Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Portrait of Lotte

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. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure)

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

Portrait of Lotte

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

"Viral" video that has not received sustained coverage in independent, reliable sources. Vexations (talk) 23:58, 14 June 2018 (UTC) Withdrawn by nominator. Will work with main contributor CrayonS to improve the article. Vexations (talk) 11:35, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor 00:19, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor 00:19, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor 00:19, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It would be a notable page, if someone contributed instead of facing me with an AfD. 🖍S (talk) 20:18, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. You've only slammed a notice for an entry without contributing in any way. This lemon needs to be squeezed, doesn't it now? It is notable to an extent, but we think not. So, please add more to it instead of trying to cause unwanted attention over a page that has just started. Thank you. 🖍S (talk) 09:24, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep please. It has nearly 10 citations, with most being reliable sources, all with sufficient information for a page. 🖍S (talk) 10:17, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep if you consider this a self-published short film, the coverage seems to be sufficient to meet GNG. power~enwiki (π, ν) 16:32, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Power, it's not me who did it. I just stumbled across it and found news about it. It's not self-published. From my perspective as an intermediate Wikipedian, the thing about Wikipedia is that it's not aimed at original research and it's a place for notable articles. For one, I am over (possibly about) a thousand miles away from the Netherlands, which is where the filmmaker originates. I agree on ~~Keep~~ but I just hope many other contributors help. Thank you for reading. 🖍S (talk) 19:03, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Analysis of sources

[1] This is Yahoo's Trending now. Claims that Hofmeester is a filmmaker and an artist. That's dubious. He makes corporate videos for businesses and organizations like a midewifery, he's not a filmmaker and an artist.
[2] consists almost entirely of statements by Hofmeester
[3] again, mostly (the same) statements by Hofmeester
[4] This Time piece is more in-depth, and makes an effort to explore the (super-creepy) reasons why a video of a pre-pubescent girl gets far more attention than a largely identical video of her brother.
[5] A larger piece, from a source I've only seen used once, in Hermes (missile), which rather looks like clickbait.
[6] This BoingBoing piece offers nothing that hasn't already been said, and is not much more than a repost of a yahoo piece.
[7] This offers absolutely nothing, except an opportunity to pretend that that there are lots of sources (without mentioning that they all repeat the same stuff.
[8] looks like a dead link from where I tried to access it.
[9] My Modern Met, a site "formed to create one big city that celebrates creativity" doesn't look like the kind of site that has editorial control and a policy on fact, checking, but has been used in Greg Gossel, Kalliope Amorphous, Shirin Abedinirad, Hendrik-Jan Grievink, COMBO, Land art, Neo-Futurists,Michael Murphy (sculptor), Street art. I don't think its any good as a source, and evry article of theirs that we've ever used is supperficial clickbaity feelgood stuff.

Not mentioned in the article is the Guardian Piece that Hofmeester himself wrote, [10] and which, to a degree, all the source above appear to have used. There isn't anything in those sources that Hofmeester hasn't said. In summary: All the source are not dependent upon the primary source and have not conducted their own investigation, they merely repeat an unreliable source. The subject has been shared a lot on social and other web-based media, and garnered many views. That's the definition of a viral video. Is this anything but a viral video? Not according to the sources. Do we cover viral videos? I don't think we should, so that's why this has been nominated for deletion. Vexations (talk) 00:46, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, Wikipedia cares about reliable sources. It doesn't mean that you can't use reliable sources that have "most of its information from an unreliable source". Why don't you help?! Thank you for The Guardian one by the way. 🖍S (talk) 06:49, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Why do you want to analyse every single source it uses? Vexations, clickbait? Well, I've been forced to get as many sources as possible because of your AfD entry. To be quite honest, some of your pages aren't that good. You've hardly got much opinion to even back you on this one. 🖍S (talk) 06:59, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No personal attacks. Discuss the argument, not the editor, that you disagree with. Vexations (talk) 12:04, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm aware of it and I'm sorry if I personally attacked you. To be quite honest, it's not like I called you a troll. We are like the only ones in this AfD discussion. It is quite notable. Not perfect but it will survive. 🖍S (talk) 18:57, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ will be my conclusion. ~~Weak keep~~ for Power and for Vexations, someone who doesn't even bother contributing to my article unless it's an AfD entry, ~~Delete~~. OK. So, this discussion has been on for 7 days (1 week). Guys, should we get the administrator? 🖍S (talk) 09:23, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Enough with the insults. Vexations (talk) 11:45, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not insulting you! I'm just saying you're not bothering to contribute to what I've made. Why don't you contribute? I would really appreciate it. Please can you. 🖍S (talk) 16:01, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Contributors are reminded to !vote only once and instead of attacking the nom, show us why and how this meets WP:N.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 16:05, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, @RandyKitty. Sorry about my insults towards you, @Vexations. I was only frustrated on why you don't contribute. I just think this article does comply with WP:N and definitely WP:V. It will never be a featured article but it is notable enough to stay on Wikipedia. Just because these sources have roughly the same information, more or less, they still give and provide notability. 🖍S (talk) 16:14, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I will reply on your talk page, CrayonS Vexations (talk) 21:05, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Thank you very much, Vexations. 🖍S (talk) 21:28, 21 June 2018 (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.