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 delete. The consensus among editors who made arguments based on Wikipedia's policies and guidelines is that this article should be deleted. Users voting keep could not demonstrate adequate reliable sourcing for the article in order to show that the subject meets the general notability guideline and would therefore be notable. Sam Walton (talk) 11:46, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

David Seaman (journalist)[edit]


David Seaman (journalist) (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)

A marginal American writer/blogger and YouTube personality. I do not think he has received significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. The article subject has apparently has published a book (which describes him as "the founder of Shutterline Interactive, a vehicle for rapidly deploying publicity stunts") but he does not appear to have gained any more significant coverage as an business owner or author than he has as a commentator. There are mentions in him in unreliable sources (which I've taken out) but nothing very little (i.e., passing mentions) in reliable, independent publications. Neutralitytalk 23:45, 7 December 2016 (UTC) (updated 16:17, 11 December 2016)[reply]

Keep - as I said above I only know how to donate to Wikipedia, but encoruage all to write "Keep" because they will use their knowledge of Wikipedia to say this page has 1 neutral and 1 Delete if you don't write Keep. At least I hope it is Keep I need to write. Not sure, as I said I only know how to donate. Perhaps user "Neutrality" if he really is as his name states, perhaps he/she can tell me how I am officially supposed to state that I do not want this article deleted? Thanks. 181.20.69.111 (talk) 01:58, 8 December 2016 (UTC) — 181.20.69.111 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Note - Articles for Deletion Discussions are not a vote - it doesn't matter how many people say Keep or Delete - These discussions are about Wikipedia's General Notability Guidelines and the Guidelines for Biographies of Living Persons. Encouraging random, non-logged-in editors to say "Keep" just undermines whatever points you're trying to make. You'd be better off having just one person making a reasoned, balanced argument. Getting people to come here and blindly say "we should keep this article" will, eventually, not achieve anything. Exemplo347 (talk) 02:03, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Seaman's notability is indisputable. His firing from Huffington Post was widely and internationally publicized and prior to that he was a very well-known reporter for both HuffPo and Business Insider, major publications. Seaman used his standing to garner an extremely large social media audience afterwards, which evidences his existing notability. The article as it stands now refers to Pizzagate as a conspiracy theory generally believed to be false. The standard of non-controversial biographical facts being placed alongside but separate from those on controversies, legal troubles, etc. meets that of other bio articles.199.122.112.244 (talk) 02:26, 8 December 2016 (UTC) — 199.122.112.244 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Note - There is definitely no consensus or strength of argument in favour of retaining this article. There has been very little reference made to the General Notability Guidelines and the Guidelines for Biographies of Living Persons - the issues that this Article for Deletion Discussion is actually discussing. Exemplo347 (talk) 02:48, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It seems very odd that at the height of Seaman's growing notability/notoriety he is being nominated on the basis non-notability. Prior to being fired from Huffington Post for his articles on Hillary Clinton, Seaman was well-known journalist with a long list of major outlets, an appropriate person for a wiki article. When he was fired, he garnered more notability, and more still from his reporting on the Pizzagate story.50.182.99.115 (talk) 03:20, 8 December 2016 (UTC)— 50.182.99.115 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Yes, you've already said that, pretty much word for word Exemplo347 (talk) 03:24, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I currently see two that are just profiles, two that barely mention the subject of this article and one which appears to be just a rehash of a conspiracy theory. Which sources are you referring to? Exemplo347 (talk) 04:12, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
None of these are in-depth, significant coverage from reliable secondary sources. The citations consist of: (1) a simple log of his blog posts at two sites (The Street, HuffPo); (2) a brief mention of his video in a low-quality news agreggator (Inquisitr); (3) a passing mention in an unsigned Huffington Post blog post from "Outspeak," an online-video network; (4) a passing mention of "someone who tweets under the name David Seaman" in a local TV article; and (5) a passing mention in a Wall Street Journal op-ed. None of these are in-depth. Neutralitytalk 04:41, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ "Pizzagate: What Is Next? 'Daily Show' To Feature Panel On Satanic Pedophile Scandal". inquisitr.com. Retrieved 8 December 2016.
