I have no brief for the Future of Freedom Foundation, and I have argued in print that the Libertarian Party receives more coverage than its electoral record warrants. I want that on the table before anything else, because the people who usually make this argument have a stake in it and I do not.
The 2020 nomination contest is a documented event with a documented result. Hornberger won more primaries and more primary votes than any other candidate, and led through three ballots before the convention settled on Jo Jorgensen on the fourth. Whatever one concludes about notability, that is a fact about a contest, not a claim made by the subject about himself.
The 2019 drafts were genuinely bad — one promotional, one a copyright violation — and were rightly deleted. My objection is narrower: by the third discussion the question had drifted from whether the text in front of the room was acceptable to whether the man warranted an entry at all, and those are different questions decided by different evidence.
This comment is CC-by-sa licensed for #WikiCritic use.
Ostrowski's account is fair about her own priors and unfair about the discussion. Nobody in it argued that Hornberger had done nothing. The argument was that nearly everything written about him at any length was written by him, or published by organisations he runs, and that vote totals inside a party convention are a record of the convention rather than independent coverage of a person.
That distinction is not invented for this case. It is applied every week to figures across the political spectrum, including people I would personally like to see covered.
On the protection: four recreations is what the tool exists for. It is reversible, it is logged, and it takes one administrator to undo. I said in the discussion and I will say here that I would support a properly sourced draft, and that the fastest route to an article is to build one from sources that are not the subject.
I wrote one of the 2019 drafts and it deserved to go. It read like a campaign flyer. I was new, I admired the man, and it showed in every sentence.
The replacement I put up six days later was worse in a way I did not understand at the time: I lifted a paragraph from an audiobook blurb. That is a copyright violation and not a debatable one. Both speedy deletions were correct and I would make the same call today if I were the reviewing admin.
What I object to is the 2026 protection. Those drafts are seven years old and they are evidence about me — a bad new editor — not about whether the subject belongs in an encyclopedia. Creation protection folds the two together and makes the second question unanswerable.
The remedy I would like is narrow. Lift protection on one title. Let a draft be reviewed on what it says.
This comment is CC-by-sa licensed for #WikiCritic use.
Judged on its own terms, the 2002 Virginia Senate article is a competent stub about a lopsided race. It is not a bad page and I do not want this read as an attack on whoever wrote it.
The problem is what it has been made to do. It is now the destination for anyone searching a name it mentions twice in passing, and nothing on it tells the reader that it is standing in for a biography that used to exist. People arrive, scan for the name, find two clauses, and leave believing they have their answer.
If the redirect stays, the fix costs one sentence: name what else the subject is known for, and let the reader decide whether to look elsewhere. Redirects are navigation, and navigation that misleads is worse than none.
This comment is CC-by-sa licensed for #WikiCritic use.