Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Red Eagle Politics


 * 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 speedy delete as WP:CSD by. ✗ plicit  13:17, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Red Eagle Politics

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Non-notable Youtube channel, sources are a mixture of primary, passing mentions and unreliable blog type sites. No substantial RS coverage to speak of. Spicy (talk) 13:02, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. Spicy (talk) 13:02, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Spicy (talk) 13:02, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Spicy (talk) 13:02, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Spicy (talk) 13:02, 3 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom, took the words out of my mouth. 107k subs and mentions in conservative blogs don't greenlight an article, and it looks like this was created for the sole reason that he's a YouTuber that didn't have an article beforehand, which I seriously doubt is grounds for an article. AdoTang (talk) 13:55, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. No independent reliable sources to be found. Fails GNG. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 13:59, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Fails GNG, can't see any reliable sources. TheChronium  14:45, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Mention point in favor. In response to GNG section "Independent of the subject". Some of the sources referenced were indeed independent of the subject. Some of the sources were published/printed by others with no familial relation to the subject. I think it should be a point worth mentioning and is valid to mention. I respectfully understand that most of the sources were biased and I freely own up to that. My talk pages in responding to other users show I was willing to look for secondary sources and just asked to keep it up for a bit while I was researching. I also included a link to his official site while is a valid exception in creating an article on a person to include their own website. I hope you will acknowledge (even if it is decided to be deleted) that it is a valid point. "Unreliable"? Some may have been but others are/were listed as no consensus. Would have been proper to list sources a "mixture" of unreliable and no consensus. If this leads to deletion, I will respectfully acquiesce, but part of consensus is give and take so there should at the very least be an acknowledgement in this discussion of the good points I raised or I will honestly think editors don't have the good faith principle at heart Updatewithfacts (talk) 18:03, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Follow up mention One of the notes brought up on my article was "This article may require copy editing for grammar, style, cohesion, tone, or spelling." If the article is to be deleted due to improper sourcing on my part, that can be seen as understandable. I worked very hard on the article and invested several hours in working on the grammar, style, cohesion, tone, or spelling. I respectfully think that one (of the all complaints) is in error. Hopefully someone can reread the article and if they still feel it requires copy editing, at the very least make the distinction that it is mostly in terms of style or tone and that the spelling and grammar is (at the very least) average for the articles allowed. Updatewithfacts (talk) 18:09, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Articles generally don't get deleted for copy editing issues, as that can be fixed. The main reason articles get deleted is that they do not have enough reliable significant coverage to meet WP:GNG. Jumpytoo Talk 19:34, 3 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Additional mention per the rules of afd debate/consensus, I am freely allowed to join in and make my defense. Non-notable can be taken as a reasonable stance with a couple of major exceptions: without these 2, it would be fair to see that he is non notable. The 2 exceptions I bring up show a valid point that should be acknowledged if the consensus leads to deletion. He broke a hit story on a White House official creating an Only Fans page. Look up on the Internet and see if it can be found (all sources I have researched and found point to him as breaking the story). Breaking a story on a White House official lends credence to him being notable (point in favor). Second is due to many of his election predictions being true in federal elections and the breakdown of polls being off in the elections; few reliable sources can lay claim to both. That is a second point in my favor. This might sound contentious but I am making a defense of my article and whatever the future of it ends up being, these are valid points to consider and acknowledge. Updatewithfacts (talk) 18:20, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete To evaluate the sources currently on the article (source numbers are for revision ):
 * Sources 2,3,4,5,12,13,14 are WP:ABOUTSELF
 * Sources 1,8 are from Steve Bannon (as an interview/podcast respectively). Not reliable for GNG purposes as it is self-published.
