Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Rishi Kumar

 __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:  speedy keep. Withdrawn, and soft delete votes are rather moot for drafts. Primefac (talk) 00:19, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Rishi Kumar

 * – (View MfD)

The two copies of this political BLP have been submitted eleven times and declined or rejected eleven times by seven different reviewers. The subject does not satisfy political notability as a candidate, and does not satisfy general notability based on any coverage other than of the campaign. That is the reason why the two copies of the draft are declined. The reason why they should be deleted is that the repeated resubmission is tendentious. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:40, 27 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Please don't delete this. I am working on a substantive page. I don't know why people are trying to create duplicates. If Winning 30,000+ votes does not make you notable, I don't know what does. --PoliticalEddy (talk) 18:49, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
 * See WP:POLITICIAN AngusWOOF  ( bark  •  sniff ) 21:43, 27 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment I've gutted most of the article since the previous submission. The main way this person is going to be notable is if he wins the actual seat and/or has extensive news coverage nationally, outside Silicon Valley, California. Local papers such as India Post (Fremont, California) and Bay Area News Group do have coverage of him, but the article body needs to reference those better. The India Post one is promising but it is localized. Bay Area News Group / San Jose Mercury has mostly opinion pieces written by Kumar himself or his supporters / opponents.. I'd recommend salting the mainspace location and leave the draft editing to established editors, and then wait until November election results where it will conclude whether or not the candidate will become notable. If you prefer deletion, then I'll make a stub version in my userspace.  AngusWOOF  ( bark  •  sniff ) 19:07, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I struck out userifying this since others are interested in continuing on this. AngusWOOF  ( bark  •  sniff ) 22:42, 27 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Soft Delete until the person is more notable (ie has won). I see there are some articles regarding him being found innocent in a hit and run? Allow undeletion with WP:REFUND    Kadzi    (talk) 19:18, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

I am unsure of why there are numerous edits being made as well as duplicates of the same page under different names; however, I do think that this candidate is politically notable. He has received over 30k votes, as well as broken city records of most votes received. I am currently working to create an unbiased page, as I know that many edits have included significant bias. While this is being done, please do not delete the page. --Wikiedits82 (talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:3024:1601:9500:F5E8:6EC:4F86:875A (talk) 21:50, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep I agree that this is not ready for approval, and may not be until/unless Kumar wins the election, or significantly more in-depth non-local coverage is cited. However, although the review comments from other versions seem to have been merged into the current draft (without as far as I can see complying with WP:CWW, so it is hard to see just what comes from which other version), this version does not seem to have been repeatedly re-submited wiothotu improvement, and the editors of the other versions seem to have been other people (unless I have misunderstood) so it seems incorrect to hold their actions against this draft. Tendentious editing is the only reaosn for deletion, and those currently working on the draft do not seem to have been the tendentious editors. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 22:54, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
 * , yeah, I boldly merged and redirected the other comments from the other drafts and redirected them to this one. This version was before I added the other comments. AngusWOOF  ( bark  •  sniff ) 23:23, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
 * , boldly merging is fine, probably was the best choice, but even drafts should have attributions preserved, not just for the authors, but so that readers and reviewers can see who did what. Is an edit summary or an invocation of copied all that hard?
 * Anyway as one who did merges, was I incorrect in my belief that the editors of the current draft are different people (or at least different accounts) from the editors of the now merged drafts? DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 23:36, 27 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep. Candidate pages go well in draftspace.  It helps mainspace to not have weak candidate coverage being added to articles.  Tell the authors to not submit their until the candidate is elected.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:54, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Withdraw - Maybe I wasn't reading the details closely enough, or maybe the merging was non-helpful. The merging definitely had the non-helpful result of making me think that one editor was pushing multiple drafts.  I am willing to withdraw my MFD nomination, but am not willing to work with any of the editors to get one of the drafts accepted (and I don't think that any of the MFD regulars expect me to try to get any of these drafts accepted).  Robert McClenon (talk) 01:30, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment - There appears to have been off-wiki canvassing, which is why the comment was made that one of the versions of the Kumar draft was the Final version, that is, the off-wiki writing was finished. Political volunteers may not understand just how much we, the Wikipedia volunteers, are distrustful of off-wiki canvassing.  Robert McClenon (talk) 01:30, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep per PoliticalEddy. Drafts need not be notable. 🐔 Chicdat Chicken Database 10:15, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep I have updated my draft with several national and local newspapers that are impartial and unaffiliated to Rishi Kumar nor his campaign for Congress. I have done this to demonstrate his notability despite not having earned a seat in Congress. If an editor could agree that with such substantial coverage from various sources that this figure is indeed notable, I can submit the draft for review. If not, then it makes sense to wait until (if) Kumar is elected. --Joeinsanjose
 * , are you talking about the one in your userbox? Can you merge the contents of that into the current Draft:Rishi Kumar so that AFC reviewers can see the newer non-local references? We're trying not to deal with more than the one draft for now.   AngusWOOF  ( bark  •  sniff ) 18:17, 28 July 2020 (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.