Deletion of David Seaman (journalist)

Comment: Fails , not notable. Just a  reporter
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:FRINGE)

Comment: Sparingly brief one off mentions and no in-depth bio profiles from |reliable sources
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS)

Comment: or smerge to pizzagate (conspiracy theory).  The subject is primarily notable for one thing, his role in the conspiracy theory pizzagate, so  applies.  We already have a main article for that conspiracy theory, without the need for this biographical stub of minor notability
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP1E)

Comment: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/08/29/huffington_post_contributor_says_he_was_fired_for_posting_article_about_hillarys_health.html if nothing else his very public firing from the Huffington Post at the height of the election warrants keeping this, but only as a stub if sources like ZeroHedge keep being cited. Reliable sources do exist, he has worked with networks that are not , don't be a reactionary and cite blogs that have "Tyler Durden" as their author. Even if you want to make a villain out of him for Pizzagate, people much less relevant to current events like David Icke have long, well-cited articles here. I am not saying that Seaman is the same as Icke, but this is relevant to current events. The article can and should be improved upon however
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Fringe theories (WP:FRINGE)

Comment: Fails 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: fails . The day may come when he'll be notable as anything more than a fringe youtuber, but it is not this day
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: 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
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RELIABLE)

Comment: One argument that keeps coming up here is that Wikipedia has other articles about people who don't meet the notability criteria, and nobody has proposed ''their'' deletion. That kind of argument is a red herring – specifically, an appeal to hypocrisy – that does not support the actual notability of the subject. As was said above, anyone is free to |propose deletion for those articles or start a |deletion discussion for them if they wish
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Proposed deletion (WP:PROD||WP:AFD)

Comment: 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  and  and , ultimately to amounting little more than 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:GHITS||WP:UNRS||WP:TRIVCOV||WP:ILIKEIT)

Comment: The sources that cover the subject are mostly poor sources, and one HuffPo article in which the subject quaintly writes about himself. None of the sources that I could find, or that are cited in the article, go into any real biographical detail about the subject. The subject fail  in that the coverage is mostly trivial and insignificant. The subject does not mean any of the three criteria of  nor any of the four, more specific, criteria of 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BASIC||WP:ANYBIO||WP:JOURNALIST)

Comment: Non-notable; at best we have a  happening
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:1E)

Comment: Notability for people is determined by them having {{tq||significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources}}, not by their social media following. The https://www.google.com/search?q=%22David+Seaman+%28journalist%29%22&tbm=nws single result so far for the subject under "news" is from RT.com, a known propaganda outlet, and trivial coverage at that – not reliable
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BIO)

Comment: Not notable, fails . A few million Youtube views does not grant someone notability (views can be botted), and keeping non-notable people off articles is NOT in any way censorship
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)