Yes, I understand your point in following the Wikipedia policies to a tee, but I think you missed my major point that followed. Looking at the article, it seems that it's turned into a battlefield of two camps motivated by Pizzagate. I'm concerned that this discussion is marred with the controversy and isn't as much about the said journo than it is about the scandal. Regarding the article, if it can't be rewritten to meet the general BLP criteria, then it should be deleted. Personally, I'm not into the strictest following of the BLP policy since as I stated earlier, as it is too restricting in some cases and I would like to see first if the article can be corrected and rewritten rather than deleted. I'd even see that if there is a consensus that this Pizzagate is the biggest claim to notability for Seaman, this article should be merged with Pizzagate - although it seems that the situation is not particularly settled there either. Sk4170 (talk) 14:35, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Simtropolitan: If "reliable sources do exist" then please add them to the article. Improving an article during a delete discussion is encouraged. --Krelnik (talk) 16:59, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have to note that this is not correct. First, he has not "worked for" notable mainstream sources; he was an apparently unpaid Huffington Post "contributor," which meant that he occasionally published blog posts on their site. See here: In 2011, there were "close to 15,000 people" who were HuffPo contributors. Being a HuffPo contributor, standing alone, is no different from being an independent blogger and does not confer notability. There is zero evidence that Seaman has been a staff writer nor a professional freelancer or any publication. And, even if he did work for some publication at some point, notability is not inherited from one's job. Second, his "mentions" in other sources consist passing references in less than a handful of op-eds/blog posts (including a student newspaper). This is not WP:INDEPTH significant coverage. Neutralitytalk 17:55, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you think some of those figures are non-notable, then propose deletion or AfD them. (In fact, I've just proposed deletion of Éric Messier (journalist) because I can't find any in-depth, significant coverage for that. Until then, this is just a WP:OTHERSTUFF argument. Neutralitytalk 17:55, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
At least one or two of these is not in fact a reliable source, and most are passing mentions:
Wall Street Journal: passing mention (1 sentence) in op-ed (not news piece - not really reliable for factual assertions)
Business Insider: self-published blog post by subject himself (WP:SELFPUB): comes with prominent disclaimer that says "David Seaman's views are his own, and Business Insider's publication of his work is not an endorsement."
El Horizonte: Brief mention in local newspaper that merely quotes Seaman's accusations in video. No analysis or other information.
"Slate.fr": Merely copies a single Tweet from Seaman. No analysis or other information.
"Valeurs Actuelles": brief mention in conservative French newsmagazine that merely notes one of Seaman's YouTube videos.
Vanguardia.com.mx: probably the most coverage, but discusses Seaman entirely in terms of Twitter policy. Unsigned article.
Terra Networks: not reliable; appears to be platform for self-published blogs, similar to Wordpress. Attributed to "ALT1040."
So this falls far, far short of in-depth, significant coverage. Neutralitytalk 19:03, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, much of the above consists of extreme, casuistic hairsplitting: The Wall Street Journal is discarded for not being hard news — as if this matters for establishing WP:N. El Horizonte is, incredibly, dismissed as a "local newspaper" — serving a city of 4.5 million people. Valeurs Actuelles is described as "French" and "conservative," as if its nationality or political bent were relevant to the topic, and misleadingly characterized as "about a Youtube video" — in actual fact, the entire article is devoted to Seaman as un journaliste viré pour avoir évoqué la santé de Clinton. Vanguardia is, irrelevantly, described as "unsigned" (does that discredit The Economist as well?). Albrecht (talk) 19:29, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"Hard news" vs. editorial content does matter for establishing notability – notability, as mentioned above, requires reliable sourcing. Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 04:42, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Until and unless the very existence of the subject of this AfD is called into question, the Wall Street Journal op-ed will be admissible as a WP:RS like any other: what's at stake here is not any specific factual statement found in the op-ed, but that the subject of this AfD was sufficiently notable to figure in editorial content relating to the Clinton health story. (In other words, the subject of this AfD's putative "firing" was considered newsworthy — regardless of the factual details. His claims being reported and/or discussed in the press was/is itself a socially significant fact). Albrecht (talk) 05:10, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, the reliably-sourced information that emerges – at the most – is that James Taranto believes Seaman was fired for questioning Clinton's health. The piece requires payment to read, so I don't know more than that. But it does not constitute significant coverage. