Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Seaman (journalist)

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Trugster (talk | contribs) at 15:13, 11 December 2016 (delete). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


David Seaman (journalist)

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 in reliable, independent publications. Neutralitytalk 23:45, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • I've got no idea how to use Wikipedia from an editing perspective, nor do I care about learning as I have seen these sorts of things happen before, and it usually ends up with someone's Wikipedia knowledge being used to settle such debates and delete stuff, rather than an actual merit of the article in question. Just wanted to say this time I am watching with huge interest and would rather be anonymous and with proxy as I don't want to reveal my account name and donations history to Wikipeida (which is how I normally contribute). Of course now with David Seaman having 114,468 subscribers • 10,577,812 views when in October he had 6 million views mean it is very interesting how much more notable he is becoming and I am also interested how a user with the name "Neutrality" is anything but in the way he has reduced the info in the article in question. Now this comment isn't signed, it's probably going to get labelled with some acronym I don't care about, I just wanted my point made as a donator to Wikipedia who will not donate ever again just depending on what happens here. This comment is in the history here, and until history can be uninvented that's all I really care about. Thanks for reading. Will try and sign. 181.20.69.111 (talk) 00:09, 8 December 2016 (UTC) — 181.20.69.111 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [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]
  • Yet another journalist who by simply discussing factual information (Wikileaks) has been disproportionately slandered by the mainstream media in an attempt to cover up the truth. The jumbled up mess of a paragraph above shows just how the people of the world who bury their head in the sand will try to, with their idiocy, silence the voices of others. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.127.235.105 (talk) 00:19, 8 December 2016 (UTC) — 74.127.235.105 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • I also donate regularly to Wikipedia and have been involved in projects with prolific Wikipedians. Anonymous here for obvious reasons. I think it is interesting that this journalist has become more notable recently, and is very well respected as someone who is bravely doing the job the rest of the media should be doing, and it's NOW there's a suggestion for deletion? That makes it appear that there is a concerted effort to reduce his visibility to silence his message, which makes it appear that there is a cover up occurring of the most horrific crimes. I don't think Wikipedia wants to be associated with that. I think this journalist needs to have a more substantial article, he has expertise on cryptocurrency also, and has been interviewed about that on the Bitcoin website. That article also states: "He has been a guest on CNN Headline News, FOX News, ABC News Digital, Coast to Coast, the Joe Rogan Experience Podcast, The Young Turks and elsewhere. His opinions and articles frequently appear in Business Insider and Huffington Post." That was in July 2016, and his following has almost doubled since then on YouTube, and he is one of the most prominent people on up and coming Twitter alternative 'Gab'. His article should be made more substantial, and certainly not deleted.82.221.102.36 (talk)
  • Neutral won't weigh in on deletion but I don't like the edit warring that has been happening in the article, with Wikipedia's "protectors" taking out uncontroversial and verifiable info, such as that Seaman had a column at the Huffington Post, that ended after he wrote some (controversial) stuff about Hillary Clinton. Fwiw Seaman has a youtube video here where he complains about the article being up for deletion, threatens to sue Wikipedia for "lame character attacks" (1:58 in video), then rants about Pizzagate etc. Ok, I said "neutral" but I don't think we need this article. 50.0.136.56 (talk) 01:21, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Not notable. I'm completely ignoring the apparently solicited people who have posted here - Wikipedia is not a Fan Site. The simple fact is that a collection of social media posts, blog entries and youtube videos does not make someone a suitable subject for an encyclopaedia entry and the "he was fired by Huffington Post" argument is just an attempt to Inherit Notability. No significant coverage is available in Reliable sources. Nothing in the article is independently verifiable which, as every experienced Wikipedia editor knows, means that a Biography of a Living Person should be deleted. Exemplo347 (talk) 01:55, 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]
  • Keep The consensus and strength of argument appears to be heavily in favor of keeping the article. Seaman was a well-known writer for several news websites with large viewerships and he has an enormous social subscriber base on Twitter, YouTube, and other social media sites. Regardless of one's thoughts on the 'Pizzagate' scandal, Seaman's role in it has expanded his notability further, not reduced it. It's my position that article should be retained but his involvement with/reporting on the Pizzagate conspiracy theory should be acknowledged. 50.182.99.115 (talk) 02:44, 8 December 2016 (UTC)— 50.182.99.115 (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.
