Talk:Tina Peters

This page was proposed for deletion by Arms & Hearts (talk · contribs) on 25 June 2022.

This article was nominated for deletion on September 1, 2022. The result of the discussion was Keep.

Tina Peters (Colorado)

Article needed for Tina Peters (Colorado) (currently a redlink), notable Mesa County Clerk in national news over election fraud claims and allowing access to voting machines. Candidate for Colorado Secretary of State. Having a redlink is better for the likely numerous arriving readers, better than bringing them immediately to the German athlete's page, which is what search on "Tina Peters" was doing. Article begun at Draft:Tina Peters (Colorado). Doncram (talk) 15:51, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks MB, for speaking up vs PROD. This Tina Peters of Mesa County Colorado, newswothy and notable, is on ballot right now, is bring searched for. I wish the draft could get to mainspace ASAP though I'm it not sure i have enough to get it through AFC promptly. Still better that would-be teaders see Wikipedia is at least aware.--Doncram (talk) 15:26, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Doncram: While readers searching for "Tina Peters" may well be looking for the Coloradoan, that still doesn't justify a disambiguation page here. If there are two relevant topics, but only one currently has an article, then the one with the article is the primary topic by default, and hatnotes can be used instead of a disambiguation page (WP:ONEOTHER, and see also WP:WTAF). If your draft is submitted and accepted soon then this is moot, but I'm not sure how likely that is. As such I'm inclined to take this to AfD. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 16:38, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As you can see, I am working on the draft. I would prefer you not take it to AFD, but rather help complete an acceptable article. Or if you or anyone else would take an edited-down copy of what I've started to put a short stub in mainspace more quickly. I personally don't like readers seeing Wikipedia internal strife about technicalities, which happens too often IMHO when they arrive all at once due to current events. Often because Wikipedia coulda/shoulda already have had an article in place, and shoulda settled out its internal notability or BLP or other ~~conceens~~concerns already, on an obviously valid topic. Right now Colorado voters are voting in primary election and will do so through this coming Tuesday, and many are looking up "Tina Peters" to get information. You can do it, but the result will be readers seeing AFD notice on the page, and some getting involved in the AFD and/or draft article without prior experience in Wikipedia, and likely experiencing controversy and having justifiable frustration. It's embarrassing that we set that up. The low-profile, better treatment is to let the already-valid disambiguation page stand as it is until after Tuesday at least. Your choice. --Doncram (talk) 17:35, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Could you respond to my point regarding whether a disambiguation page is needed here, or if hatnotes can suffice? You've asserted that the dab page is "valid" but haven't responded to my argument as to why it isn't (that is, per WP:ONEOTHER; this is a separate point from whether Peters of Colorado is notable). I won't have much time for editing over the next few days so won't AfD any time too soon, but for me the ideal outcome would just be to WP:G7 this and move Tina Peters (field hockey) back to the base name with a hatnote. I won't work on the draft, I'm afraid, for the same reason and because I usually find interpretations of notability for politicians mystifying so have no idea if Peters is notable or not. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 17:52, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for holding off. Have discussed some elsewhere, but hatnotes instead of a disambiguation page are not possible without the politician article in mainspace. I do assure you there is notability, from past AFD experience on more minor politicians, though this is not my usual editing area....i generally write about innocuous historic sites where no Wikipedians could ever get all ~~hearted~~heated up and angry and upset, right? (and if u believe that, i also have a nice spaceship for sale cheap no questions asked only within next 24 hours) --Doncram (talk) 18:11, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Last comment on this for now, but why wouldn't hatnotes (or a hatnote) be possible? I'm sure I've added many along these lines that've been uncontroversial:

– Arms & Hearts (talk) 18:42, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nice idea, but the 2022 election article has no information about Peters besides that a person of that name is running, and i think no more would be allowed there. The dab entry does provides not much more, but IMO it is more professional to immediately acknowledge to a searcher that there is no article about her, than to direct them on. I have submitted draft to AFC, perhaps in too-rough form without all supported by inline references, but maybe others will help. --Doncram (talk) 19:02, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Flurry of interest in "Tina Peters" shown in pageviews chart, permalink, showing 480-600 pageviews for three days June 27-29, and about 100 on June 30, vs. baseline 50 or less before and after. Election was Tuesday June 28. --Doncram (talk) 16:59, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]