Deletion of Seedfeeder

Comment: Los of coverage, and it is not all the same. This Greek news article (https://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_c?depth=1&hl=en&prev=search&rurl=translate.google.ca&sl=el&u=http://news247.gr/eidiseis/psixagogia/humor/texnh-h-porno-o-fantomas-seedfeeder-poy-ekane-akatallhlh-th-wikipedia.3170083.html&usg=ALkJrhiHek8tNeqoXS1Q5WvRYicf8StyrQ google translation here) appears to be different, and I saw sources in http://www.ilpost.it/giuliabalducci/2014/12/05/seedfeeder-illustratore-voci-sesso-wikipedia/ Italian, http://derstandard.at/2000008788005/Die-Geschichte-von-Wikipedias-bekanntesten-Sex-Illustrators 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  and 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NRV||WP:GNG)

Comment: 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 ), 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. &mdash
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: Coverage is sufficient for this to pass 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: 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 http://www.lesinrocks.com/2014/11/12/actualite/seedfeeder-lhomme-illustrait-sexe-wikipedia-11535122/http://news247.gr/eidiseis/psixagogia/humor/texnh-h-porno-o-fantomas-seedfeeder-poy-ekane-akatallhlh-th-wikipedia.3170083.htmlhttp://www.daringtodo.com/lang/it/2014/11/13/seedfeeder-sesso-wikipedia/http://blogs.20minutos.es/trasdos/2014/11/17/seedfeeder-ilustrador-sexo-wikipedia/ may possibly be of some use
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)