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 07:48, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion doesn't concern an event's social significance, but whether the article meets the relevant criteria for deletion according to wikipedia's policies. Today's weather was also "discussed in the press", but not everything a newspaper prints is notable enough for an encyclopedia article. Evidently the only mention of Seaman here was related to Seaman's claim of having been fired from Huffington Post – an opinion piece or op-ed isn't subject to the same editorial scrutiny as actual news, and so wouldn't be reliable for such statements. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 16:01, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If we were concerned with establishing or verifying the facts behind the Huffington Post firing, your concerns about the "reliability" of the op-ed would have merit. Since we are instead discussing the claim, which forms the basis of this AfD, that there is "nothing in reliable, independent publications" on the subject of this AfD, your concerns are misplaced. (Your invocation of WP:NOTNEWS, moreover, strikes me as equally misplaced, if not abusive: the alleged firing of a journalist reporting on a major candidate in the midst of a polarized electoral campaign is patently not the same as a weather report.) Albrecht (talk) 16:03, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I was referring only to the WSJ editorial. Since it was used as evidence of notability, concerns about its reliability as a source are clearly warranted. If the WSJ truly considered the event to be "newsworthy", they would have reported it in the regular news pages, not merely given it a passing mention in the opinion section. I concur with the objections given above to the sources mentioned – a collection of passing references to a person or event don't confer notability. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 16:23, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The Wall Street Journal is a WP:RS. The incident in question was given coverage in multiple international RSs, including regular news pages. You are entitled to your opinion about what constitutes WP:INDEPTH, but you should at least have the good faith to recognize that the initial premise of this AfD — that there is "nothing in reliable, independent publications" — is false. Albrecht (talk) 16:35, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia does not have a strict definition of which publications are reliable and which are not. The reliability of a source depends on context. The guideline regarding editorial content that I quoted above is clear in stating that opinion pieces are not generally reliable for factual claims. I addressed the remark about this AfD's premise in a reply further down the page. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 05:35, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As has been copiously (some might say tediously) explained above, the matter at hand — whether the subject of this AfD received coverage in a WSJ op-ed — is not a fact that can be doubted by invoking lower standards of accuracy in editorial pages — unless you believe these standards are so low that one can write "David Seaman" but mean "Darth Vader." Albrecht (talk) 14:46, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I do not agree that the matter at hand is whether David Seaman has "received coverage", full stop, in any given publication, nor did I ever question it. This AfD exists to discuss whether that coverage has been significant, reliably-sourced, and independent of the subject according to Wikipedia's policies. Anything else is a distraction. It should also be noted that significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject should be included – a more in-depth discussion such as this one might conclude otherwise. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 07:29, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Your assertion — that coverage in its editorial pages disqualifies the WSJ as a verifiable source for establishing WP:N — was the distraction; I hope it has been put to rest. You have made your opinion on WP:GNG/WP:DEPTH clear many times before, so I'm not sure what purpose is served by restating it for the nth time. Albrecht (talk) 15:46, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I don't read French and Spanish well, but enough to understand what the sources that Albrect mentions above are about. I can't see how in-depth and thorough the coverage has to be for the wiki-purists. There are tons of articles in Wikipedia with less merit. But someone has to rewrite the article, it's a mess after last couple of days' editing binge. Sk4170 (talk) 19:43, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Trimmed? There is nothing here anyway.Slatersteven (talk) 18:47, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
People don't seem to understand what Significant Coverage means. It means a news article should be ABOUT that subject, not just mention it in passing. Exemplo347 (talk) 20:29, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As observed by another user, some of the arguments in the "delete" camp are beginning to take on fundamentalist overtones. It's extremely rare for journalists to receive third-party coverage of themselves unless they are murdered or held hostage; the subject of this article has amassed more notability than 90% of journalist articles on Wikipedia (we literally have scores if not hundreds of articles whose only source is the contributor bio for the publication in which they write). Finally, the subject is absolutely central to most of the stories cited above, as any cursory examination will show. Albrecht (talk) 21:00, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Can I just point out that the subject of this AfD debate is absolutely NOT central to Slate - one