Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Seedfeeder

Seedfeeder

Seedfeeder (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Just because someone is a Wikipedia editor doesn't mean we should make extra efforts to delete their article, but equally it doesn't mean we should make extra efforts to keep it, and by no possible measure is this person notable. That this article has been up for almost a year now, and the "references" still consist of two Gawker posts, two cracked.com posts and a single short Huffington Post article, strongly suggests to me that the reliable sources don't exist—the only mention I can find in anything even vaguely resembling a legitimate source is this article in Metro which (to put it politely) has something of a reputation for reprinting directly from blogs without factchecking.  ‑ iridescent 17:23, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

• My vote is to keep the article, which I created. The sources currently used to construct the article, plus the external links (and perhaps others?) are enough to satisfy WP:GNG for me, but perhaps I am in the minority. The fact that this article about a Wikipedian is irrelevant. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 19:32, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
• Keep: the Metro, Gawker, Il Post and perhaps Ijsberg Magazine sources are enough to meet GNG in my opinion; the coverage there is significant, independent, reliable etc. Additionally, a couple of these sources [1][2][3][4] may possibly be of some use. — Bilorv_(talk)^(c)(e) 20:41, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
• Keep: I agree with the thoughts above. (I don't really have anything else to add as what I think has been said above.) —DangerousJXD (talk) 21:33, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
• Keep: Bilorv basically summarized exactly what I was going to say on this topic, so no need to be redundant. Rockypedia (talk) 22:24, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
• Keep, as per Bilorv's and Another Believer's comments. – Zumoarirodoka_(talk)^(email) 22:56, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
• Keep. Coverage is sufficient for this to pass WP:GNG. sst^flyer 13:50, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
• Delete - Every source is from the same span of time in November 2011 (i.e. no persistent coverage over a period of time, as required by WP:GNG), and [nearly?] all based on the same single source (the Gawker piece, which is credited explicitly in most of them and goes unattributed in a few others, despite content being consistent). Gawker and the others make some comments about the style of this set of images and talks at length about pornography on Wikipedia, what's considered pornography, etc., but the articles say almost nothing about Seedfeeder because almost nothing is known about him. What would this article look like as an FA? Well it would have to be about this collection of images rather than Seedfeeder himself, that much is certain, but more likely it would be part of something along the lines of Sexually explicit content on Wikipedia. If such an article existed, I would say Merge as these sources look to merit inclusion somewhere, but lacking a target, I have to say delete without prejudice to inclusion elsewhere when a sensible target can be determined. The only target I can think of is List of Wikipedia controversies, although these sources only sort of allude to controversy rather than constitute it. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:07, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:08, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:08, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:09, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

• Delete per User:Rhododendrites's sound reasoning. This was one minor event that disappeared quickly. Some sort of merge or redirect could be done I suppose, but that's really it. freshacconci talk to me 21:12, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
• Delete The sources are unreliable and sketchy. Even if the article were to be cleaned up, the subject matter is still trivial and not very notable 184.88.131.18 (talk) 03:19, 24 September 2015 (UTC).
• Note: I added three of the four sources provided above by Bilorv to the External links section. I am unable to tell if this source is reliable. Yes, these articles still need to be incorporated into the Wikipedia article, but hopefully these sources (20 minutos, Les Inrockuptibles) help with establishing notability. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 21:56, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
• Weak Keep, as per reasons above.--Surv1v4l1st ^{(Talk|Contribs)} 04:48, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
• Keep. Los of coverage, and it is not all the same. This Greek news article (google translation here) appears to be different, and I saw sources in Italian, German and several other languages. Plenty notable with lots of global coverage. A dozen or more international articles in numerous countries on different continents is "verifiable, objective evidence that the subject has received significant attention from independent sources to support a claim of notability", per WP:NRV and WP:GNG.New Media Theorist (talk) 06:26, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

• @New Media Theorist: You linked to three articles as examples of independent coverage. While they're obviously not reposts, two of the three refer back to that one Gawker article and the one that doesn't just happened to be published in the same span of a couple weeks as all the rest. @NMT or Surv1v411st, could you point to any enduring coverage at all (the "over a period of time" part of the WP:N "in a nutshell")? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 11:52, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
• Comment Rhododendrites, I had a look at the WP:GNG page, just as a refresher, and while I tend to agree that "over time" is a requirement, that phrase does not occur in the detailed criteria for notability-- it's just in the nutshell description. In any case, here's a shot at a timeline establishing coverage over time:

• 26 February 2013 Cracked.com article.
• 28 Feburary 2013 A Dutch news article
• 12 Nov 2015 Gawker article
• 12 Nov 2015 Huffpost article in english
• 18 November 2014 Spanish news article
• 29 November 2014 Metro UK article with content similar to Gawker
• 29 November 2014 Article on Austrian news site
• 30 November 2014 news article in Greek
• 5 December 2014 Italian news article
• 24 December 2014 An Artnet news article listing Seedfeeder's work as one of the "top ten digital artworks of 2014"
• 11 January 2015 A polish news article
• 9 Febrary 2015 A Vice article with a paragraph on Seedfeeder.

The articles above appeared over 23 months, which amply satisfies the "over time" criteria, I would think. The clincher for me is the Artnet link where Seedfeeder's work is called one of the top ten digital artworks of 2014, right up there with other notable digital artists. New Media Theorist (talk) 18:19, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for putting together this outline. It is too bad the energy behind this deletion discussion couldn't have been put to use better by expanding the article itself, as it would probably be GA-worthy by now. Thanks for supplying these additional sources! I will add them to the article's talk page. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 18:27, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Another Believer, I'll take a shot at adding them later today!New Media Theorist (talk) 18:29, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

The Cracked.com article doesn't even mention Seedfeeder except in the image credit (i.e. it's about images on Wikipedia); The Dutch news article is based on the Cracked.com article; Then there's the Gawker article; then it was picked up/summarized by other blogs so we get Huffington Post, 20minutos, Metro, DerStandard, News247, Ilpost, ArtNet, and Natemat all linking to Gawker and offering no new information about the subject of this article (e.g. they pulled the information from Gawker or followed Gawker to the same Wikipedia/Commons pages).

So we have picture credits and a brief mention in 2013, the Gawker article and derivatives (mostly concentrated in the span of a couple weeks, with one latecomer in Natemat, but none of them actually offering any unique information about Seedfeeder beyond Gawker, as far as I can tell), and another mention in Vice in 2015 (a paragraph about a couple of his images). I have to stand by my delete !vote in the absence of a sensible place to merge. Procedurally, Republished stories are not considered separate sources, but one source, which has simply appeared in multiple venues. (there's a debate as to whether paraphrasing another blog and adding a couple words or a paragraph on a tengential subject is republishing, I suppose, but it seems within the spirit of what WP:RS is trying to communicate there). Practically speaking, I again have to wonder what an FA about him could look like, short of going off on tangents, including OR, or close paraphrasing Gawker (even if we cite the other sources, they're all based on Gawker -- even the bulletpoint we could get from ArtNet, being included in that list, was requested by and included in the Gawker article). At the rate this AfD is going, even if the tide turns there are enough keeps that this would likely be closed as no consensus, but still I'll ask if anyone has any ideas for a possible merge target? We could use this material to, ahem, "seed" an article about Sexually explicit content on Wikipedia. I was surprised to see we don't have that, actually. That looks to be the bigger subject. There's the mystery of Seedfeeder's identity, the novelty of his specialization, but why I think it gets attention is because it's on Wikipedia -- all over Wikipedia, in fact, and isn't that interesting that this resource is a venue for what some people consider pornography? Hell, I might create that article even if this is kept :P — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:56, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Comment' Rhododendrites, I hear what you are saying, but I might note that the Artnet article is actually not a republication of anyone else's work. It specifically names Seedfeeder's work as one of the top ten notable digital artworks of 2014. It's an independent, reliable source that speaks specifically of the notability of the artist's work.New Media Theorist (talk) 21:11, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

• Keep - It should be noted that the supposed "External LInks" are non-English journalism, for the most part. Passes GNG regardless of what you think of his work... Carrite (talk) 15:51, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
• Keep. Essentially agree with rationale provided by Another Believer, Bilorv, Zumoarirodoka, SSTflyer, Rockypedia, DangerousJXD, and New Media Theorist, above. I agree with Another Believer that there is potentially enough coverage here to hopefully get the article up to Good Article level of quality. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 20:48, 27 September 2015 (UTC)