Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Andrew Kennedy (Ohio politician)

 __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.  —&#8288;Scotty Wong &#8288;— 05:07, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Draft:Andrew Kennedy (Ohio politician)

 * – (View MfD) &#8203;

Non-notable person, once ran for city council and didn't come close to winning. Pure self promotion by article subject whose Wikipedia edits are about trying to promote themselves. Canterbury Tail talk 16:24, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Neutral - This unsourced vanity autobiography would need rejecting if it were submitted for AFC review. There is a conflict between our standards for drafts and our standards for biographies of living persons.  Our standards for drafts are very permissive.  Our standards for BLPs are strict.  I would rather not see MFDs for drafts that have not been submitted yet.  (So, yes, I am arguing with myself.)  Robert McClenon (talk) 16:57, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Yeah, but Drafts do specifically come under MfD's coverage area, and often otherwise Drafts would just sit there for a long time and often never get submitted. While they come under MfD, this is the right process to remove them if an editor doesn't think it's going to be of any value. It's not going to hit mainspace however you shake it. The only other real option here is to just speedy delete it as self promotion vanity, but I thought I'd throw it to the wolves as it were. Canterbury Tail talk 19:22, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
 * So you're saying this was never submitted, despite centering around an election last year? This highlights a real issue with these differing standards.  There's a clear pattern in draftspace of entries whose sole purpose is to promote a candidate, which are deleted once the election is over.  Within the subset of content I'm familiar with, we had Alyse Galvin, a candidate who lost and then ran for the same office two years later.  An admin restored the deleted draft without discussion once she announced her second campaign.  Both times, the draft was deleted after the election.  There was never a serious attempt to promote it to mainspace that entire time.  Wikipedia should ABSOLUTELY NOT be used for such purposes, yet it is, under the pretense of "Why, they could be notable one of these years".  There's no credibility in such a stance when Wikipedia has done such a piss-poor job of reflecting what's already notable simply because of sources that never made their way onto the web in the 21st century.  Likewise, there's a real problem with draftspace existing as a walled garden at cross purposes with the goals of the encyclopedia as a whole, solely concerned about its own insular procedures.  In an age when fake news is rampant and reader discernment is at an all-time low, did it ever occur to you that the continued existence of this draft could be used by its promoters as evidence of the subject's notability?  With a user interface centered on dumbing people down through an abundance of style over substance, do you believe the average person will notice the leading "Draft:" and understand what it means?  I don't. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions  18:40, 5 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep but it should be submitted to the Articles for Creation process. It's definitely just promotion now, but maybe an article can take shape. If not, it will be clear later on. Dege31 (talk) 15:17, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
 * The Cincinnati City Council certainly qualifies as a notable political office. Outside of AFC's walled garden, notability is clearly delineated between holders of notable offices and those who were merely candidates for such offices.  Your argument is really about a small group of editors being able to control an entire namespace without regard for the benefit it offers the project as a whole. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions  18:40, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I have not commented on the notability, only on its current reality as a draft. It is totally unsourced, so it can't yet be moved to mainspace. As for walled gardens, anyone can apply to be a reviewer in the AFC process if they so wish. I am not sure how it disregards the benefit to the project as a whole, since the process is a part of it and operates by the same policies and guidelines. Dege31 (talk) 19:15, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Oh, I've realised you're trying to say it's not notable. Well, that's possible. I'm just saying that it doesn't need to be deleted prematurely if something can be made out of it. Dege31 (talk) 19:43, 5 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Comment please note it was sitting at User:Andrewekennedy123/sandbox until a few days ago when it was then copied over to draftspace. Also the primary editor is the subject in question / shares the same name. The bio was first created April 2021. AngusW🐶🐶F  ( bark  •  sniff ) 23:17, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Also note the draft updates have no election results and the newer edits were for links to more of his websites. So this may be bordering on U5 (web host) or G11 (advertising / promotion). AngusW🐶🐶F  ( bark  •  sniff ) 23:23, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I did find a reference for the election results, they didn't win it. They weren't in the top 3 candidates. Fails WP:POLITICIAN as a result and they've never actually been in politics it seems. Canterbury Tail talk 01:17, 8 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Delete: Usually, draftspace/userspace should not be used as a shadow encyclopedia, but a sort of exception is candidate’s for election, where all coverage relates to them being a candidate for that election. Editors need a place to put the material, as it arises, in preparation for the candidate winning.  When they don’t, and not even close, and still all coverage was pre-election candidate coverage, then it is appropriate to delete.  Even if the person is approaching notability otherwise, WP:TNT applies, the election candidate draft will have been entirely focused on the candidate and is not a basis for an ongoing page.  SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:39, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete per G11 as a purely promotional page. In the state the draft is currently in, it is better to blow the draft up and start over.2601:647:5800:1A1F:CFD:F514:CDE6:9187 (talk) 01:10, 9 March 2022 (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.