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

Austin Petersen

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 August 8. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:58, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. ^Falling_Gravity 21:11, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per LavaBaron. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 21:39, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:49, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:49, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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 redirect war started. For evaluation, this was the expanded version.--MelanieN (talk) 23:12, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]