Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Seedfeeder (2nd 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. (non-admin closure) ASTIG😎  (ICE T • ICE CUBE) 02:00, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Seedfeeder
AfDs for this article:


 * – ( View AfD View log )

This was kept at the previous AfD six years ago but, frankly, we got it wrong. I saw it nominated for GAN so figured I'd send it back before someone spent the time doing a review.

At the time of the last AfD, I don't think there was yet a clear consensus that Gawker, Cracked, and Metro were unreliable, and didn't have WP:RSP as a handy link demonstrating as much.

Basically what we have is an article in an unreliable source (Gawker) about Seedfeeder and a bunch of churnalism and aggregation based on that Gawker article. The Artnet listicle did a lot of heavy lifting in the last AfD (more than any listicle should), and that too is just a single paragraph connected to the Gawker article.

I like it when Wikipedia culture makes it to the mainstream, and find Seedfeeder to be a really interesting case, but I'm just not seeing sufficient coverage in reliable sources to justify a stand-alone article. &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 01:54, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. &mdash;  Rhododendrites  talk \\ 01:54, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. &mdash;  Rhododendrites  talk \\ 01:54, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. &mdash;  Rhododendrites  talk \\ 01:54, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Comment changed later downthread I'm the person who nominated for GA, based off of a comment on the talk page that suggested at least in 2016 that at least one editor thought that the article was at least B class, and I figured 'eh it won't hurt anyone to nom it, it looks like it meets the criteria to me on a skim, it'll be fine'. Here's a source assess table from my personal opinion, because I'm very bad at explaning things simply.

Even if naTemat and Der Standard end up evaluating as a Yes count, that's still a very weak Keep, and right now it looks more like Delete unless someone can find more RS, but I'm keeping as a Comment for now. casualdejekyll (talk) 01:46, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep I confirm the result of the previous AfD, and agree with some of the criticism that Casualdejekyll raises. Sources which I recognize as establishing notability are Der Standard, Gawker, Artnet, and Cracked.com. For anyone who needs to confirm the Der Standard link, access the article through Internet Archive (linked in English Wikipedia's references on the article) and run it through a German to English translation service. It is original content about Seedfeeder. I hear the criticism that Gawker as a publication may be unreliable. I see Gawker as reliable in this case because its coverage here is an art review and matter of opinion, and consequently not subject to any reliability assessment. I recognize the criticism that many cited sources are responses to the Gawker paper and may not contribute to GNG, but I still accept the Gawker source as solid original content. Artnews is an appropriate source for recognize important contemporary artists, and the paragraph and its context of identifying important art of the time contributes to GNG. Finally cracked.com, juvenile and sensational though it is, is a major publication representing a large demographic of readers seeking mildly weird content, and is an appropriate venue for publishing what needs to be said about odd sex art in Wikipedia. To pass GNG the most generous interpretation is that we only need two sources with two perspectives. These cited sources demonstrate that the subject of this article meets that low standard. The Polish language article, naTemat, also contains original content and interpretations, but it was a response to the Gawker article also. I favor counting this third-language source as yet another point toward meeting GNG, but I hear the criticism about Gawker being the source of too much here.  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  21:28, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I was originally not going to !vote, but now that you've clarified Der Standard and naTemat enough for me, I'm thinking this is a Keep. casualdejekyll (talk) 02:09, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I guess I would just point back to the large, well-attended discussions/RfCs resulting in Gawker and Cracked.com being considered generally unreliable. Insofar as notability needs to be based on reliable sources, that's a big issue. Also, since I'm here, I'll add that when all of the coverage of a subject is based on a single article, it's also a WP:SUSTAINED issue. We need coverage over time. I think if this were a flash-in-the-pan YouTube video, meme, etc. (which gets similar bursts of coverage, often sparked by a single article) rather than a beloved eccentric bit of wikipedia lore, we wouldn't see as much of an effort to keep. &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 21:40, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree with the consensus at Reliable sources/Perennial sources / WP:RSP that the sources there lack appropriate fact checking in news journalism, but I disagree or dispute that those sources are inappropriate for giving opinions in their own subject matter domain. Not all journalism requires fact checking, such as art reviews, authors stating their own opinions, or the positions of the demographic which the magazine publishes with the consensus of its readership. The expertise of cracked is identifying weird stuff on the Internet and the position they take is that the images are hilarious and that they make sex look like an airplane safety pamphlet. I feel this evaluation is entirely in the domain of that publication, and the fitting nature of their review combined with the high readership of that publication makes me count that website as a reliable source for this case. With Gawker I feel similarly; they share the opinion that Seedfeeder is Wikipedia's greatest sex illustrator. There is no real way to fact check their opinion, but they do stake their editorial reputation on publishing reviews like this and Gawker was a major publication with many staff. I do not think we should put extra weight on Gawker for this reason, but it happens that on the board of the Wikimedia Foundation they have the former Gawker CEO Raju Narisetti, and he is there because he is a media leader who ran a company which was respectable for its own kind of journalism. Gawker is a major publication and it has a context where citing it is justified.
 * As a general matter, I would join discussion at WP:RSP advocating for an exception for opinions, art reviews, and statements in the name of the publication itself. Again - I see opinions as different from statements of fact.  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  22:53, 4 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment: my !vote from the 2015 AfD is not one I'll reaffirm as it relied on mostly heavily unreliable sources, but the four sources I found for it that were/are not in the article still seem relevant: . — Bilorv ( talk ) 14:50, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I'll admit, hard for me to be objective about this one as an article contributor, but I'm looking at the sources (currently used as citations and otherwise) and previous deletion discussion and I'm still leaning keep. I don't expect my vote to carry much weight here and I'm curious to see what other editors think. I'm also curious to see how the Good article review goes, if the nomination gets picked up. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 22:06, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep per discussion esp. Blue Rasberry's reasoning. Randy Kryn (talk) 17:37, 7 August 2021 (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.