Austin Wade Petersen ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

This article was originally deleted because the person the article was about was not notable enough. Since the original deletion, a new article was rewritten with additional content and additional sources, but was still speedily deleted (and redirected) for WP:G4. Petersen has since gained more notability and gained support as shown by primary election results. He is also going to appear in a nationally televised debate with two other top contenders for the Libertarian Party nomination, which was sourced in the newly rewritten article that was speedily deleted. This demonstrates his viability to be a serious contender for the party nomination, and thus a notable public figure.

Comparing the last revision of the old article with the newly rewritten article, I don't feel like these are "substantially identical" to justify a speedy deletion of the new article. -- Hamez0 ( talk) 21:59, 29 March 2016 (UTC) reply

To be precise, the article has not been deleted, but it has been fully protected in a state where it is a redirect, which produces a similar effect. I considered speedily deleting as a purely promotional page, but decided to leave the revision history visible instead.

I see that for some reason Hamez0 chose to come straight to deletion review, rather than consulting me on the matter instead. I also see that he or she did not even inform me of this deletion review. I don't know why: perhaps it was just an accidental oversight. Thanks to Cryptic for informing me of the deletion review.

Hamez0 is perfectly right in saying that the new article is not identical to the one deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Austin Petersen, and that is precisely why I did not even consider deleting the article under speedy deletion criterion G4. However, the consensus at that discussion was that the subject is not notable enough to be the subject of an article, and that instead the page discussed should be a redirect to Libertarian Party presidential primaries, 2016. If someone had edited that page to make it back into an article, then it would have been reverted to a redirect, and if it had been repeatedly restored to an article, contrary to the consensus in the discussion, then it might very likely have been protected to stop the disruption. Creating it under a different title should not be able to circumvent consensus, and I see no reason why changing the title should cause it to be treated differently than how it would have been treated if the same title had been kept.

I have checked every one of the sources cited in the article. Most of them do not even mention Austin Petersen. A few briefly mention him in passing, such as including his name in a list. A couple are by Petersen, not about him. The very few which do more than just about mention him are not independent sources: for example, there is the web site of his political party, and there is thelibertarianrepublic.com, which on its "about" page says "Petersen has turned The Libertarian Republic into a powerful online news source for the public". In short, the reasons for deletion which were advanced in the deletion discussion apply just as much to the new article as they did to the old one. Repeatedly restoring the article, in defiance of the consensus view at that discussion, is disruptive. The decision was that we should have a redirect from Petersen's name to Libertarian Party presidential primaries, 2016. Since the use of article protection to prevent such disruption has effectively been contested (though I am not convinced that deletion review is the best way to contest it), I can take the article to a new deletion discussion, if necessary. I believe doing so will be a waste of people's time, as exactly the same reasons will apply as applied first time. The editor who uses the pseudonym " JamesBWatson" ( talk) 08:50, 30 March 2016 (UTC) reply

• Since posting the above message, I have seen a report claiming that Austin Petersen has been claiming that the decision to replace the first article with a redirect was done by a conspiracy set up by a rival member of the Libertarian Party, who has been very critical of Petersen. Whether that has any relevance to the sudden appearance of single purpose accounts and IP addresses all working to get Austin Petersen coverage on Wikipedia in a promotional article I don't know, but there is sufficient likelihood that it should be born in mind, and it might, of course, be relevant to any new deletion discussion. The editor who uses the pseudonym " JamesBWatson" ( talk) 09:27, 30 March 2016 (UTC) reply

• I closed the original AfD. The consensus there was clear and was totally in accordance with Wikipedia standards and usual practice: an unelected candidate, who is not notable for anything but being a candidate, is given a redirect to the relevant election. I would add that the subject has plenty of coverage at that page, including a photo in two places.

Hamez0 claims that the subject has "gained more notability and gained support as shown by primary election results". That does not appear to be the case. There have been one caucus and two primaries, where his placement was 7.5%, 29%, and 3%. All of this is spelled out in sufficient detail at the election's article and I can see no justification for a separate article at this time.

It's true that DRV is the wrong venue for this, because both closures as well as the protection were procedurally correct. Don't blame Hamez0; they came to DRV because they were told to, on the article's talk page - where as many as 60 brand new, special purpose accounts have posted comments, each individually titled "Contested deletion". This is obviously due to offline canvassing somewhere, and is coming from people who have no idea about Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion of an article. This is as good a venue to discuss the situation as any.

