight as to the fact that there is actually a lot to work with here. I included dates for my own reference for when I go through them:

Reference ideas for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Darren Korb

The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future:

Judging off of really quick glances at the headlines for these articles, it seems like Korb's contributions are heavily praised aspects of the games he has scored, and that includes a good amount of industry award nominations/wins. Some of these sources are award nomination listings. Aside from those, I'm sure some of the other sources only include a passing mention of Korb, but that's probably not the majority of them. And even then, those sources would likely provide great supplemental information for the article (I don't think that's a hot take either). I will definitely concede this article needs a considerable amount of reworking and polishing. But I'm really failing to grasp how the subject does not meet GNG. Hopefully once I incorporate the above sources into the article, that'll help. Soulbust (talk) 02:33, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is a load of WP:REFBOMBing and little of actual substance. The very fact that you had to list all of these sources instead of a few actually pertinent ones shows that you are trying to impress by sheer amount rather than what they actually contain. Many of them have almost nothing.

I would suggest listing the WP:THREE best possible sources that prove the article is notable rather than trying to make people too lazy to look through them and take you at your word. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 03:39, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I should also point you towards WP:PST since apparently you believe an article can rest solely on interviews as proof of notability. Specifically the first sentence, "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources". ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 03:48, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I do not why you are trying to assert that I'm "trying to impress by sheer amount", when I literally said I would sift through the sources personally to see what can be used. I only listed the sheer amount to display that there is a likelihood of "actual substance" as you put it. I'm not trying to make anyone look "too lazy" either; as I said: "Please note, I'll have to sift through these to see which ones can actually be suitable for the article and where exactly to place them within it, but the sheer amount of them should give you some sort of insight as to the fact that there is actually a lot to work with here." So again, please note that. Also I have no idea how you discerned in a little over an hour that most of theses 29 references I listed above "have almost nothing". I can't say I'll be able to go through them that fast as I'll be going through them carefully and thoroughly, but thanks for pointing me towards those guidelines. I also never said I believe an article can rest solely on interviews, only that "Primary coverage interviews are valuable" and that those interviews help establish notability. Thanks. Soulbust (talk) 04:51, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You sort through the sources before using them in an AfD unless you are trying to short-circuit the entire proceedings. Just dumping a list of random sources here doesn't help anything in the slightest and makes things more confusing for everyone, especially if none of them turn out to be WP:SIGCOV. Maybe wait until you have a leg to stand on before trying to say the nomination is wrong, rather than making ad hominem arguments about how it's impossible for me to read sources or analyze them. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 04:58, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You said "many of them have almost nothing". I simply pointed out how I didn't understand how you could make that assertion so soon, considering just how many sources there were, not an attempt at ad hominem. If you were able to go through them that fast, then cheers. I wish I could do that. I'm not trying to short-circuit any proceedings. I also give editors weighing in on this AfD all the faith that they can understand where I am coming from in my listing of those references. I'll move them to the article's talk page. I would also remove them from this discussion, but will leave them for now to not remove any context. Soulbust (talk) 05:07, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note for transparency: I condensed the listing of references into a ref ideas template so it's easier to digest going forward. All references I initially listed are still listed. Soulbust (talk) 05:22, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've incorporated a good chunk of those references into the article. Some of them definitely didn't have any real place in the article. Some of them were of the more supplemental nature I mentioned earlier. But all in all, the article is now fleshed out a good amount and I'm even more of the opinion now that it establishes GNG. There is definitely SIGCOV in there, with sources past just interviews. There is obviously still some room for improvement, but I think this is past a keep or delete situation. Will continue to improve article later in the week if possible. Soulbust (talk) 11:08, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Can you single out some that provide significant coverage to the subject itself please. We're here to establish notability through significant coverage of reliable sources, not every passing mention in existence. Sergecross73 msg me 17:42, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per these three sources: "Hades’ Godly Soundtrack Is A Natural Evolution For Supergiant’s Darren Korb", "Transistor soundtrack creation saw vocals recorded in wardrobe and the birth of a new genre", "Darren Korb, The Musical Mind Behind The Hades Soundtrack". I'll even throw in an extra one: The Music of Transistor: In The Key of Red. In addition, his music appears on many of the "Best of" lists which (while not often significant coverage) do good to establish notability in his field. Why? I Ask (talk) 17:55, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: He also won two 2011 Spike Video Game Awards for Best Song and Best Score and was nominated at The Game Awards 2014 and The Game Awards 2020 for Best Score. Clearly, WP:ANYBIO is met for that. Why? I Ask (talk) 19:22, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
See the words: "People are likely to be notable if they meet any of the following standards. Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included." ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:43, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Why I Asks sources above. Sergecross73 msg me 18:59, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That makes no sense. His name gets title dropped, but the significant coverage is not there. Unless notability is how many times you get mentioned in the title of an article, I can't imagine that qualifies for the WP:SIGCOV criterion. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:06, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I read the articles with my own eyes. He's discussed throughout the articles. It's going to be an uphill battle for you to convince people of it being a "passing mention" when he's name dropped in the article titles. Sergecross73 msg me 19:15, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Is it though? The articles describe the songs, not Korb himself. It literally only says the songs were made by Korb. If you're looking to prove the music of Hades or Transistor is notable, that's one matter, and it would support the existence of a Music of Hades (video game) article, but that doesn't prove Korb himself is. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:42, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Guidelines are nice and useful but I really think there's just an eye test aspect to this particular case. Especially now, after the contributions I made to the article last night - I think if one were to go through this article, they can see he has the tangible industry award recognition, as well as subjective critical acclaim to all of his works. This establishes GNG and is covered by sources in a way that meet SIGCOV. I don't quite love the idea of WP:THREE. I get that three is easier to sift through for an AfD discussion but it seems like an arbitrary mark to hit. That being said, I think the three listed above by Why? I Ask work well. I would additionally note this source: Pyre's Composer On The Challenges Of Creating His Most Diverse Game Soundtrack Yet (Kotaku). It includes some quotes from Korb, but it isn't a straight up Q&A-formatted interview source.