 * Sources 6,7 are passing mentions. Not significant coverage for GNG. (this is before looking at the reliability of the actual site)
 * Source 9,10,11 cite Red Eagle for a news piece, without significant coverage of the actual channel. Doesn't meet GNG requirements. Also to note 10,11 are the same article just on different sites. (this is before looking at the reliability of the actual site)
 * None of the current sources on the article meet the requirements of WP:GNG, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". I was also not able to find any additional sources that could save the article. Jumpytoo Talk 19:34, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Delete per nom, fails GNG. As mentioned, many of the refs are to content generated by Red Eagle; last one is fund raising. David notMD (talk) 20:11, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete as above + I see nothing but PROMO. Regards,--Goldsztajn (talk) 21:24, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Valid point History of editor shows he (I) is/am new to editing and have repeatedly requested help and exercise of good faith. I have created a talk page for the article, issued invitations to editors, brought up valid points that (irrespective of article's future) have repeatedly not been addressed. If the article is to be taken down without due care to address valid points made, apologies where they should be addressed, this (not a threat) will be allowed to be screenshot and shown as proof that new editors are not given respect on Wikipedia. I came onto Wikipedia in good faith and the hope that proper respectful dialogue will ensue. Not pointing out where valid points are addressed, apologizing where necessary, and bordering on avoiding comments made by the user in question is a stark departure from Wikipedia guidelines on Good Faith, Consensus, and instruction to new editors. I am reaching out once again. If the consensus is to be that the article is to be taken down, kindly point out areas where I was correct, make those needed corrections (examples, "non notable", "unreliable", and "copy editing". There has been no apologies or corrections with regards to these claims or at the very least proper acknowledgments. Updatewithfacts (talk) 21:33, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Valid point Valid point brought up that many are content generated by Red Eagle, which is partially allowed. If the article were to be allowed to exist, honest look would acknowledge that biography page created by Red Eagle on his website would be valid per standards on self-published work created by him. Lack of acknowledgment that 10z link was not made by Red Eagle, in collaboration with him, or direct fundraising of him. If valid points are to be brought up towards deletion, valid points to preservation or misconduct should be acknowledged. Updatewithfacts (talk) 21:38, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Update/Concession Willing to take down article and not bring create a new one in the future on Wikipedia if acknowledgment to valid points are made and proper apologies issued. I want to learn and be a competent Wikipedia editor but there have been objectively honest mistreatment. Several editors have behaved in misconduct, refused to apologize or correct misinformation and I want to know that I can be in a constructive place to grow as an editor. Part of that involves more mature editors admitting when I have brought up valid points and apologizing. This is a promise that I will hold myself to: if proper acknowledgments and apologies are made, I will immediately take the page down and only post article for reliably source, notable subjects. Updatewithfacts (talk) 21:42, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete clearly fails GNG. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pipsally (talk • contribs) 09:19, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
 * See WP:CONDUCTDISPUTE if you think other users are mistreating you or committing misconduct; threatening us with walls of text brings you nowhere, and saying you'll only create proper articles on the sole condition that we apologize to you sounds like bad faith to me (you're basically saying you're going to deliberately be a disservice to Wikipedia if things don't go your way). See the other deletion messages here and the nomination for context as to why we want to delete this in the first place; Jumpytoo's is a good start. Also, from the article's talk page, "other Youtubers with less news coverage have gotten their own page created" is not valid grounds to create an article: other stuff exists, and no one said you couldn't send those other articles to AfD if you feel it's not fitting to have an article here. AdoTang (talk) 21:10, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
 * It is completely appropriate to ask for apologies when rules of Wikipedia that editors (who have been here longer than me) have failed to uphold. I am seeing why I did not create the article as best as I could and have failed to bring it up to standards established, but it is equally true that editors acted inappropriately, did not apologize, no editors acknowledged valid points I brought up, and calling my valid points and defenses "threatening us with walls of text" is an additional point in my favor of editors showing bad faith. Instead of acknowledging that I am trying to bring up valid points in defense of my page, I am attacked and accused of threatening. I am once again asking for an apology. I was definitely going to delete the article and nib this problem in the bud but so far I have not seen a single editor on here apologize or acknowledge the valid points I have brought up. I have seen criticism (some of it very valid) but absolutely no acknowledgements or apologies. I would ask that you apologize for the attacking comment that I was "threatening us with walls of text". I made a defense of my article, as is allowed under the process of AfD, and have seen a serious lack of good faith in apologizing or acknowledgements. Updatewithfacts (talk) 21:18, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
