Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Fedmyster

 __NOINDEX__
 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was: soft delete. If User:Onel yehan wants to have another try at this in the future after they have more Wikipedia experience (per their last comment in the discussion), then a WP:REFUND could be requested. RL0919 (talk) 21:10, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Fedmyster


Now on it's 5th submission, this page still has no RS to justify it's existence. Continued submission has become disruptive and a waste of time. Legacypac (talk) 19:48, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete - Repeated resubmission without adding reliable sources is tendentious. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:28, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Should not have come to MfD because: (1) no evidence of tendentious (i.e. diffs), and my review of the history is that the author is NOT being tendentious, and Robert McClenon's new definition is a neologism; (2) draft has never been rejected.
 * Keep because there is one OK source, and due to lack of reasons for deletion.
 * The author needs to produce a second source that is reliable, independent, and covers the subject. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:02, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Page has not been rejected because it is not clearly proven not notable. The creator simply cannot or will not provide sources instead of just resubmitting. Legacypac (talk) 05:34, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
 * The source I listed means it is most of the way to being Wikipedia-notable. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:27, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Onel: I added in what I presume is a valid source, I've been unable to do so because I was still unsure on how to select sources. Please give me another chance I put in a lot of time and effort to make this entry. Thanks 01:39, 23 February 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Onel yehan (talk • contribs) Onel: The first source was correct, about his success over the emote and it does have some significance, as it was a major milestone in his career. The 3rd source in the article is regarding why he dropped out of college and it pertained more toward his personal life regarding the unfortunate passing of his father, before he joined the group.18:02, 23 February 2019 (UTC) Is anyone replying? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Onel yehan (talk • contribs) 15:17, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment I only see a handful of sources for this person and mostly around two events: one about the popular emote and one about being banned for 7 days for some weird filtering setup. Covered by Dexerto and some eSports blog site, which are questionable for RS. AngusWOOF  ( bark  •  sniff ) 16:16, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Submitted twice more during this discussion even though told clearly we would not accept while under a deletion discussion. Legacypac (talk) 18:32, 26 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Onel: I'm very confused, I have received no replies or further doubts. The discussion has reached the 7th day of the week and still, no one had responded, so I assumed it was resolved. After trying to state the credibility of the source, I'm still told to make my case. I'm really sorry if I'm coming out as rude, but I've been refreshing the page since the 23rd waiting for a reply and I was unaware about waiting a whole week sorry. 18:41, 26 February 2019 (UTC)


 * I firmly believe new users should not be creating new pages (one of the hardest things to get right at Wikipedia) until they gain some understanding of how our policies work. This case supports that. We even changed the software to prevent brand new users from making pages. What is unprofessional and pushy is continuing to try to get this page approved while we discuss deleting it. Two reviewers have been very clear we will not accept the page during a deletion discussion.
 * I urge the creator to edit some pages on topics they don't have a vested interest in promoting before trying to create something on a person they seem desperate to promote Legacypac (talk) 19:16, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Onel: I'm sorry about being pushy, I did have a vested interest in the topic. Ill work on other pages and gain some experience. Thanks 06:47, 27 February 2019 (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 page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.