And in regard to the suggestion that it's his songs and not himself that is earning the coverage: I think in a lot of the referencing, it's actually his work or style on the songs. There's a lot of sourcing on the specific instruments and sonic palettes he uses in the soundtracks. And it isn't just Transistor and Hades. His work on Bastion has also received comparable levels of coverage and acclaim. And because he serves as the audio director for the games, his contributions to things like sound effects and voice recording are also to be included; and they are, cited by reliable sources in the article. It's also of note that his voice acting as the main character of Hades has been covered. An example of SIGCOV of that work includes: this Vice source. Soulbust (talk) 20:02, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Again, I will reiterate that an article on the games' music is probably notable. There are numerous such articles for many games and movies that have standout soundtracks. But notability is not inherited. This entire article is essentially taking the notability of the music and voice acted roles he made and attributing it to Darren Korb the person. But the soundtrack is what is notable here and is what the articles are about. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 00:04, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I get that notability isn't inherited but that criteria says "Inherited notability is the idea that something qualifies for an article merely because it was associated with some other, legitimately notable subjects. This is usually phrased as "____ is notable, because it is associated with Important Subject."" And I just don't think that applies to Korb. It would make more sense to say that of his work, i.e. "this soundtrack album does not have inherited notability just because it was made by Korb." I would also disagree with that, but it would make more sense to me. Like, what "other, legitimately notable subject" that Korb worked with is the subject that is somehow making Korb inherit notability? Because it can't be the games... because his work with Supergiant was as their audio director and composer, and later voice actor - and that work is a big factor as to what makes the games so acclaimed.

Darren Korb the person happens to be a composer, and his work as a composer happens to have garnered him much coverage in reliable sourcing. To me, this is like saying Tyrese Haliburton the person isn't notable outside of his work as a basketball player. Also in your response to @Sergecross73:, you questioned the articles as describing the songs, not Korb himself. This is untrue. I'm assuming we are discussing the articles that @Why? I Ask: listed. The VGR source is about Korb, and doesn't mention a song in specific. Same goes for the Polygon source, which discusses Korb's process when he approaches composing. Yes that is an aspect of his work, but it's closer to coverage of him as a composer than of his compositions. Soulbust (talk) 23:34, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If the journalists believed Korb himself was worthy of note, they would have done a profile on the person. Instead, they simply discussed only the music and the process of the music's creation. This indicates to me that the music is what they believed to be important, and Wikipedia should reflect that.

