Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Tarl Warwick

 __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: delete. Particularly with being deleted twice at AfD. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 01:27, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Draft:Tarl Warwick


This topic has been deleted twice at AfD Articles_for_deletion/Tarl_Warwick_(2nd_nomination). This version appears no better. Loaded with youtube links, it is promotional. It asserts Sarah Palin is responsible for a mass shooting, which could mean this is an attack page. There is no point letting this run trough multiple AfC submissions, and no point letting all those promotional links to Youtube to provide SEO benefits for 6 plus months. Legacypac (talk) 19:30, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete as per the two deletion discussions. This draft may be an effort to game the system to do an end-run around the deletion discussions.  Robert McClenon (talk) 23:49, 10 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep This is an unwarranted attack. The only legitimate criticism here is it's loaded with YouTube links. The page doesn't assert Sarah Palin is responsible for a mass shooting, it asserts Warwick claimed she is responsible, which is true. If an Admin see's this, i would like to ask you not to delete this draft, I've put a lot of time into it, and i will continue to put more time into it to improve it, so it meets Wikipedia's guidelines. Also i believe the article could be improved rather than deleted. By these two guidelines i believe this draft cannot be deleted: "If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a candidate for AfD.", "If the article was recently created, please consider allowing the contributors more time to develop the article." Also the claim I'm Gaming the System, which is an accusation of bad-faith editing, is evidently not true and defamatory. ReaIestTruth (talk) 02:21, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete per the clear decision at AfD. I was going to say delete per WP:TNT becuase an article can’t be based on (started from) YouTube and twitter sources. Read WP:RS.  —SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:24, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
 * @SmokeyJoe The criteria to delete a draft that is WIP and a published page is different. Also i am already starting to replace/support YouTube references with secondary sources.ReaIestTruth (talk) 06:51, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
 * No. The decision at AfD was that the topic is not notable. It is a decision made with prejudice for a fresh draft.  One is, however, allowed to try drafting if they think the AfD decision was wrong.
 * The YouTube sources inherently make the draft unsuitable. Read WP:TNT.  You need reliable independent secondary sources that discuss the subject directly to start the draft.  They will steer the tone of the draft.  This draft should be deleted.  If you really think the subject is notable, prove it in the first save by including two or more quality sources.  List them here.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:39, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
 * The twitter source has been replaced with a news article, currently the only section with YouTube sources is the "YouTube career" section, which i am currently compressing/overhauling, if i feel that the YouTube Career section still doesn't feel Wikipedia worthy after the changes, i will be replacing that section with a more broad career section that also includes Warwick's work as a editor/author. ReaIestTruth (talk) 15:32, 12 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Repeating the claim about Sarah Palin without a RS (no the youtube link is not a RS) is problematic. Legacypac (talk) 05:31, 11 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment - See begging for mercy in "I've put a lot of time into it". Robert McClenon (talk) 07:36, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Not begging for mercy, just pointing out that i'm willing to put in the time to improve the draft to a suitable level. ReaIestTruth (talk) 07:41, 11 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment to User:ReaIestTruth - Please request Undeletion of the deleted article to user space so that the community can verify whether the draft is better than the article, but only after upgrading the YouTube and Twitter sources. As long as it relies on non-reliable media, it still needs deleting.  Robert McClenon (talk) 07:36, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm not the author of the previous deleted articles, so i don't believe i can request the deleted articles to be restored. ReaIestTruth (talk) 07:48, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Okay, i believe i found the original articles on a 3rd party website. 2016 article, the earlier 2018 article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ReaIestTruth (talk • contribs) 14:59, 12 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment My latest edits to the draft continue to show that Warwick is notable and suitable for a Wikipedia article, and i will continue to add secondary sources to this article until I'm satisfied that the draft qualifies for a Wikipedia article. I do concede that the draft in my first submission was unsuitable for a Wikipedia article (due to it's over reliance of primary sources), but still maintain my position that the deletion request after my first submission was uncalled for. I would appreciate it, if an admin would remove this discussion, such that it doesn't delay my next submission (whenever it's ready). ReaIestTruth (talk) 13:28, 11 November 2018 (UTC) PS, I believe the situation has changed since the last deletion of the article, as he has acquired a much larger audience since then and has achieved the accomplishment of the largest BitChute (which already has a significant Wikipedia article about it) user on the platform.


 * This discussion will run a week or so before being closed. Legacypac (talk) 19:38, 11 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment at this point only the YouTube career section of the draft (which I am compressing or potentially replacing) suffers from problems that would make this article unsuitable for Wikipedia, which means it can be fixed through normal editing, which means it is not a candidate for AfD (or MfD in this case). ReaIestTruth (talk) 15:22, 12 November 2018 (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.