Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/David Seaman (journalist)

Attempting to delete a journalist's Wikipedia article, as a reaction to his astounding increase in popularity on a controversial subject, smacks of the worst kind of corruption. The user should be perma-banned from making edits. This is DISGUSTING.WpAlternativeNeeded (talk) 22:31, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Seaman's page should not be deleted, and lists of his credentials restored from deletion edits this week. The prominence of David Seaman as a citizen journalist in the Pizzagate scandal lands him squarely in the controversy around 'fake news' and whether alt-media reporters can become as important and creditable as members of the mainstream media. Seaman should not be attacked for reporting on an unresolved public controversy; this is the watchword of journalism, to which organizations such as Amnesty International and Reporters without Borders will regularly testify. Mainstream reporters lose no time in reporting on citizen journalists and bloggers when they report the will of the people in repressive regimes (see: Arab Spring, Niloy Chakrabarti, Avijit Roy, Yoani Sánchez, Vadim Tyumentsev), or on crime (e.g. Roberto Saviano). However, when the citizen journalist uncovers uncomfortable truths closer to home, the mainstream media and establishment figures in the west are less enthusiastic.

The request to delete Seaman's page is a sign that Seaman, as a journalist, is being targeted online because he is uncovering something real. The double standard of applauding citizen journalists in developing countries while denigrating them in developed countries is a gauge of true freedom of the press across the board. There should be no distinction between defense of a blogger/vlogger/alt-journalist in a repressive regime and one seeking to uncover similar stories within liberal democracies. In the former, members of the alt-media and bloggers are imprisoned, tortured, and killed for questioning the establishment. In the latter, they face blanket condemnation from the mainstream establishment and requests to delete their Wikipedia pages. The impulse is the same. This may sound over the top, but it is not even different from the Charlie Hebdo attacks: investigation or reportage that goes against a desired, dominating narrative marks a journalist for persecution.

Inclusion of Seaman's page on Wikipedia depends solely on whether or not he is prominent figure contributing meaningfully and significantly within his area of expertise in the public space. Yes, he is doing that. He has a huge following and growing popular recognition for his work. The other problem with the request for Wiki page deletion is bias against him. Page deletion here is an attack from one side of this controversy, not an appeal to net neutrality. Seaman is prominent precisely because he is a rising figure in the non-mainstream media, while also having mainstream media credits in his past. The latter have been perniciously deleted to discredit him and diminish his public accomplishments. Edits of his page and requests to delete it constitute a very serious attack on his reputation and his real influence. Ladybird99 (talk) 01:19, 8 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Nothing you've said provides evidence that Seaman is Notable (for the purposes of Wikipedia). Thanks for posting anyway. Exemplo347 (talk) 09:46, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Notoriety
Re: Sangdeboeuf "Comment Seaman seems known, if at all, only for his involvement with Pizzagate (conspiracy theory), no I don't think that's the case, Seaman's departure from the Huffington Post was widely discussed on the interwebs long before Pizzagate. I don't know how much of that made it into RS, but as we learned from the recent POTUS election and Pizzagate itself, "not in RS" and "unknown" are quite different. 50.0.136.56 (talk) 19:50, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, "not in RS" is all Wikipedia cares about. Exemplo347 (talk) 09:46, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Article locked; please add my coment and vote.
Delete As Platypus of Doom says, he is fringe journalist. The firing is possibly the most notable event, which says much about his notability. The references are not particulary great-- as in, it is not easy to find in-depth articles in good sources that support his notability. The majority of the notability seems to have come from his Youtube channel (which unless someone else writes about it does not seem particularly notable) and from him making a video that specifically invokes discussion of the AfD page. In short, he's a WP:Fringe 'journalist' who is using Wikiepdia as a SOAPBOX, and for whom the references available are thin and hard-to-find rather than widely available and in-depth. 104.163.146.118 (talk) 08:30, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Also, it is interesting to note that the only news source in Google reporting on the deletion of a supposedly notable Journalist's article is this video gamer blog.104.163.146.118 (talk) 08:53, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Lets add that his "sacking" (not that he was ever employed) by Huffpost was so notable they have not commented on it themselves. Yes he seems to be notable for being famous in his own lunch time.Slatersteven (talk) 17:15, 14 December 2016 (UTC)