I have reached out to EdJohnston, who originally protected the page ( /info/en/?search=User_talk:EdJohnston#Dan_Price_page) He does not seem to object and says following the AFC process is a good idea and that it is a good idea to continue addressing the reviewer objections. As such, not focus on the protected status and work on improving the content of the article.
I have also created a Redirects for Discussion about this page ( /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2020_April_2#Dan_Price) as the reviewer suggested.
Since the review originally rejected the article based on notability I have added a controversy section and made other minor updates.
I would also like to address the concern that "This draft is essentially the same as the deleted article." The deleted article had reported COI and at the time the Price was considered WP:BIO1E. This draft was written from a more neutral point of view and has sources for every statement. Granted, EdJohnston did note that this draft is a bit heavy on controversy. If that is too much we can reduce the controversy but it is valuable to note issues surrounding public figures. Additionally, Dan Price has had independent and reliable articles discuss him every year since 2015. That shows that he is more than WP:BIO1E. Though the article has content related to that one event it also contains info about several other events. Thanks RayScript ( talk) 02:28, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
I have reached out to EdJohnston, who originally protected the page ( /info/en/?search=User_talk:EdJohnston#Dan_Price_page) He does not seem to object and says following the AFC process is a good idea and that it is a good idea to continue addressing the reviewer objections. As such, not focus on the protected status and work on improving the content of the article.
I have also created a Redirects for Discussion about this page ( /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2020_April_2#Dan_Price) as the reviewer suggested.
Since the review originally rejected the article based on notability I have added a controversy section and made other minor updates.
I would also like to address the concern that "This draft is essentially the same as the deleted article." The deleted article had reported COI and at the time the Price was considered WP:BIO1E. This draft was written from a more neutral point of view and has sources for every statement. Granted, EdJohnston did note that this draft is a bit heavy on controversy. If that is too much we can reduce the controversy but it is valuable to note issues surrounding public figures. Additionally, Dan Price has had independent and reliable articles discuss him every year since 2015. That shows that he is more than WP:BIO1E. Though the article has content related to that one event it also contains info about several other events. Thanks RayScript ( talk) 02:28, 3 April 2020 (UTC)