 * What "apologies" do you want? Not from me—I'll admit that maybe calling your text "threatening" was an overstatement, though it wasn't an attack—but from everyone else here, because you never elaborated on it. Are we supposed to apologize for saying "Delete"? Because if so, on behalf of the seven other editors here, I apologize for using AfD, or however else we wronged you. And again, if you want to do something about these "other Youtubers" you mentioned in this article's talk page, fire it at AfD, as Spicy did here. AdoTang (talk) 22:35, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Suggestion Perhaps the article could be deleted but his name included in a list of Youtubers and then have a article created if either his popularity grows or some of his coverage appears on reliable sources. That seems an acceptable compromise if there are not going to be any apologies or acknowledgments. Thoughts? Updatewithfacts (talk) 21:38, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
 * As far as I know, no such list exists. But if you find one for conservative YouTubers or political YouTubers or whatnot (though indiscriminate lists are discouraged), maybe his name would fit there. Maybe. AdoTang (talk) 22:35, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Update: I appreciate user AdoTang admitting that "threatening" was an overstatement. That honestly helps me feel that some editors out here are genuinely interested in righting wrongs. My main issue has been repeatedly said in my addresses: I brought up valid points for my article and not a single acknowledgement was made of valid points I addressed (until just recently, to a very limited extent). I want to clarify that the editors here who feel my article should be deleted have every right to use AfD; my main problem was in how editors have gone about making their points. Some editors have mentioned lack of notability and I made a logical argument on how Red Eagle has appeared in non consensus sources, made a breaking story that was pointed out by other news organizations, and other aspects that lend credence to him having some measure of notability. I addressed that so that if someone made the argument that it was not good enough, they would acknowledge the good faith effort I made in presenting a measure of notability and respond with good faith in kind. My wall of text is to provide context. If any complaints are made later and my person not understanding comments made, a honest argument could be made that some comments are too small of text in addressing their points. Granted, a wall of text can be off-putting, but I did reach out to editors talk page, per the suggestion on conduct resolution, and have tried to understand what is going on. Additional reminder that I am a relatively new user and the conduct exhibited in parts of the discussion here has not reflected the 17 guidelines for not biting a new user. In good faith, I will take the advice raised by AdoTang to see if his name would maybe fit in a list of relevant Youtubers.
 * Comment: WP:TOOSOON clearly applies here. I fully expect that the Administrator's decision will be Delete. If at some future time this person has become written about by others because of a rise in prominence among political commentators, then a new attempt can be made to create an article. David notMD (talk) 00:09, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete/Update I have been in contact with Red Eagle Politics and he has requested that the page be taken down. I do not want to cause strive with the original subject of the article, so I am now okay with the page being deleted. I do hope there will be better conduct in the future by users/editors. If this is going to be the norm in response to new editors making attempts at making articles, this is clearly in violation of the rules and principles set by Wikipedia (especially in the areas good faith, consensus, and civility). Since there is a notification on the page about not deleting the page before the discussion is over, I will respect the wishes and not delete it myself but I am now okay with the deletion. I hope by giving permission and not fighting the deletion, it will be deleted soon. Updatewithfacts (talk) 22:21, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
 *  As creator of the draft, you can add Db-author inside double curly brackets to the top of the draft. This will trigger a fast deletion by an Administrator. Otherwise, you can do nothing, and at the conclusion of this AfD the draft will be deleted, given your most recent comment. David notMD (talk) 15:45, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for letting me know about that option. I was looking around a few pages on Wikipedia on how to personally request a deletion for a page/article I created but had no luck. I just put that in. Updatewithfacts (talk) 19:16, 9 June 2021 (UTC)


 * 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.