374:), and 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 Knowledge (XXG), 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
813:. 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 Knowledge (XXG) -- all over Knowledge (XXG), 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
563:
837:, 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.
795:
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
747:
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
637:, 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:
804:
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
211:
Just because someone is a
Knowledge (XXG) 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
791:
The
Cracked.com article doesn't even mention Seedfeeder except in the image credit (i.e. it's about images on Knowledge (XXG)); 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,
805:
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
574:
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
608:
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
792:
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 Knowledge (XXG)/Commons pages).
240:
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.
378:. 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
180:
400:
800:(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
133:
652:
420:
440:
174:
796:
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,
711:
688:
271:
860:- 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...
216:
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
727:
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
810:
467:'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.
375:
676:
217:
140:
493:
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
494:
269:
379:
17:
717:
682:
571:
370:- 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
694:
567:
515:
is reliable. Yes, these articles still need to be incorporated into the
Knowledge (XXG) article, but hopefully these sources (
106:
101:
664:
213:
110:
195:
842:
778:
736:
588:
943:
658:
162:
40:
798:
Republished stories are not considered separate sources, but one source, which has simply appeared in multiple venues.
93:
670:
275:
268:
in my opinion; the coverage there is significant, independent, reliable etc. Additionally, a couple of these sources
226:
which (to put it politely) has something of a reputation for reprinting directly from blogs without factchecking. ‑
301:: I agree with the thoughts above. (I don't really have anything else to add as what I think has been said above.) —
756:
535:
511:: I added three of the four sources provided above by Bilorv to the External links section. I am unable to tell if
249:
645:
222:
728:
700:
902:
838:
774:
732:
603:
584:
498:
341:
156:
512:
273:
475:
306:
318:: Bilorv basically summarized exactly what I was going to say on this topic, so no need to be redundant.
939:
906:
886:
878:
768:
749:
528:
336:
242:
36:
152:
924:
869:
846:
826:
782:
763:
740:
626:
610:
592:
554:
542:
502:
485:
452:
432:
412:
391:
362:
346:
327:
310:
293:
256:
230:
75:
323:
834:
819:
634:
619:
464:
445:
425:
405:
384:
188:
202:
523:
898:
865:
468:
302:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
938:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
57:
50:
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
287:
613:, could you point to any enduring coverage at all (the "over a period of time" part of the
580:
576:
371:
355:
265:
894:
319:
227:
97:
910:
801:
382:, although these sources only sort of allude to controversy rather than constitute it. —
168:
920:
63:
614:
890:
359:
264:: the Metro, Gawker, Il Post and perhaps Ijsberg Magazine sources are enough to meet
861:
909:
that there is potentially enough coverage here to hopefully get the article up to
127:
882:
281:
517:
89:
81:
915:
212:"references" still consist of two Gawker posts, two cracked.com posts and
562:. Los of coverage, and it is not all the same. This Greek news article (
729:
Seedfeeder's work is called one of the top ten digital artworks of 2014
932:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
401:
list of
Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions
123:
119:
115:
187:
731:, right up there with other notable digital artists.
335:, as per Bilorv's and Another Believer's comments. –
809:
use this material to, ahem, "seed" an article about
201:
43:). No further edits should be made to this page.
946:). No further edits should be made to this page.
701:An Artnet news article listing Seedfeeder's work
566:) appears to be different, and I saw sources in
421:list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions
877:. Essentially agree with rationale provided by
677:Metro UK article with content similar to Gawker
773:, I'll take a shot at adding them later today!
8:
811:Sexually explicit content on Knowledge (XXG)
439:Note: This debate has been included in the
419:Note: This debate has been included in the
399:Note: This debate has been included in the
376:Sexually explicit content on Knowledge (XXG)
441:list of People-related deletion discussions
438:
418:
398:
354:. Coverage is sufficient for this to pass
527:) help with establishing notability. ---
797:
380:List of Knowledge (XXG) controversies
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
24:
705:top ten digital artworks of 2014
720:with a paragraph on Seedfeeder.