of his tweets is mentioned in passing. Exemplo347 (talk) 21:05, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That's fair — he's far more central in some of the other articles, though. Albrecht (talk) 21:06, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Although I might add that the Slate article is the only one in my list which concerns a phenomenon or controversy of which the subject of this AfD is already recognized (I think) as one of the central figures. Thus, it should be seen as reinforcing his tie to that particular controversy; the other articles are there to establish notability with respect to other events. Albrecht (talk) 21:20, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate those links but they are all of the sort: some people are tweeting/Youtubing/blogging crazy stuff about Hillary Clinton." In other words, they are about the conspiracy theories or Hillary or the craziness (or all three) but not about Seaman himself. I remain unpersuaded that there is, either strictly construed or not, significant coverage about Seaman justifying a page on him. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:46, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
With respect, I don't believe you've carefully examined the articles in question. One of the headlines is, verbatim, "A journalist fired for having invoked Clinton's health." Another (El Horizonte) is substantially about this same topic. Whether we believe that the events in question deserved coverage is immaterial to the purposes of this discussion. Albrecht (talk) 21:00, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That headline itself is the kind of red flag mentioned at Wikipedia: Verifiability. For me it raises questions about the source's reliability. It's a serious allegation, so if it's true, why haven't more mainstream, English-language sources reported the same thing? Any exceptional claim requires multiple high-quality sources. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 05:01, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding "English-language sources": WP:RSs can be in any language. Regarding "serious allegation": I'm not sure what you're referring to, but a journalist getting fired is the most ordinary thing in the world. Albrecht (talk) 05:22, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If it's so ordinary, then 1) it's not the sort of noteworthy event that would appear in an encyclopedia, and 2) making a conspiracy out of it would seem to mark the magazine in question as a fringe source. Seaman's writing, YouTube videos, etc. are in English, so a lack of in-depth coverage in other English-language sources of Seaman or his supposed "firing" raises red flags. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 07:48, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
For that matter, I don't see any mention at all of this person in major French dailies either: nothing from Libération[1] or Le Monde[2], nor even the right-wing-leaning Les Échos[3] or Le Figaro[4]. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 11:04, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you once again for bringing more information to the discussion. I'm beginning to have pangs of guilt about contributing to the overburden of text the closing admin will be faced with. Because, however, this deserves an honest response I will say this: I, personally, don't have a strong opinion about David Seaman's coverage is deserved. I have a mild opinion that his brand of self-defined journalism is not rooted in reality, but I don't think it is germane to the discussion. I have a fairly strong opinion that, as I said, his self-appointed claim of importance requires significant evidence. Take, for example, the El Horizonte piece: By the most generous reading I can see, three (out of nine) paragraphs are about Seaman. This is the pattern for most of the coverage available. The exception seems to be Valeurs Actuelles. This is a small-circulation right-wing-biased journal; the WP:RS status is very iffy. Even if we take this and the Inquisitr article mentioned above, that is still only two very dubious sources about Seaman. Thanks again. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 05:43, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I agree about the reliability of the Valeurs Actuelles piece being iffy. I know almost no French, but going by a machine translation, nearly all of the piece is taken up by statements by David Seaman himself, which are simply repeated verbatim. There's no attempt to provide context or analysis, save the unsourced claim that "in a recent poll, half of Americans say they believe that Clinton lied about [her] health". Ideological and/or partisan bias aside, this is not In-depth coverage or even decent journalism. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 10:06, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Eggishorn: Thanks for your thoughtful reply. If I could summarize the course of this AfD, it would be to say this: I think I have shown, beyond reasonable argument, that the premise on which this AfD hinges — that there is "nothing [on the subject] in reliable, independent publications" — is false. We now have a number of editors who are determined not to accept this, and who have produced a whole laundry list of excuses why these aren't really reliable sources (just look at all the tortuous arguments deployed beneath my original contribution to this AfD. Or consider that now have an editor demanding an explanation as to why the sacking of an American journalist from an online publication wasn't covered throughout the entire French media landscape — is this a reasonable expectation to have, or a relevant topic for this AfD?)