I suppose the article could be userfied to someone, to see if they can write a new, sufficiently sourced article. But in effect they already did that (changing the title to get around the previous AfD) and their efforts were not sufficient. As JamesBWatson notes, the new sources do not amount to significant coverage by multiple independent reliable sources; about the only sources aside from election coverage are things like Youtube and IMDb which are not accepted as sources here; and the subject still fails the criterion of WP:GNG. I would not favor starting a new AfD; as things currently stand it would just get swamped by Special purpose accounts. -- MelanieN ( talk) 15:34, 30 March 2016 (UTC) reply

I don't see how DRV is the "wrong venue." The redirect was an enforcement of the decision made at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Austin Petersen. Per WP:DRV: "Deletion Review is a forum designed primarily to appeal . . . disputed decisions made as a result of deletion discussions." I do not see any other recourse for those who feel this individual merits an article. Furthermore, the "Contested deletion" titles were automated when the readers clicked the button "Contest this speedy deletion" on the speedy deletion template. I'm not sure if there was a concerted effort by the Petersen campaign, but the "Austin Wade Petersen" page was linked to in a tweet Petersen retweeted. I speculate that Petersen's Twitter followers followed the link to the Wikipedia page, saw the speedy deletion template, responded by clicking "Contest this speedy deletion", and then provided their reasons. -- William S. Saturn ( talk) 18:27, 30 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Thanks for that clarification about why they all have the same subject title; that makes sense. I wasn't arguing that this discussion shouldn't happen; in fact I think it should. Although strictly speaking this site is for procedural matters only, as I commented above, this seems like as good a venue as any to discuss the article. -- MelanieN ( talk) 18:41, 30 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Indeed this was the recommendation on the talk page. DRV is also the place to come if 'new information is brought to light', such as additional references or significant changes. I don't know if that's the case, but here's the place to discuss it. I'm curious how User:JamesBWatson is so previously involved as to be offended. Prior involvement doesn't seem obvious, and we might benefit from a brief explanation. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 18:43, 30 March 2016 (UTC) reply

• When I wrote "though I am not convinced that deletion review is the best way to contest it" it seems that I didn't express myself clearly. What I meant to say was that going straight to deletion review without first consulting the administrator involved was not the best way to contest it. As for zzuuzz referring to my being "offended", I don't feel at all offended, and if my tone gave that impression then again I didn't express myself clearly. As for being "curious how JamesBWatson is so previously involved", the article referred to in the heading of this discussion, Austin Wade Petersen, has not been deleted, but I protected it as a redirect, which, as I said above, produces a similar effect to deletion, so I assumed that the review was of my action. Also, the comments from the editor who started this review make it clear that he or she is contesting what has been done to that article, on the grounds that it is different from the one deleted at AfD, not contesting the original AfD result. I am not sure whether that answers zzuuzz's doubts, because I'm not sure whether I have correctly understood what those doubts are, but he or she can, of course, give me a more specific question if further clarification is needed.

• I agree with MelanieN's comments about the original deletion. I also agree with her that there is no evidence that there have subsequently been changes to the notability of the subject. The treatment of the second article is more debatable, and it was precisely because I thought there was room for debate that I only protected it, rather than deleting it. The editor who uses the pseudonym " JamesBWatson" ( talk) 09:59, 31 March 2016 (UTC) reply

  The doubts stem simply from the fact that this DRV was started a full hour before JamesBWatson protected the page. I'm simply saying that this is the proper venue, and there is no reason for Hamez0 to have contacted JamesBWatson. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 10:05, 31 March 2016 (UTC) reply

@ Zzuuzz: Thank you for that clarification. It hadn't crossed my mind to check the timings, as my protection seemed to me to be the only thing which could be regarded as equivalent to a deletion. In that case, the review must have been intended to refer to redirecting the article, rather than to my protection of it, unless it was intended to refer to a mere nomination for speedy deletion, in which case deletion review certainly wasn't the right venue. The editor who uses the pseudonym " JamesBWatson" ( talk) 10:19, 31 March 2016 (UTC) reply

To be fair, the instructions for this site do say "Before listing a review request, please: 1) Discuss the matter with the closing administrator and try to resolve it with him or her first. If you and the admin cannot work out a satisfactory solution, only then should you bring the matter before Deletion review. See § Purpose." But Hamez0 is a fairly new and inexperienced editor, and I believe we should cut them some slack; they did what they were told to do at the talk page. It looks to me as if this request is actually directed toward what Hamez0 mistakenly thought was a G4 speedy deletion. The dozens of protests on the talk page are clearly meant to be arguments against speedy deletion - which didn't happen. In any case, I think we should discuss the article-vs.-redirect question here, on its merits, without regard to proper venue, and without trying to clarify which administrative action the protest is directed toward. -- MelanieN ( talk) 15:14, 31 March 2016 (UTC) reply

P.S. I have explained things to Hamez0 on their talk page, and they seem to understand the situation now. -- MelanieN ( talk) 19:48, 31 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Thanks for doing that. Hobit ( talk) 15:36, 4 April 2016 (UTC) reply