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 Redirect to Libertarian Party presidential primaries, 2016. -- MelanieN ( talk) 00:36, 21 February 2016 (UTC) reply

Austin Petersen

Austin Petersen (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)

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

Subject dosen't appear to meet general notability guidelines as laid out in WP:42. Per WP:NPOL, just being an unelected candidate for office does not automatically confer notability. The sources in the article are all either primary or non- rs. I searched for better sources, and was unable to find evidence of significant coverage of the subject in secondary reliable sources. Ddcm8991 ( talk) 19:56, 13 February 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: A redirect to Libertarian Party presidential primaries, 2016 might be considered as an option, as opposed to outright deletion.-- Ddcm8991 ( talk) 20:09, 13 February 2016 (UTC) reply

• Redirect to Libertarian Party presidential primaries, 2016. If he wins the Libertarian nomination, that will probably bring him to a level of being notable. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 21:24, 13 February 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Mr Petersen does not conform to the foundation and primary principle of non-aggression stated in the Libertarian Party bylaws, the party platform, the Statement of Principles, and the pledge of non-aggression that all Party members must sign when they join. There is little chance that the Party delegates will nominate him as it will be largely contested. Buncoshark 15:43, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 18:27, 15 February 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 18:27, 15 February 2016 (UTC) reply

• Delete Sources do not demonstrate notability. AusLondonder ( talk) 18:31, 15 February 2016 (UTC) reply
• Redirect/Merge to Libertarian Party presidential primaries, 2016. Definitely a potential search term, but the current coverage seems minimal. I could see this being recreated in a few months when it's closer to the Libertarian Party convention, when coverage could theoretically increase, or especially if he were to win the party's nomination. — Torchiest ^talk _edits 16:09, 16 February 2016 (UTC) reply
• Delete His biography reads like fan-club style trivia, and is sourced to non-notable/fringe libertarian websites. If he gets or is a serious competitor for the LP nomination, he will be mentioned more prominently by the media, and the page can be created at that point. Right now he isn't notable. Steeletrap ( talk) 00:47, 17 February 2016 (UTC) reply
• Delete - this is obviously a self-written promo article for a minor candidate, with very little to no reputable sourcing for notability. 68.190.174.4 ( talk) 02:16, 17 February 2016 (UTC) reply
• Redirect – Barely notable, but he is noteworthy enough to list as a 2016 LP candidate, with non-promotional RS. – S. Rich ( talk) 17:57, 17 February 2016 (UTC) reply
• Redirect to Libertarian presidential primaries, 2016. As others have pointed out, he is noteworthy enough to be listed as a candidate on that page, but not notable in his own right per WP:GNG or WP:POLITICIAN. The article seems to be sourced entirely by primary sources and non-RS blogs and cites.-- Newbreeder ( talk) 16:00, 18 February 2016 (UTC) reply

I have put many hours in researching and learning about Wikipedia, so I could make Austin an appropriate page. Austin is certainly notable, he is consistantly in either first or second place in the polls. And his competitor Gary Johnson has a campaign page. I'm a Libertarian. I am just seeking fair coverage of candidates. The Libertarian primaries are next month(March 15) We will be having our first nationally televised debate on Fox Business with John Stossel, and Austin will be on it. If there is something I can do to fix it, let me know. Or could we at least keep his page on here until it is decided whether he is our nominee or not. Hezymundo ( talk) 20:54, 18 February 2016 (UTC) reply

@ Hezymundo: I sympathize, but the difference is that Gary Johnson was a governor for eight years, and had plenty of coverage during that time. He also received a lot of coverage for his 2012 presidential run. It's not necessarily fair, but Wikipedia is supposed to follow the sources, not get ahead of them. Check out WP:GNG and WP:RS for information about what's required here. — Tourchiest ^talk _edits 22:11, 18 February 2016 (UTC) reply

@ Tourchiest: Thank you for replying. I understand. So after the primaries, IF he were to succeed, I can recreate the page? Also, can I edit the Libertarian Primaries page to include a little biography about him? Neutral of course. Hezymundo ( talk) 22:44, 18 February 2016 (UTC) reply

No, Austin Petersen is only "first or second place in the polls" in polls created by Petersen and his few followers. They pack the poll and then advertise while Petersen is ahead. once the other three Libertarian candidates move ahead of Petersen, they abandon that poll and make a new one, giving the illusion that he is ahead, but it's always until they make the poll public. Petersen cannot be the nominee as his opposition to the non-aggression principle calls for censorship of his bid. The Libertarian Party is not officially debating the point right now because they are getting publicity. It will be done during the convention. Buncoshark 23:23, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

That is a lot of speculating, and accusations for a page claiming to be neutral. If you want to debate me personally, please find me on an alternative source. Even on the Wikipedia page for Nap and Libertarians it is cited that it is controversial. Hezymundo ( talk) 01:28, 19 February 2016 (UTC) reply

Actually, I've already seen the Party bylaw that talks about how Petersen can lose his bid for nomination. The issue here is not whether the NAP is "controversial," but that Petersen is not abiding by Party regulations. My point with you is that those reports about Petersen being ahead in polls is fictitious (see my explanation above). Buncoshark 01:49, 19 February 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.