As for Valeurs Actuelles, while its politics aren't my cup of tea, I don't think we can reasonably question its status as a WP:RS (nor is the article what I would consider "quality journalism," but I'm not particularly interested in debating this either): its long publication history, editorial independence, and contributions from seasoned journalists all testify to this. Nor would I dismiss it as "small circulation"; the venerable New Statesman, to pick a British leftist weekly, only enjoys 1/3 of its circulation. But, again, there are only so many hours in a day, and I really doubt that such discussions are a productive use of anyone's time. Albrecht (talk) 15:00, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Albrecht, I was tempted to just agree with your last sentence above and leave the matter there, but upon further review I feel one point needs to be made: I disagree very much with the above summarization of this AfD discussion. It is in fact very reasonable to discuss source reliability. Those are bread-and-butter concerns in AfD discussions. The basic issue has always been, and remains, satisfying all three prongs of the WP:GNG: significant coverage, reliable sources, independent sources. We need to test this article against those three prongs just like any other. Granting, for the sake of argument, that Valeurs Actuelles and Inquisitr are reliable and independent, even taken together they are still sort of de minimis (meaning here trivial, not passing a minimal standard) coverage. I appreciate that this could change and tomorrow there may be the significant and reliable independent coverage currently lacking. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 00:08, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Eggishorn: That's a fair point; perhaps calling it "a summary of the AfD" was a little hasty and self-serving (in my defense, this has been a taxing effort) — a summary of my contribution to it would've been more reasonable. You're perfectly correct regarding the admissibility of scrutinizing sources (though would maintain that some editors have gone beyond reasonable scrutiny). What I found tough to swallow was the categorical and dismissive attitude with which certain editors rushed to dismiss my contribution out of hand, as if to simply reinforce prior convictions. Reasonable people can certainly disagree over whether WP:DEPTH has been achieved, but it's absolutely no longer correct to claim that there are zero WP:RSs, as it was at the beginning of this AfD. Albrecht (talk) 00:35, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As was stated above, the basic issue is and has always been establishing notability per the General notability guideline (as well as WP:BIO), which doesn't require some coverage of a subject, but significant coverage – whether this was stated at the beginning or not. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 05:41, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
My acknowledgement, above, that "reasonable people can certainly disagree over whether WP:DEPTH has been achieved" would seem to make this a superfluous and badgering remark. Please refrain from replying to me unless you have something new and concrete to bring to the discussion. Albrecht (talk) 18:23, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - As I said, I'm open to new sources being found. With that in mind, there appears to be one new WP:RS since my original !vote: An opinion piece about "evil art" in a <5,000 circulation weekly that mentions Seaman in passing. Because that article, like some editors here, refers to him as a "journalist...formerly of the Huffington Post," I thought it might be useful to address that. Huffington Post lists Seaman as a hosted blogger. These bloggers are not HuffPo reporters or staff and they are neither hired nor fired. Actual HuffPo staff are explicitly identified as such. There is another category of HuffPo "featured contributors", but Seaman does not appear to ever having been one of them. The situation at TheStreet is similar, although they have since started to pay on a per-view basis such contributors after Seaman's articles. As I'm already more than deep enough into WP:BLUDGEON territory on this AfD as it is, I'll let the poor soul that has to close this determine whether the above information is significant. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:29, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a link to information about the <5,000 circulation weekly mentioned above. In all fairness, I don't think the "evil art" piece does much to prove notability. Besides it being a trivial mention, opinion pieces are not generally reliable for factual claims – in this case, describing Seaman as a "journalist", "formerly of the Huffington Post", who is "investigating" rumors of a paedophile ring being run out of a D.C. pizzeria and involving Hillary Clinton's campaign manager that the NYT and WaPo debunked as fiction. The other information about Huffington Post bloggers vs. staff, etc. is interesting, but it would take a good deal of original research to make any of it relevant to a biography of Seaman since he isn't directly mentioned. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 06:19, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe you are right, but he has ten million views. And facts can be notable, journalists that tell notable facts are less notable. I think things will be different in December 2017 and he will be certainly notable by this time. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 06:25, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What facts? There's nothing in his diatribes that comes close to an actual fact. Guy (Help!) 11:14, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
For example: Trump, Pizzagate. Trump won the election because the main stream media (MSM) told that he will not win the election. Pizzagate will become a disaster because the main stream media tells that it is fake news. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 11:27, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The media says Pizzagate is fake news because it is fake news. There is no evidence to support it, and it is not remotely plausible. Trump lost the popular vote and won the electiononly if the electoral college fails to do the one job for which it was designed: preventing popular but manifestly unfit candidates form being appointed. Regardless, the result had nothing to do with the mainstream media (and that word mainstream is important, it means, those which accept the most commonly accepted version of events rather than ideological bullshit). I am by now in serious doubt of your competence in this matter. Guy (Help!) 00:41, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed - that type of comment adds nothing to the debate and seems to be something people are only saying because they have nothing of substance to add. This AfD debate is about Wikipedia's General Notability Guidelines and the Guidelines for Biographies of Living Persons and their application to this article, and only this article. Exemplo347 (talk) 09:47, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, definitely. However, this is a fairly new article and in the middle of quite chaotic controversy. The natural place to link here would be the Pizzagate controversy article. Sk4170 (talk) 15:50, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Note - You may wish to read WP:BLPREMOVE - the removal of poorly sourced statements is a fundamental part of editing Biographies of Living Persons. Exemplo347 (talk) 18:31, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closing admin - LiberTarHeel has less than 20 edits total and only four edits to the main namespace and makes no policy-based argument whatsoever. His/her comment should be discounted accordingly. Neutralitytalk 18:37, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
By the way David Seaman is also reporting on BItcoin and how it could be an alternative and save haven in cases of inflation. He covered the NSA activities before they became a scandal. This does in my opinion make him a journalist with a good feeling for what is relevant or will become relevant in these times.