  • Keep I just realised, deletion request appeared straight after David Seaman started his interest for Pizzagate scandal. In past all people, who supported investigations against Catholic priest sexual abuses, have been on similar way "attacked": ridiculed, called as "conspiracy the(rr)orists", slandered of lying. In such situation I think, a deleting of this artcile - exactly in this moment, as David Seaman shows his interest for paedophile scandals in Hillary Clinton milieu, it would be only proof, that Wikipedia is place for activities of people, who try to shutdown and silence whistleblowers, who make our society aware about NEXT politicians and VIPs involved in sex abuses against children. Ufortunately all, litteraly all whistleblowers, who informed about child sex abuses made by priests, politician, VIP-s in UK, whole Europe: Germany, Belgium, Poland, USA (Jeffrey Epstein - friend of Clinton's family!) - were alway right. Always. So, please, do not punish David Seaman with disappearing only because he became a next whistleblowers about child's traffickers and paedophile milieu of famous and powerful politician. Zboralski (talk) 12:17, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Notability criteria for journalists is practically impossible to reach if being covered on major media outlets is the only requirement. Journalists, even the most well-known and widely respected of them, speak through their work, and many of them don't work for mainstream media, their merit often being in bringing up subjects of interest that MSM may not cover. However, that is not the actual question here. Seaman appears to be an independent journalist who has been working for Business Insider and Huffington Post and now looking at the edit history of his Wiki article seems to be targeted for his involvement in the Pizzagate controversy. I would like to question the motive behind the Afd request, especially its timing now when it appears that in the very same day this Afd was filed, his YouTube channel has received a warning which considerably restricts his ability to post news reports on YouTube and further puts his channel in danger of being permanently banned, apparently if he continues reporting the controversy. I quickly googled and found Breitbart News reporting on his being fired from Huffington Post after an article about Hillary Clinton's health issues. He has also previously appeared on RT.com in different roles. I agree though that his work hasn't gained considerable attention until posting the article on Hillary's health and covering the Pizzagate/alleged child trafficking case. I haven't had time to dig any deeper on his previous work, but the article as it is now isn't very good really, apparently due to edit warring that was on right before this Afd was filed. All these things considered, I don't want to cast a vote as to me it appears that this discussion wasn't started about the merits of the article but raised because of the controversy. Sk4170 (talk) 13:05, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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]
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]
  • 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]
  • Neutral leaning towards delete His Huff page claims a number of guest appearances which may go some way to establishing notability, if these appearances can be verified (after all his huff profile is his own work). The problem is apart from that there are three articles over 7 years, that does not seem very notable. As to his firing (again) this is his claim. I am not seeing much that is noteworthy, and much that is not noteworthy then any other no staff contributor to a website.Slatersteven (talk)
  • Delete I'm not seeing enough real coverage not related to Pizzagate to warrant a separate article. Could maybe merge into Pizzagate (conspiracy theory) after being trimmed a bit. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 18:43, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Trimmed? There is nothing here anyway.Slatersteven (talk) 18:47, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note -There's a huge, huge amount of waffle in this discussion that has absolutely nothing at all to do with the General Notability Guidelines and the Guidelines for Biographies of Living Persons. All the nonsense from not-logged-in editors at the beginning of the discussion and the subsequent discourse about political views and non-mainstream beliefs held by the subject of this article have added nothing at all to this AfD discussion. Can't people just focus on the actual issues? Exemplo347 (talk) 19:06, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The one substantive source given about David Seaman rather than by David Seaman is from notorious click-bait site Inquisitr and even that is only to repeat David Seaman's claims about David Seaman being repressed. Other than that, his status as a TheStreet and HuffPo "contributor" is meaningless as their business model relies on unpaid submissions by non-journalists to survive and being listed as one doesn't proves anything one way or another. I note also that most of his HuffPo contributions have been removed. His status as a self-proclaimed citizen journalist out to expose a huge conspiracy doesn't except him from normal guidelines for inclusion. If he indeed blows Washington wide open and generates significant coverage, then, fine. As it is, that simply isn't there. The only other argument for his inclusion seems to be one of "..he has a lot of reads/page views/followers..." and all kinds of WP:GHITS and WP:UNRS and WP:TRIVCOV, ultimately to amounting little more than WP:ILIKEIT. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:16, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    While I don't disagree with your other remarks, your assessment of the subject's coverage by third-party sources is, stricto sensu, incorrect: the subject was covered in The Wall Street Journal, El Horizonte, Slate, Valeurs Actuelles, Vanguardia, among others previously mentioned by other editors. Seaman, deservedly or not, did receive real international coverage during the election cycle. Albrecht (talk) 20:26, 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]