925:20:48, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
870:15:51, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
847:21:11, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
827:13:56, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
783:18:29, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
764:18:27, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
741:18:19, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
627:11:52, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
593:06:26, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
555:04:48, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
543:21:56, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
503:03:19, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
486:21:12, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
453:19:09, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
433:19:08, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
413:19:08, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
392:19:07, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
363:13:50, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
347:22:56, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
328:22:24, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
311:21:33, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
294:20:41, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
257:19:32, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
231:17:23, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
214:a single short Huffington Post
76:00:01, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
1:
911:Good Article level of quality
683:Article on Austrian news site
277:may possibly be of some use.
665:Huffpost article in english
963:
550:, as per reasons above.--
935:Please do not modify it.
32:Please do not modify it.
564:google translation here
905:, above. I agree with
712:A polish news article
689:news article in Greek
695:Italian news article
671:Spanish news article
653:A Dutch news article
617:"in a nutshell")? —
646:Cracked.com article
465:User:Rhododendrites
903:New Media Theorist
839:New Media Theorist
775:New Media Theorist
733:New Media Theorist
604:New Media Theorist
585:New Media Theorist
524:Les Inrockuptibles
716:9 Febrary 2015 A
699:24 December 2014
687:30 November 2014
681:29 November 2014
675:29 November 2014
669:18 November 2014
651:28 Feburary 2013
644:26 February 2013
575:notability", per
455:
435:
415:
61:
58:non-admin closure
954:
937:
907:Another Believer
879:Another Believer
824:
822:
771:
770:Another Believer
759:
752:
751:Another Believer
710:11 January 2015
693:5 December 2014
624:
622:
607:
553:
538:
531:
530:Another Believer
482:
479:
472:
450:
448:
430:
428:
410:
408:
389:
387:
292:
252:
245:
244:Another Believer
206:
205:
191:
143:
131:
113:
73:
68:
55:
34:
962:
961:
957:
956:
955:
953:
952:
951:
950:
944:deletion review
933:
820:
818:
769:
762:
757:
750:
703:as one of the "
620:
618:
601:
551:
541:
536:
529:
480:
477:
470:
446:
444:
426:
424:
406:
404:
385:
383:
345:
291:
278:
255:
250:
243:
148:
139:
104:
88:
85:
69:
64:
48:The result was
41:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
960:
958:
949:
948:
928:
927:
872:
854:
853:
852:
851:
850:
849:
835:Rhododendrites
821:Rhododendrites
793:
789:
788:
787:
786:
785:
754:
725:
724:
723:
722:
721:
714:
708:
697:
691:
685:
679:
673:
667:
661:
659:Gawker article
655:
649:
639:
638:
635:Rhododendrites
629:
621:Rhododendrites
596:
595:
557:
545:
533:
506:
488:
457:
456:
447:Rhododendrites
436:
427:Rhododendrites
416:
407:Rhododendrites
395:
394:
386:Rhododendrites
365:
349:
339:
330:
313:
296:
285:
259:
247:
236:My vote is to
209:
208:
145:
84:
79:
46:
45:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
959:
947:
945:
941:
936:
930:
929:
926:
922:
918:
917:
912:
908:
904:
900:
896:
892:
888:
887:Zumoarirodoka
884:
880:
876:
873:
871:
867:
863:
859:
856:
855:
848:
844:
840:
836:
833:
830:
829:
828:
823:
816:
812:
808:
803:
799:
794:
790:
784:
780:
776:
772:
767:
766:
765:
760:
753:
746:
745:
744:
743:
742:
738:
734:
730:
726:
719:
715:
713:
709:
706:
702:
698:
696:
692:
690:
686:
684:
680:
678:
674:
672:
668:
666:
662:
660:
656:
654:
650:
647:
643:
642:
641:
640:
636:
633:
630:
628:
623:
616:
612:
605:
600:
599:
598:
597:
594:
590:
586:
582:
578:
573:
569:
565:
561:
558:
556:
549:
546:
544:
539:
532:
526:
525:
520:
519:
514:
510:
507:
504:
500:
496:
495:184.88.131.18
492:
489:
487:
484:
483:
474:
473:
466:
462:
459:
458:
454:
449:
442:
437:
434:
429:
422:
417:
414:
409:
402:
397:
396:
393:
388:
381:
377:
373:
369:
366:
364:
361:
357:
353:
350:
348:
344:
343:
338:
337:Zumoarirodoka
334:
331:
329:
325:
321:
317:
314:
312:
308:
304:
300:
297:
295:
290:
289:
284:
283:
276:
274:
272:
270:
267:
263:
260:
258:
253:
246:
239:
235:
234:
233:
232:
229:
225:
224:
219:
215:
204:
200:
197:
194:
190:
186:
182:
179:
176:
173:
170:
167:
164:
161:
158:
154:
151:
150:Find sources:
146:
142:
138:
135:
129:
125:
121:
117:
112:
108:
103:
99:
95:
91:
87:
86:
83:
80:
78:
77:
74:
72:
67:
59:
53:
52:
44:
42:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
934:
931:
914:
913:. Cheers, —
899:DangerousJXD
874:
857:
831:
814:
806:
718:Vice article
704:
663:12 Nov 2015
657:12 Nov 2015
631:
559:
547:
522:
516:
508:
490:
476:
471:freshacconci
469:
460:
367:
351:
340:
332:
315:
303:DangerousJXD
298:
286:
280:
261:
237:
221:
218:this article
210:
198:
192:
184:
177:
171:
165:
159:
149:
136:
70:
65:
49:
47:
31:
28:
611:Surv1v411st
552:Surv1v4l1st
513:this source
175:free images
895:Rockypedia
817:kept :P —
518:20 minutos
320:Rockypedia
228:iridescent
90:Seedfeeder
82:Seedfeeder
940:talk page
748:page. ---
548:Weak Keep
51:Snow Keep
37:talk page
942:or in a
891:SSTflyer
832:Comment'
134:View log
39:or in a
862:Carrite
632:Comment
568:Italian
181:WP refs
169:scholar
107:protect
102:history
901:, and
883:Bilorv
581:WP:GNG
577:WP:NRV
572:German
491:Delete
461:Delete
372:WP:GNG
368:Delete
356:WP:GNG
342:(talk)
288:(talk)
282:Bilorv
153:Google
111:delete
807:could
802:WP:RS
481:to me
223:Metro
196:JSTOR
157:books
141:Stats
128:views
120:watch
116:links
66:Davey
16:<
921:talk
916:Cirt
875:Keep
866:talk
858:Keep
843:talk
779:talk
758:Talk
737:talk
615:WP:N
589:talk
579:and
560:Keep
537:Talk
509:Note
499:talk
478:talk
463:per
443:. —
423:. —
403:. —
352:Keep
333:Keep
324:talk
316:Keep
307:talk
299:Keep
262:Keep
251:Talk
238:keep
189:FENS
163:news
124:logs
98:talk
94:edit
71:2010
825:\\
625:\\
451:\\
431:\\
411:\\
390:\\
360:sst
266:GNG
241:---
220:in
203:TWL
132:– (
54:.
923:)
897:,
893:,
889:,
885:,
881:,
868:)
845:)
815:is
781:)
739:)
591:)
570:,
521:,
501:)
358:.
326:)
309:)
279:—
183:)
126:|
122:|
118:|
114:|
109:|
105:|
100:|
96:|
919:(
864:(
841:(
777:(
761:)
755:(
735:(
707:"
648:.
606::
602:@
587:(
583:.
540:)
534:(
505:.
497:(
322:(
305:(
254:)
248:(
207:)
199:·
193:·
185:·
178:·
172:·
166:·
160:·
155:(
147:(
144:)
137:·
130:)
92:(
62:–
60:)
56:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.