Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Steve Negron
- 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: Accepted at AfC and moved to mainspace, so no longer in scope for MfD.. Since it is verified that Negron is in fact a sitting US State legislator, he in fact meets WP:NPOL, and so i have accepted the draft. Normal editign can corrct any further issues. Thanks for your edits establishing this Legacypac. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 15:41, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
Draft:Steve Negron[edit]
Draft which has been tendentiously resubmitted seven times in two months by anonymous IPs, without actually doing anything to substantively address the reasons why it's been getting declined — instead, the IPs' strategy has been to simply argue with everybody who rejects it or comments, to the point that in addition to the seven decline notices the draft now has well over 50 lines of user comment text, compared to just eight lines of actual body text (and that's not even counting how much additional text has been spilled on editors' usertalk pages about it, either.)
It has been claimed in some of the usertalk discussions that the subject actually holds or has held a seat in a state legislature, which would be a genuine basis for inclusion (as opposed to the congressional candidacy, which is not a basis for inclusion in and of itself if the candidate doesn't already have preexisting notability for other reasons) — but not only does this article as written fail to clearly say that, the IPs are actually flatly refusing to add it, even after having had "make the article more about this" pointed out as the magic bullet that changes the equation. Which, to my mind, reveals the IPs' real intention: they're not trying to write a real, substantive article about a state legislator, but rather they fully intend to misuse Wikipedia as an advertorial platform for current campaign publicity instead of properly documenting that the stronger notability claim is actually true (a position which is strongly suggestive of a direct conflict of interest, even if I can't prove that outright).
This has crossed the line into tendentious disruption, and it needs to stop — constantly resubmitting the same inadequate article, and arguing a blue streak every time it gets rejected while refusing to actually add any content to the article to properly verify that the actual basis for his potential inclusion is actually true, is not the way to make this article happen. If the claim that he's served in the state legislature is actually true, then somebody else (not the IPs) who understands Wikipedia's actual inclusion and content standards, and knows how to write an article that passes them, can always start over from scratch — but as it stands, this version is just wasting everybody's time. Bearcat (talk) 05:22, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
- Comment his campaign website saya "In addition to representing his Nashua neighbors in the New Hampshire House of Representatives..." which proves out on his state leg page and NPRelected Elected November 8, 2016 Next election September 11, 2018 (so he is a sitting Stae Rep) A string of reviewers have failed to check to confirm he does not pass WP:NPOL. Does getting elected with 2346 votes get you a page? Legacypac (talk) 05:57, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
- It is not my (or anybody else's) job as an AFC reviewer to approve or promote a draft just because outside investigation revealed a stronger notability claim that isn't actually stated at all in the draft that's actually under review. If he's served in the state legislature, then it's the article's job to be about that if it wants to get approved, not my job to accept a draft that fails to actually mention the real basis for notability at all. And at any rate, the IP's repeated argument has boiled down to "I shouldn't have to add that at all, this should have been accepted on the candidacy alone", which just isn't how this works. But when you get right down to it, the core issue here isn't his notability or lack thereof, it's the disruptiveness of the creator's actions in refusing to revise the article to properly reflect the real basis for notability. Bearcat (talk) 06:05, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
- The claim he was a state leg was buried in there as "He currently represents Nashua's fifth ward" but that sounds like a city council seat to a non-NH election expert. The IPs did a dreadful job and the reviewers have been arguing he does not meet a policy he meets. I've removed the campaign fluff and added clear info on his 2016 State level win. Legacypac (talk) 06:35, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
- It is not my (or anybody else's) job as an AFC reviewer to approve or promote a draft just because outside investigation revealed a stronger notability claim that isn't actually stated at all in the draft that's actually under review. If he's served in the state legislature, then it's the article's job to be about that if it wants to get approved, not my job to accept a draft that fails to actually mention the real basis for notability at all. And at any rate, the IP's repeated argument has boiled down to "I shouldn't have to add that at all, this should have been accepted on the candidacy alone", which just isn't how this works. But when you get right down to it, the core issue here isn't his notability or lack thereof, it's the disruptiveness of the creator's actions in refusing to revise the article to properly reflect the real basis for notability. Bearcat (talk) 06:05, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
- Accept, then immediately Redirect to United States House of Representatives elections in New Hampshire, 2018, per BIO1E. The subject is already covered in mainspace, draftspace should not be used for WP:UNDUE forking / premature spinouts. No need for deletion. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:35, 15 April 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.