  • 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]
    • Reply In my experience, it is irrelevant. I have spent several years of Wikiediting trying to Wikify articles which mention the topics of other articles without providing links to them. Some editors do not even seem to search for related articles when writing their own. Many articles contain no links to other Wikipedia articles at all, several are uncategorized or miscategorized, and have not been tagged or improved by any WikiProject. Dimadick (talk) 09:49, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]


  • Note To everyone changing their comments afterwards - please keep your comments as they are (typos excluded), if possible, as it makes the discussion a little difficult to follow, and hard to react for those who perhaps wish to address particular comments in the discussion. Sk4170 (talk) 15:50, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Stripping references and then bemoaning the lack of them is just silly. Passing judgment on the man, his assertions, or his references is equally silly. Let the article stand as originally written. Feel free to talk about it, do your own research as to his assertions/references and make your own conclusions. But please for the sake of not just this article but of the sake of Wikipedia in general STOP playing Gawd and let the article stand or fall on the merits of its content, not the tyranny of its censorship! LiberTarHeel (talk) 16:17, 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]
    • This may be too harsh. LiberTarHeel has been a registered editor since February, 2016, and has spend part of this time blocked due to an IP range block. I have had similar and recurring problems with IP range blocks in various Wiki sites. They can lock you out for quite some time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dimadick (talk • contribs) 10:00, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep David Seaman is one of the only persons brave enough to even cover Pizzagate. Just like people covered up the abuse of Jimmy Saville for decades and just like the Franklin scandal was covered up it will take the msm decades to accept that there was validity to this. Even the speaker of the house Dennis Hastert was convicted for pedophilia. So I really don't see why people find it impossible to imagine that other politicians could be pedophiles too and involved in pedophile networks. I'm but this really enrages me. I was a victim of sexual child abuse as well. It took a full 13 years until I was an adult myself and able to fight for justice in court to have people acknowledge that this really happened. It took a god damn conviction. Why does this always have to be so hard with you folks? David Seaman is my official hero using his voice to fight for the rights of children, who can't defend themselves. And to your note I was a speaker at Wikimania. And I specifically talked about this issues in Wikipedia. It is really easy to manipulate it and it can in the end even be used to silence free speech and bury opinions and truth - I don't think that this is what it was intended for though. I really hope that this isn't what Wikipedia will become. Otherwise I'll loose tremendous faith and I'll question why I even put so much time in this project. I guess that you can still read articles on STEM subjects but everything involving politics will just devolve into propaganda. Sad. Wikipedia isn't trustworthy on those issues at all. I'll have to advice anyone to never use Wikipedia for those subjects. Not even to find secondary sources. Again: Sad.
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]
    • Comment You are confusing two unrelated topics. The notability and plausibility of Pizzagate, and the notability of Seaman himself. Is it plausible that politicians are pedophiles? Certainly. Do we have evidence for it? No. A witch-hunt targeting supposed pedophiles based on flimsy evidence, sounds like a textbook demonizing the enemy operation. And not every would-be witch-hunter is himself/herself notable. Dimadick (talk) 10:18, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Maybe it might help establish his "notability" if we have some biographical details to establish he his anything more then an invented internet persona, like DOB, place of education ect all? All he have is a (very brief) resume of his work.Slatersteven (talk) 20:17, 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]
    • Not that surprising. Remember his claim that he posts videos on YouTube? I searched for them, here. His first video was posted on January 18, 2016. No earlier indication of activities. Most of his videos since then have been attack pieces on Hillary Clinton and glorification pieces on Donald Trump. As for their objectivity, one of them is called "Ladies, Hillary Clinton is a demon", another is called "Hillary Clinton is CRIMINALLY UNFIT For Office". And my favorite title among them: "Hillary Clinton Will Destroy Us All & Has 'Elite Immunity' ". Dimadick (talk) 10:37, 11 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]
  • Delete fails GNG, just a non notable fringe pusher. Dbrodbeck (talk) 22:53, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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]
    • Comment, Ag97, could you clarify what you mean about no previous questions about his notability? The article is relatively new, created on 31 October, 2016. And most of the edits involve disputes over the use of unreliable sources. The editor who created the article, User:Pyzeseeds123 has been mostly inactive for months. Dimadick (talk) 10:49, 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 [5], by the same editor who is proposing deletion. There has been some progress after that but not much.[6]. 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]
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]
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]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/David_Seaman_(journalist)&oldid=754231245"