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: keep . ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:44, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Alyse Galvin[edit]

Draft:Alyse Galvin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Before my rationale, two points. First, I've seen a lot of suspicious editing activity in the weeks leading up to the election which gives cause to discuss exactly what Wikipedia's purpose is anymore. Second, there is a centralized discussion currently ongoing related to content of this sort at Wikipedia talk:Notability (people)#Centralized discussion on the notability of political candidates which could have an effect on this MFD. The creator of this draft has been busy as of late creating biographical content in a similar vein. I still believe the topic to be non-notable, though. Don Young's 1998 opponent, Jim Duncan, was a state representative for 12 years and a state senator for another 12. His 1978 opponent, Pat Rodey, was a state senator for 18 years. His 1976 opponent, Eben Hopson, was also a state senator but otherwise notable for numerous other events in his life, including his role in the founding of the North Slope Borough. The community has actively resisted efforts to expand our coverage to include topics such as these, for no reason that I can see other than the fact that they have not been the subject of today's headlines within Wikipedia's lifetime (Hopson died in 1980, so that should be quite obvious in his case). Moving forward to this decade, we have an article on Young's 2014 opponent, Forrest Dunbar, primarily due to his election to Anchorage's equivalent of a city council, with the smattering of headlines he received during the 2014 campaign being used in part to justify his notability. In reality, Dunbar is a person affiliated with a certain political consultant, one of many associated with that consultant to receive greatly puffed-up coverage here during the past 5–6 years, while coverage of other Alaska political figures with far greater accomplishments has languished. A look at the state of the governor-elect's article first thing this morning should make that obvious. Now it appears that we have an attempt to engage in similar puffery with Galvin, merely because a few pollsters convinced a few media outlets to speculate that she had a chance to defeat Young. As results reflecting most votes counted shows, affirmed by a third-party reliable source, she didn't really come close. To make matters worse, I just previewed this MFD and the draft's creator is attempting to whitewash the whole affair in the time it took me to write this rationale. I may have more to say, but it appears that I need to save this right now before that happens. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 00:46, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Lindbeck won a higher percentage two years ago. More importantly, he actually has verifiable accomplishments to speak of through decades of experience in the higher levels of his profession within the state. Galvin lacks those accomplishments in spades. The "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article" was due more to the position she campaigned for than anything having to do with her, otherwise I would have come across a draft which looked more like a real biography than a repetition of her campaign biography. As has been the case with any number of other election-related biographies over the years, she is effectively buying exposure on Wikipedia by virtue of her fundraising and poll numbers. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 04:43, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
In my haste, I misread those results. Still, the rest of the point stands. Discussions routinely exist elsewhere regarding "defining aspects of notability". We have Category:Editors of Alaska newspapers, with a number of entries primarily notable for that, yet we don't have Category:Spouses of state cabinet secretaries of Alaska, which is the closest she came to being notable before this. Claiming some measure of notability for this losing campaign smacks of treating WP:BLP1E as though it exists to be flaunted at will. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 03:14, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
All you're really doing is proving that you have more time for this than I do. I'd actually rather avoid this whole thing myself because I don't have time to stem the flood of election-related spam, given that it's the same tired old thing every two years and nothing has changed. People come along every election cycle and dump their spam and move on and act as if appropriate weight or proper historical perspective is someone else's problem. We still have corners of the encyclopedia which give weight to the notion that Sarah Palin is the sum total of the Alaskan political scene. Meanwhile, in real life, in less than a month we'll see our third governor since Palin left office. The state of Dunleavy's article at the time his election victory became apparent is all the proof you need that we're not reflecting appropriate weight and are apparently not even interested in such. Wikipedia as a popularity contest runs so far afoul of NPOV that it's not even funny. The centralized discussion would be a good place to continue this except that it's far too narrowly focused, which is likely by design. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 04:43, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. I proved you're either incorrect in your assumptions or not acting in good faith, and it took me less than a minute to collect those diffs to demonstrate this MfD was uncalled for. I thank everyone else in here for agreeing with that. I used draft space the way draft space is meant to be used. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:43, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
In other words, admins are entitled to use draftspace as a holding pen for their pet projects, while other users are held to a different standard. The evidence is abundant. The admins who have shown up to this discussion appear to be saying that it's okay to deny this because it's being hidden from the general readership through aggressive deletion and search engine indexing. Let me let you in on something, even if has more to do with real life than on slaving devotion to the ways of Wikipedia. The few editors lording over draftspace who talk about collaboration while expecting someone else to do all the real work are entitled to their opinion. If they are going to hinder collaboration because they expect me to do all the work, they should also expect that I'm aware that a billion-plus other websites exist in the world. Given that, they should also expect that if I do perform all the work, that I can also stick a copyright notice on it and stick it on some other website. The position of said content on search engines is the only thing I would lose on the deal. Compare that with the readership's loss, a loss which in reality has been ongoing for years by giving such weight to significance coverage in today's headlines. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 04:43, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You're partially right, though you strayed a bit. It's not only Admins that are held to different standard it's experienced users in general. There are things that will be deleted if they were created by a user with say only 1 or 5 edits, but will be kept if created by experienced user, that is a policy. And all the users commenting above are not admins save Muboshgu himself, so you're wrong in assuming that his admin colleagues have shown up to thwart your deletion proposal. –Ammarpad (talk) 05:32, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That's nice, except it was proven to be patently false by virtue of the deletion of material I moved from my userspace to draftspace before I or anyone else had any real opportunity to resume work on it, while there exist a series of placeholders on closely related topics that have not moved beyond that stage for well over three years, created by an admin BTW. I suppose the next excuse will be that it's okay to sacrifice my efforts to expand our coverage of inherently notable topics because no one wants to be reminded of the whole Ricky81682 affair. That's why I chose to resume that work offline — if you're playing these sort of games with me, ultimately you're playing these sort of games with the readership. It tells me that we need a Wikipedia version of the Serenity Prayer, because some of you appear to believe that readers lack "the wisdom to know the difference" RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 03:14, 11 November 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.


More