To show an example of the opposite, here is some significant coverage of Nobuo Uematsu from Time magazine. It mentions FF in passing, but mostly focuses on him. I wouldn't debate that demonstrates he is notable. It's possible the VGR article rises to that level, but it does not seem like a reliable source and was obviously tossed into the mix in a desperate attempt to find something that actually talks about him more specifically. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 04:59, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There are several interviews that sketch out profiles of Korb (especially his two in Nintendo Life [1][2]). (And yes, interviews can count toward notability per WP:INTERVIEW.) Why? I Ask (talk) 06:13, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the assertions in WP:INTERVIEW. However, I disagree that those Nintendo Life interviews have sufficient transformative thoughts to not be trivial, as stated by the essay. They are mostly lists of questions and answers, making them primary sources. I have not noted an interview with enough independent analysis of the person to be a viable secondary source. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:53, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You shifted from trying to say the articles only discuss the songs (which again wasn't true). Now it's that only his music, as opposed to him, is notable. And I don't understand what you're trying to say by trying to interpret the journalists' intents? I could as easily say they think Korb is worthy of note, and that since he is a vg composer they're going to cover his composition work (and voice acting work when applicable).

When I listed 29 sources, saying I would sift through them and see which were suitable for this article, you said I was trying to impress with the sheer amount. Now, 3 sources get listed by another editor (as per your request to mention WP:THREE sources) and you call one of those sources a desperate reach? Okay, what about the other 2 (or the bonus one added by Why? I Ask)? or the bonus one I offered?

FWIW, I would argue that that Time source helps establish notability for Nobuo Uematsu. Soulbust (talk) 07:54, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:

Since the argument is being made that a theoretical "Music of Hades" article would be cool over an article for Korb, I went through the Category:Video game soundtracks listing.

I had an extremely long chunk of text breaking down that listing, going through exclusions from that list and why I was excluding them. But I'm gonna try my best to condense it. Basically, my point for that was centered around any applicable article on that list (A: individual soundtracks, either obviously so reading the title of an article (Diablo II Soundtrack) or otherwise (Fleeting Colors in Flight), B: Music of [individual game] articles (like Music of The Last of Us). I understand that "other stuff exists" but y'know.

The reality is that the overwhelming majority of the composers, for the soundtracks discussed in those "Music of [x]" articles or something like Halo 4 Original Soundtrack, have their own articles. Whenever there is a composer that doesn't have an article, there's always a but scenario. And that scenario is usually they aren't the sole or lead composer like Korb is (i.e. Bill Helm for RDR - Helm did not return for RDR2 but RDR's co-composer did); this sort of scenario includes cases where composers only contributed additional or DLC compositions.

Basically, at the end of the day: Each sole composer of a game's soundtrack which has its own article on Wikipedia has an article of their own. And the overwhelming majority of these composers only have 1 such game that has its own "Music of [x]" article. Korb, with Bastion, Transistor, and especially Hades would potentially - and uncomfortably - have up to 3. Soulbust (talk) 08:08, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I was using that as an example of actual SIGCOV, although I think this argument is going nowhere. There's definitely a disagreement that's completely impossible to reconcile as to what exactly counts towards notability here, so others will have to weigh in. FWIW, I don't think it's that peculiar to have 3 articles on his music without having an article himself, being a composer in a niche indie game field whose music was just critically received incredibly well. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 08:10, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I misread/misunderstood your comment "I wouldn't debate that demonstrates he is notable." But I think some of the sourcing on Korb is akin to that example you provided in it meeting SIGCOV. Soulbust (e) 08:13, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A reminder that there's currently no one advocating for deletion beyond the nominator so far, so you dont really even need to be thinking of alternatives like this... Sergecross73 msg me 13:07, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I figured it wouldn't hurt to address it, but that's fair yeah. Soulbust (talk) 21:42, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per everyone else's arguments and rationales. The coverage surrounding this individual and his accolades are not subjective opinion, but objective facts. Uphill battle indeed. Haleth (talk) 13:16, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - as far as I'm concerned, Soulbust has provided enough sources with SIGCOV to meet GNG (and well done for keeping civil throughout). Ingratis (talk) 10:11, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.