I do also want to ad that I'm not right wing at all. I've personally always been left wing and involved in diversity projects and environmentalism etc. Just to state that before someone will discredit me. As a German, whose country was affected by two dictatorships- a right wing dictatorship with the Nazi regime and a left wing dictatorship after the Russian occupation of east Germany I think that I can say that I'm really saddened by what is happening right now around the world. A dictatorship starts with the restriction of free speech. Hillary Clinton actually just said that she would like the government to be able to censor "fake news" and for the government to decide what that "fake news" actually is. It's beginning again. We're going into dictatorship territory. You'd think that people are smart enough to learn from history but apparently they aren't. It probably brave journalist like David Seaman that were smeared and silenced during the beginning of the two dictatorships in my country. What a brave thing of him to speak up even if it costs him his job and he's being attacked in this way. --EarlyspatzTalk 20:09, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing that you have posted has any actual bearing on this discussion, which (again) is only about the General Notability Guidelines and the Guidelines for Biographies of Living Persons. How many times do I have to say it? All this extra waffle is flooding the conversation and it's pointless. It doesn't matter what people feel about the subject of this article or his previous work. I deliberately haven't stated my personal opinion because it has no bearing on this discussion. It's about the General Notability Guidelines and the Guidelines for Biographies of Living Persons, and their application to this article. Is that clear enough? I'm surprised that experienced editors keep falling down on this point when it should be obvious to them. Exemplo347 (talk) 20:15, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I spent extensive amounts of time looking for those exact types of detail to help strengthen this article and I've found nothing verifiable from any remotely reliable source, hence my statement that the article should be deleted due to a lack of verifiable information about the subject. Exemplo347 (talk) 20:22, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Been having a slight dig about myself, and have found nothing about him. He does not appear to have existed before
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-seaman/strange-bedfellows-millen_b_10836078.html
Which seems to be his first article on Huffpost.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Slatersteven (talk • contribs) 20:37, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Which just reinforces the idea (as does the threat to sue Wikipedia if his page is taken down) that this is all part of a campaign to establish notability by just getting his name out there. People who do not need the publicity of a Wikipedia page do not make a noise about losing it.Slatersteven (talk) 11:43, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Personal attacks are disruptive to Wikipedia
  • Keep, restore article to a previous version, and pursue AE on Neutrality This is just another attempt by Neutrality to censor all mentions of Pizzagate from wikipedia. No one had any complaints about this article before Seaman made the pizzagate comments, so why is there an issue now? There were never any questions about his notability before pizzagate, so why are there some now? It's very concerning that Neutrality purposefully deleted large amounts of content from this article without consensus in an attempt to get it deleted. Ag97 (talk) 14:44, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have any comments that are actually relevant? Comments about the General Notability Guidelines and the Biographies of Living Persons policies, and their application to this article? I only ask because it looks like you're on some sort of crusade against another editor & I don't see the relevance of your comment. Exemplo347 (talk) 15:06, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
General Notability guidelines show that Seaman is a notable person because he has a well-known reputation as a journalist, as well as a large social media following. He is a well-known person who received widespread attention from the media, so he definitely qualifies as notable under the general notability guidelines. Ag97 (talk) 16:19, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's what you should have posted. The stuff about another editor just makes you look disingenuous Exemplo347 (talk) 16:23, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Where is the significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject to demonstrate the subject's "well-known reputation as a journalist" and his "widespread attention from the media"? All I see is a collection of passing references to one of his YouTube videos, most from sources of questionable reliability. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 11:13, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Personal attacks are disruptive to Wikipedia
I'm saying that when this article was first created, no one claimed that it should be deleted, and it was also much longer. All of the complaints about this article started right after Seaman supported pizzagate, before this there was no issue. Right after seaman expressed support of pizzagate, large amounts of content were deleted from this article by the same editor who proposed deletion. Combined with the fact that this editor is active on other articles about pizzagate, and edits from a very anti-pizzagate point of view, makes me believe that he wants to get this article deleted in a deliberate attempt to censor mentions of pizzagate from wikipedia, directly violating WP:UNCENSORED. I am quite confident that if Seaman hadn't expressed support of pizzagate, his article wouldn't be up for deletion. Ag97 (talk) 17:57, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'd also like to point out that the same editor who proposed deletion of this article also unsuccessfully attempted to get the Pizzagate (conspiracy theory) article deleted, despite that article being very noteworthy and covered by a wide range of reliable sources. See this edit [5] and discussion at [6] where the same editor repeatedly argued in favor of deleting the pizzagate article. It is clear that this editor is pushing a strong, personal Pizzagate censorship agenda on Wikipedia.Ag97 (talk) 18:06, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
