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.  Sandstein  12:03, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Seth Bringman (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)

WP:BLP of a political strategist. Being the communications director of a presidential campaign can get a person into Wikipedia if the sourcing is really solid, but is not a claim of notability that gives a person an automatic inclusion freebie just because they exist — but only two sources have been cited here, and one of them is BuzzFeed (not a reliable source). Which means that the article is really sitting on just one WP:GNG-eligible source, but one good source isn't enough to get a person into Wikipedia if they don't pass an "automatic inclusion" criterion. Delete, without prejudice against future recreation if it can be written and sourced considerably better than this. Bearcat (talk) 23:57, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I literally have dozens of sources I can add that I'll be working on in the next week. It would be nice if the article wasn't nominated for deletion a few hours after I create it... I'll be working more on this article and others in the next week in between work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dcpoliticaljunkie (talk • contribs) 08:06, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Every article has to be immediately in a keepable state the moment it hits articlespace at all. If you need time to work on an article that doesn't already have enough quality sources in it right off the top to get the subject over WP:GNG right away, then the proper approach is to work on the article in draftspace or your own user sandbox, and then move it into articlespace only when you're done — but no article is ever entitled to any special exemption from the same sourcing and notability standards that would apply to any other article regardless of whether it's existed for two years or just two hours. Bearcat (talk) 18:06, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's funny you want to talk about the proper way to do things. If you are such an expert, then why did you not notify me as the deletion policy suggests you should do. Also the deletion policy you write says you should "Search for additional sources, if the main concern is notability" and says the minimum is a Google Books and Google News search which brings up no shortage of sources. There are also many more sources under Politico Pro, CQ Plus, and other proprietary sites behind a pay wall. Either way, this has been a great education in how quick to jump to drastic solutions without trying to work with authors editors here are. It would have been just as easy for you to add the sources as to try to delete the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dcpoliticaljunkie (talk • contribs) 18:50, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

An article, especially if it's a WP:BLP, has to contain enough reliable sourcing right off the bat to demonstrate that the topic meets one or more of our inclusion criteria. If that's been done, then you can certainly hand off any needed improvements as being the responsibility of the entire Wikipedia community rather than strictly your own — but at the outset, the onus is on you, as the person who wants the article to be included, to ensure that the minimum level of sourcing necessary is present in the article to make it keepable in the first place. If the article is in a deletable state as written, then it's not anybody else's responsibility to rescue it for you. Bearcat (talk) 23:38, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also I read your reliable sources policy. I can't imagine why BuzzFeed News wouldn't be a reliable source given its editorial oversight, paid reporters (the author of the piece in question is now a member of Hillary's traveling press corps), and the fact that it issues corrections. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dcpoliticaljunkie (talk • contribs) 18:54, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unresolved allegations of frequent copyright violation...preponderance of "listicle" and "clickbait" articles instead of substantive coverage of things that would warrant coverage in an encyclopedia...heavy reliance on paid promotional content...single least trusted media source in the entire mediasphere in a Pew Research poll last year, below even Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh and Breitbart...name that's quite literally synonymous with the entire debate about everything that's wrong with contemporary journalism...want I should keep going? Bearcat (talk) 23:38, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You should probably learn how to read. This whole page has a list of instructions, which in addition to suggesting notification of the author of articles being suggested for deletion, states: "1. The minimum search expected is a Google Books search and a Google News archive search; Google Scholar is suggested for academic subjects. Such searches should in most cases take only a minute or two to perform." Congratulations on failing to do the minimum expected search, Mr. Expert! But thanks for your tendentious responses. Perhaps I failed to provide sufficient sources at the onset, but the onus is clearly on you to search for sources before nominating for deletion. That's according to literally the instructions to suggest something for deletion linked at the top of this page, you should've given it a read! And if you have issues with BuzzFeed News, that's your problem. BuzzFeed News meets the criteria set out in the policy you so happily point to. You clearly fail to differentiate between BuzzFeed News, the news section of the website which has editorial controls, fact checking, and other characteristics which, according to the policy you link to, make it a "reliable source" and the rest of the site which includes user generated content, listicles, promotional content, and other items. Dude, seriously, you should actually look into stuff before you write. Dcpoliticaljunkie (talk) 08:40, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You can quibble all you like with whether BuzzFeed, or some part of it, should be considered a WP:RS — but it isn't considered one. This has nothing to do with me, and is not my "problem", because I'm not the one who made that decision — Wikipedia has a review process by which sources which may be considered questionable can be reviewed for whether they meet Wikipedia's WP:RS criteria or not, which I'm not even a participant in, and it decided that BuzzFeed isn't acceptable. I'm not making up my own criteria to arbitrarily decide that it isn't acceptable to me — a consensus of Wikipedia contributors made that decision, and I didn't even contribute so much as one comma to those discussions. So you're free to disagree, but you most certainly do not get to hold that difference of opinion over my head. Bearcat (talk) 18:53, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bearcat, would you be able to provide a link to the discussion you're referencing? Graham (talk) 05:59, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Would like to see that as well. From my own searches at the RSN, there's some consensus that at least some of BuzzFeed's articles are reliable: [1]. I'd agree with the sentiment. Political/news reporting by BuzzFeed is highly reliable in my opinion. FuriouslySerene (talk) 14:45, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - since when is BuzzFeed's politics reporting not a reliable source? Completely disagree. Some of the best known American political reporters work for BuzzFeed (you are perhaps confusing their viral content work with their political reporting). Anyways, there's plenty of coverage of Bringman in other sources as well (these are a selection, there's more when you searched): [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8]. More than enough in my opinion to establish notability and meet WP:GNG and WP:BIO. FuriouslySerene (talk) 17:07, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. FuriouslySerene (talk) 17:08, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. FuriouslySerene (talk) 17:08, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. FuriouslySerene (talk) 17:08, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep There seems to be consensus that BuzzFeed articles can be reliable (so long as they aren't the run-of-the-mill clickbait type), and if that's the case, then this article passes WP:GNG and WP:BIO. clpo13_(talk) 00:42, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Apparently, I need to format my response like this -- something I did not know when Bearcat listed the article for deletion in my first week on the site -- so here it is. This discussion has turned into a proxy debate over BuzzFeed's ability to serve as a reliable source, even when the article is written by their news division by a well-known political reporter with editorial oversight, despite the fact that the story now has quite a few other sources (with more on the way). Bringman is notable and this article should be kept and improved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dcpoliticaljunkie (talk • contribs) 10:11, 7 December 2015 (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.