Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Bill Cobbs

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: Already redirected . Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:42, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Bill Cobbs[edit]

Campaign biography of candidate for political office written by campaign manager. Submitted and declined three times.

In response to the statement that the other candidates all already have Wikipedia articles, maybe they already are notable, either already being members of the State House of Representatives or State Senate, or having gotten substantial coverage in the Detroit Free Press. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:11, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete being a candidate in a primary election does not guarantee notability. If he were to win the primary (which based on current polling it doesn't look like he will) it would be a different story, but until that time the article probably won't be accepted. Even if he were to win, the draft in its current state would not be particularly useful. Suggest deleting now, and in the off chance that he wins the primary, it can be recreated. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 21:27, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Not yet quite notable is the reason for draftspace. The resubmissions are due to following the instructions at face value. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:02, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
SmokeyJoe - No. The reasons for the resubmission are not due to following the instructions at face value. They are due to the author expecting that Wikipedia should provide an article for each candidate because some of the candidates already have articles. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:12, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I would agree in general with SmokeyJoe that not quite notable yet is why draftspace exists. But I think this falls into the not likely to be notable ever camp, and don't see the reason to hang onto a BLP in draft space, which would not be accepted as written anyway, until the end of the 2018 primary elections, in the off chance that they actually win the primary, which is not likely. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 20:36, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Deletion should be reserved for existing CSD criteria, and “definitely not notable” cases, but not for “not likely”s. If you need to equivocate, it is not clear cut, and it can stay. It is definitely equivocal. Many ghits, news hits, and with increasing frequency. The man has a mention in mainspace, meaning a redirect must be considered before deletion. Debating the matter fails WP:NMFD. I support creation of registered candidate pages, with subsequent merge actions depending on individual notability. Current registered candidates for governor, from major parties, definitely warrant mention if not their own section, if not their own article. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:03, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - Disagree, speedy deletion should be reserved for existing CSD criteria. Regardless of what Wikipedia:Drafts says, if consensus at a deletion discussion is that a page should be deleted, it should be deleted. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 14:01, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(Edit conflict with SmokeyJoe who seems to have the same idea as me.) *Accepted and Redirected I've accepted the draft as William Cobbs and immediately redirected it to Michigan_gubernatorial_election,_2018#Declared_2 where he is mentioned. It is a reasonable redirect. There is already an unrelated page at Bill Cobbs so hence the rename. If someone really wants to build out a page on Mr Cobbs they can do it in mainspace and be subject to mainspace notability critera. Legacypac (talk) 23:05, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

- Yes. I do agree with this. If the title is an acceptable redirect to a page that covers the topic, then accept, move to mainspace, and redirect. The author should not be using draftspace for a topic already covered in mainspace. Interested contributors should be encouraged to improve mainspace immediately and directly. Everyone can edit mainspace, and so they should. The redirect will point the author to where they need to go. If the target page becomes large, then do the WP:SPINOUTs. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:45, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Certainly a redirect would be acceptable, that is standard practice for Canadian politicians who have run for but not reached office. Not sure why you accepted the page only to redirect it though, as you could have just created the redirect. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 14:01, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Because I've WP:PRESERVED the work done on the page in a location where it can be accessed in the future. Say he wins or otherwise meets WP:N the redirect can be reversed and the next editor has something to build on. If I create a new redirect page, and someone tries to move the Draft into mainspace, my redirect page is in the way and will need to be removed by an Admin. Legacypac (talk) 15:39, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, I just don't see the value in preserving the history of an entirely unsourced BLP (not that I am doubting the work, since it was written by someone on Cobbs' staff, but it's still an usourced BLP). Either way this discussion should probably be speedy closed, as it's now a redirect (and I don't think anyone would object to the redirect), and redirects fall outside the scope of MfD. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 16:57, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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.