All of which is irrelevant as the article must be judged on it's own merits. If material was removed reinstate it and lets see if this improves notability or not. If it was not nominated before for deletion then (as it stands) it should have been.Slatersteven (talk) 18:11, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Also not only was the page only 3 days old when it was nominated for deletion (neither odd nor unusual, a page has to be noticed to be nominated) but it did n fact mention Pizagate from the start. It is in fact red herring to try and claim the nomination followed the inclusion of Pizagate.Slatersteven (talk) 18:25, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This is yet another thinly veiled comment aimed at another editor - you still haven't said how the subject of this article meets the General Notability Guidelines, backing yourself up with Substantial, Reliable Sources. Every comment you add makes it look like you're solely interested in some imaginary feud with another editor and you're just using the premise of improvement of this article as a tired excuse. Exemplo347 (talk) 20:07, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that this editor has a history of attempting to censor mentions of pizzagate is significant and relevant. My argument is that deleting this article is an attempt at censorship, directly violating WP:NOTCENSOR.Ag97 (talk) 20:50, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Only if we assume your assertions (and I have demonstrated they are not) are correct. The article was not nominated for deletion only after Pizzagate was mentioned. WP:NOTCENSOR does not rump all other rules (such as notability).Slatersteven (talk) 20:58, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
So provide Substantial, Reliable Sources for the article then it'll pass the AfD process and not be deleted. Problem solved. I'm guessing you won't though, so prove me wrong. Exemplo347 (talk) 20:53, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: It is true indeed that at the time the Afd tag was added to the the article, its content was stripped to two very short lines and one reference [7], by the same editor who is proposing deletion. There has been some progress after that but not much.[8]. This is a quite unusual situation, the edit history from the past couple of days is pretty wild, to say the least, so I don't dare to hope that there's someone brave enough to take the task of improving the article as far as it can be improved. After that it would be easier to see whether to keep it, or just add the relevant info to the Pizzagate controversy article. Sk4170 (talk) 19:10, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please explain what is meant by "the edit history from the past couple of days is pretty wild", since I don't see how this is relevant to the discussion. Based on the article's edit history, I see a number of bold additions and removals of content and references, all of which is a normal part of establishing consensus through editing – I certainly don't see anything that I would call Edit warring. Anyone who sees a way to improve the article as it exists now is free to do so. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 12:44, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't use the words 'edit warring', is there a special reason for you to bring it up? I only stated that there is no proper effort to improve the article, other than a lot of minor edits and a lot of reverts. 64 revisions by 25 different users since the Afd tag, 29 revisions from 11 users after pp-protected tag. This is what I'm looking at. Usually, I think, there is a little more room given to efforts to improve the article during the Afd process. Most often, I believe that the Afds on borderline BLP articles don't even get this much attention. Sk4170 (talk) 15:38, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As was said earlier, removing poorly-sourced, contentious material about living persons is a basic part of the policy on editing WP:BLPs. "Stripping" content is therefore not any kind of red flag in itself. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 14:09, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, didn't see your second comment before posting mine above. I agree that it isn't a red flag in itself to remove poor content. The one thing that drew my attention was that the title is "David Seaman (Journalist)" and that word was deleted from the article itself. His journalist credentials have been discussed later, including his stint as staff writer at TheStreet.com, but for me that was the red flag for me to watch this Afd. Sk4170 (talk) 16:19, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a link to an older version of Seaman's TheStreet.com author page from archive.org (archivedate September 26, 2009), with the words "Main Street staff writer' under his name. Here's the current version of the page, available from TheStreet.com website. Sk4170 (talk) 19:11, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a link to an archived version of the Huffington Post article that allegedly got him "fired". Confirms that he was just a blogger there. Sk4170 (talk) 19:57, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If you can back this up, I'd be interested to see this Significant Coverage in Reliable Sources - I assume you have this, because I have no idea why you'd say this otherwise. Exemplo347 (talk) 08:14, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I would too, try as a might all I can find a a few references from the right wing blog sphere towards his "sacking" (something not confirmed or commented on by Huff post), and mostly anonymous so we do not know who wrote them. As well as some passing references towards him in articles about Pizzagate (for which we have an article, so no one is trying to remove all references to it). Merges this with the Pizzagate page, it is really all he is known for.Slatersteven (talk) 11:43, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
