Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Austin Petersen (2nd nomination)


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep (nac) There is strong consensus that this individual meets the notability guidelines. Editor !voting delete does not help their case by voting twice. Vanamonde (talk) 05:59, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Austin Petersen
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Nom does not believe page should be deleted. This is a procedural RfD to resolve repeated redirects. LavaBaron (talk) 20:37, 8 August 2016 (UTC) * Redirect to Libertarian Party presidential primaries, 2016 as per previous nom. The articles cited don't add up enough to meet the "significant press coverage" requirement of WP:NPOL IMO. - SanAnMan (talk) 21:10, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep (Oppose Deletion, Merge, or Redirect) Meets our GNG. Austin Petersen has been the subject of focused biographical profile stories - dated before and after his failed candidacy - in the Kansas City Star, National Review, Reason Magazine, and KYW-TV. He has been mentioned as part of round-up stories by CNBC, the Los Angeles Times, CNN, Washington Times, and Washington Post. Previous issues with this article which resulted in its justifiable deletion - namely, it was sourced to a combination of YouTube videos and Libertarian fan blogs - have now been resolved. LavaBaron (talk) 20:37, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete Most of the information mentioned in the above comment is repeated stories already in the numerous deleted variations of the Austin Petersen article attempts. Since the end of the party convention Petersen has not been news-worthy. Bunco man (talk) 20:51, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2016 August 8.  —cyberbot I   Talk to my owner :Online 20:58, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, you're mistaken. Biographical profile stories (not just incidental mentions), published in Kansas City Star, National Review, Reason Magazine, and KYW-TV substantially overcomes the 'significant press coverage' requirement of WP:NOL. This is established through wide precedent of other minor party candidates, see: Darrell Castle, Evan McMullin, Rocky De La Fuente, Ken Fields, etc. etc. WP:IDONTLIKEIT by Libertarian Party fanboys is not a reason to delete. LavaBaron (talk) 21:22, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. FallingGravity 21:11, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
 * User:LavaBaron, I never said WP:IDONTLIKEIT, nor am I any kind of Libertarian Party fanboy. I made my judgment based on the information given, both current and previous. I may wind up being outvoted, but it is still my opinion, and whether or not we agree on it, I am entitled to it, so please avoid the personal attacks. - SanAnMan (talk) 16:06, 9 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Changing vote to Keep, the arguments made by the other reviewers here speak for themselves, I am convinced. - SanAnMan (talk) 13:06, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep per LavaBaron. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 21:39, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep - Petersen is notable by a mile, as Lavabaron has shown, and I'm hard-pressed to find a reason for deletion. Not currently Newsworthy does not mean not notable, especially considering that the subject was very recently newsworthy. Tazerdadog (talk) 22:26, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:49, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:49, 8 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment I am not taking a position at this time. But I wanted to let discussants know that the article was expanded by about 50% in August, but the additions were mass-reverted a few hours later, just before the latest expand-vs.-redirect war started. For evaluation, this was the expanded version.--MelanieN (talk) 23:12, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
 * P.S. Disclosure: I was the admin who closed the previous discussion as "redirect". The current version is substantially different from the version I redirected. --MelanieN (talk) 23:36, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Just a note, we have editors like Bunco man descending on this page inserting claims sourced to non-RS like LewRockwell.com and "The Libertarian Republic" hobby blog. These were the issues that resulted in the previous article's deletion and, I assume, are being air-dropped into this article to pave the way for its redeletion by process of obfuscation of the RS. LavaBaron (talk) 00:18, 9 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Response to Just a note, blaming my sourced information as being the reason Austin Petersen is not noteworthy enough for an article is downright silly. Deleting sources to articles written by Austin Petersen as not being RS is petty and disruptive, not to mention an attempt to hide the truth that Austin Petersen publicly opposes the Libertarian principles, thus not an actual libertarian (lower-case). Bunco man (talk) 03:06, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Except in exceptional circumstances, sources written by a BLP are not RS for biographical facts on said BLP. LavaBaron (talk) 04:03, 9 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep - Enough non-trivial coverage in multiple independent reliable sources to surpass the usual routine coverage received by political candidates, and pass the WP:GNG bar.--JayJasper (talk) 23:16, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep clearly has enough coverage (CNN, LA Times, etc.) to surpass general notability guideline. Other issues about BLP, RS, POV, etc. are editing issues, not deletion issues.  Any concerns that arise outside notability can be cleaned up through editing.--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:46, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep Easily meets WP:GNG with the amount of coverage as shown above. RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:47, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep There are numerous articles about his candidacy and some networks still recognize his notability even after the campaign ended. Hamez0 (talk) 14:30, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep He has become more notable that the article is necessary and needed.Suite1408 (talk) 22:09, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep As the nominator of the two previous Afd's for this article which resulted in deletion/redirect, I am now convinced that the subject is a WP:GNG pass based on the addition of multiple reliable sources providing significant coverage.--Ddcm8991 (talk) 14:48, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment If this article is kept then the two draft articles (Draft:Austin Petersen and Draft:Austin Wade Petersen) should probably be taken to WP:MFD. I might do that myself, but I just wanted to note it here. FallingGravity 00:48, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
 * , it is not necessary to take an abandoned draft to MFD; it will be deleted after six months of inactivity. If an editor continues to work on/submit the draft(s), then I could see a valid reason to nominate for deletion. As it stands, there's no reason to take up others' time with a (somewhat) pointless MFD. Primefac (talk) 19:25, 13 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep Petersen has been recurring on numerous shows and media outlets including multiple appearances with John Stossell. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.185.151.51 (talk) 20:53, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete The media attention ended when Petersen lost (third place). There is no new information or attention towards him, minus what he himself creates on his websites. Bunco man (talk) 23:16, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Voting twice won't likely sway the discussion or change consensus. Also, all evidence I've seen suggests that Petersen got second place though you seem convinced he got third place. FallingGravity 00:15, 16 August 2016 (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 article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.