For to be fired from Huffington post. Even this is (largely) unverified, and based on his own version of what happened.Slatersteven (talk) 16:48, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
To be pedantic: He was never hired by HuffPo so he wasn't actually fired, despite his claims. He was just a blogger that HuffPo has decided can no longer blog on their site.Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:23, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think that is kind of my point, the only thing he seems to have gained any attention for is not even true. We also do not know he can no longer blog, only that he says he cannot.Slatersteven (talk) 19:30, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Don't worry, I'm not sure that an article that is meant to be a Biography of a Living person who is a "notable journalist" (but for whom nobody has been able to provide a source that proves that David Seaman is his actual name) will survive very long. The BLP policy requires a level of Significant, Reliable sources that just aren't forthcoming from anyone.Exemplo347 (talk) 00:44, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That might be difficult, given the fact that he was only a Contributor for Huffington Post, not a reporter, and we only have his word that he's been stopped from posting his blogs on their site. Exemplo347 (talk) 13:06, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Are you saying that he's lying about having his account and publishing access revoked at Huffington Post, because HuffPo hasn't given a statement? He says on a YouTube video titled "Huffington Post TERMINATED Me For Questioning Hillary's Health" that Huffington Post didn't even notify him before termination and deleting two of his articles. It happened at a time when also other people lost their jobs, tv shows, after talking negatively about Hillary's health. Dr. Drew's case that preceded Seaman's dismissal with only a couple of days was quite public, but Drew Pinsky is a public figure and CNN had to say something about canceling his show. Most journos who lose their jobs/contracts but aren't big names don't get the same treatment. Sk4170 (talk) 18:29, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for confirming what I said. There's only his word for his claims, and even if they are true - Wikipedia runs on Verifiable Sources Exemplo347 (talk) 19:32, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And there is also the question of the newsworthiness of "Contributor fired from news agency for publishing unsubstantiated conspiracy theories". That doesn't seem to be an especially unusual or surprising result, and certainly shouldn't be enough to hang an encyclopedia article on. Sławomir Biały (talk) 21:25, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
We are saying that his "sacking" not only does not establish notability (as we cannot proove any of his version, it is all his word alone) but he is so much a "public figure" that (unlike other cases of genuinely notable people being fired) his "employers" have not commented on it. Also the fact he says he was fired (for example) when he was not even employed by then tend to imply he is embellishing the truth somewhat (it makes his self published account unreliable at best).Slatersteven (talk) 10:42, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I dread to think how long the Pizzagate article would be if it listed everyone who has expressed an opinion online about it! Exemplo347 (talk) 23:48, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You missed the point. On this page or talk page we see "prominence of David Seaman as a citizen journalist in the Pizzagate scandal", "Seaman's role in (Pizzagate) has expanded his notability further" and "not seeing enough real coverage not related to Pizzagate" etc. His claimed notability is involvement with Pizzagate, but he is not notable enough to get a mention in the Pizzagate article. If he was really notable he would be mentioned. He is non notable, which is why we are at AfD..Moriori (talk) 00:35, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
My comment was actually in agreement with you. I need to work on my tone, obviously! Regards Exemplo347 (talk) 00:41, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the Pizzagate and possible merge, I think it is worth noting that of all pro/con Pizzagate clutter on YouTube, Seaman's videos seem to get a lot of views, 7 videos in Top20 of most viewed (search with 'Pizzagate'). So not a complete nobody blogger. He may not be the strongest candidate to have an article himself, but in the Pizzagate context his reporting could be worth a mention at Pizzagate (conspiracy theory). Sk4170 (talk) 02:24, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Can you cite a Wikipedia notability policy which says that YouTube views are an indicator or notability? Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:47, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Given the fact that fake Youtube views can be bought, I really don't think that you should be considering "a lot of Youtube views" as a notability indicator! Do you have any Substantial, Reliable Sources that would make the subject of this article notable? It's a yes or no question, and if it's a yes can you please post the links? Exemplo347 (talk) 09:24, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Are you aware that Seaman isn't even mentioned in the Pizzagate article? Exemplo347 (talk) 10:30, 15 December 2016 (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.
More