Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrew Schlafly (3rd nomination)


 * 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   no consensus, default to keep. --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 21:39, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Andrew Schlafly
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Article was deleted and redirected at Articles for deletion/Andrew Schlafly (2nd nomination). A new version was created and was speedy deleted as a G4 (recreation of deleted article). A Deletion Review - Deletion review/Log/2008 July 4 - overturned this speedy deletion and recommended relisting at AFD. I have no opinion. Davewild (talk) 18:43, 10 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete - Borders on political canvassing. Deb (talk) 18:44, 10 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  -- Pete.Hurd (talk) 19:04, 10 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep - the guy is an imbecile who is a lawyer only on paper (Conservapedia doesn't have any license tags for the images and so you can't really know if you can use it or not), but fortunately for him, and unfortunately for the world he is quite notable (there are references). We shouldn't do as he does and simply not write about him, just because he puts - or tries to put - Wikipedia in a bad light. Besides Jimbo's (former) "mistress" (there was a link to her article on jimbo's user page, can't remember the name, and no offense to anyone mentioned in this phrase until now) I don't think she is much more notable than this guy, so keep. diego_pmc (talk) 19:20, 10 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep Not sure I follow the 'political canvassing' point, but the news interest in Conservapedia makes him notable. DJ Clayworth (talk) 20:25, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * keep Google news archive search suggests notability, quite apart from Conservapedia, in the form of quotes from him in his AAPS position appearing in mainstream media, example hits include USA Today, NY Times etc. Pete.Hurd (talk) 20:47, 10 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete or redirect to Conservapedia - I worked very hard to construct an article with reliable sources on Schlafly the last time around, and they are just not their apart from his link to conservapedia. I wrote in depth my rational for deletion at Articles for deletion/Andrew Schlafly (2nd nomination) and nothing as fundamentally changed since then. You can not construct an article on Schlafly that meets the criteria of NPOV, and verifiability. These are core policies. His notability stems almost exclusively from his connection to conservapedia. That is where any info on him belongs, this should be returned to a redirect to conservapedia. Tmtoulouse (talk) 03:04, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep a sufficiently notable website that its founder is notable also. DGG (talk) 03:49, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Refs seem to be trivial mention or passing reference, not the substantial coverage needed to satisfy WP:BIO. Notability is not inherited, so being the son of the woman who prevented the Equal Rights Amendment from being added to the Constitution is insufficient. He seems to get only passing reference in coverage of Conservapedia. Edison (talk) 05:16, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Conservapedia per Tmtoulouse Sceptre (talk) 15:45, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, as notability is demonstrated by the very adequate sourcing in the article. Ford MF (talk) 18:32, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep (as article creator) there are very few article entirely about the man but he is certainly well known and there are enough sources to produce a reasonable article. -Icĕwedg Ё  (ťalķ) 06:12, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. I'm surprised — I thought his name was reasonably well known — but I have to agree with Edison that there is still no reliable sourcing listed, even after the AfD has run this long, and that therefore he fails WP:BIO. To break the footnotes in the current version down in more detail: #1 gives a little biographical detail but seems self-published and unreliable (a biz website associated with Schlafly). #2 mentions him only trivially. #3 is unreliable (a tripod website) and mentions him only trivially. #4 and #5 provide opposite sides of the same story but neither is reliable and both mention him only as one of several participants in the abortion-breast cancer faux controversy rather than providing any biographic detail. #6 is Schlafly himself expressing an opinion. #7 is a bio of his mother, and notability is not inherited. #8 is a paper published by him. #9 is a bio on the web site of an organization founded by his mother. #10 is a marriage bann, certainly not evidence of notability. #11 and #12 source only the fact that he ran a losing political campaign, and WP:POLITICIAN makes clear that that does not suffice for notability. #13 is his mother's organization again. #14 is not so much about him as about Conservapedia (which I agree is notable, much as I may not like that fact). #15 is about a scientific discovery that is per se unrelated to the subject, #16 is his own web site about the discovery, and #17–19 are blog posts about his stupid reaction to the discovery. If that's the best we can come up with, I don't think it's good enough. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:09, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I fail to see how this guy isn't interesting to someone, and his IN-YOUR-FACE attitude and behavior is unusual, so while David Eppstein almost had me convinced, the cites really don't matter a whole hill of beans relative to the overall mission. WP:IAR rules, as usual, in any case. What's there in footnotes certainly supports the brief sketch that is present. That last paragraph certainly is unclear, though. Stuff has to be written as if links aren't on the page, or the writing fails. When pray tell does another encyclopedia rely on link to find out why PZ whoever is in conflict with Schlafly, or the professor field of study? Poor writing there. "Carl Zimmer stated that it was readily apparent that "Schlafly had not bothered to read [Lenski's paper] closely",[22] and PZ Myers criticized Schlafly for demanding data despite not having a plan to use it nor the expertise to analyze it.[23]. Schafly ignores the possibility of adressing the editor of the journal with publishing a comment." So who the heck is Carl Zimmer and why is he stating something? THAT's what needs fixed in this, not its presence. That double period on footnote 23 don't look to good neither. We have a Bot looking for those? // Fra nkB 06:32, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep -- Per Notability Quote:
 * Comment-The main argument is not his relative notability but the inability to for an article about him to meet the far more fundamental and core policy of verifiability. This can not be done. There are not enough reliable sources written to make an article. I guarantee that if this is not deleted now we will be back here in a few weeks saying "well we tried but there just are not any sources." Any information about him in the press is linked to his work with conservapedia, a redirect to conservapedia is all that is needed. You can not override the verifiability criteria no matter who the person is. Tmtoulouse (talk) 14:46, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. "Interesting" and "unusual" don't overrule actual policies on articles.-Wafulz (talk) 17:12, 14 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete. No independent reliable sources about him. As David outlined about, reliable independent sources only mention him in passing or discuss him in the context of the latest Conservapedia nonsense. Given how little information there is on this subject, it will never be in line with our policies on living people, on verifiability, or on neutrality.-Wafulz (talk) 17:10, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, mostly per David Eppstein's analysis of the sources - and the sources added since his post (NNDB, a single statistic about campaign finance, a listings page and an article by Schafly himself) are no better. For biographies of living people in controversial areas it's particularly important that there are sources of sufficient depth and diversity to ensure that the article meets a high standard of WP:NPOV and particularly WP:UNDUE, and here that doesn't seem to be the case. I'll also point out that while the Lenski dialogue is extremely entertaining and has recently attracted a bit of comment in the blogosphere, it shows no sign of having long term importance. Devoting a third of the article to this minor incident is an obvious violation of WP:UNDUE... but a good example of sort of thing which happens when one has to scrape the bottom of the barrel for sources, and pad the article with whatever can be found. Better to have a redirect to Conservapedia, and have a brief section of Schafly's background there, than try to squeeze a stand alone biography out of an inadequate collection of sources. Iain99Balderdash and piffle 20:47, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * He is not notable enough by himself, so I suggest that any relevant and cited information be merged to Conservapedia, and this article be redirected there. seresin ( ¡? ) 00:00, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect. Other than Conservapedia is he notable. I don't see he is (but CP is) so take the salient points and add them to the Conservapedia article, if they aren't already there. Darrenhusted (talk) 10:52, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - This guy is hilarious. No, but seriously, he is notable. If Conservapedia is notable, then he is too. Sources get him through WP:BIO easily. Scarian  Call me Pat!  22:16, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Did you read David's comment on the sources?-Wafulz (talk) 16:31, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Peter Hurd's quoted sources are fine, in my opinion. Scarian  Call me Pat!  08:20, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Commment I hope all these "keep" votes are going to stick around and help find these supposedly notable sources, last time we went through this people voted keep and ignored the article, a month later we had to go through this proccess again. Arguments of notability are completely invalid in this case. Regardless of his notability there are not enough sources you can not override the core policy of verifiability for an article. Regardless of how notable one might think he is there are not enough sources, that is the problem. The article that everyone sees now that needs substantial editing and rewriting is about as good as it gets. It can not get any better. If you vote "keep" you are basically saying the article as it stands now is good enough. If this article is not deleted we will be back here in a few weeks doing this again, because there are not enough sources. Tmtoulouse (talk) 22:16, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep The article needs a *lot* of cleanup, but he's done enough in enough different places to be notable. Between being GC for the AAPS (and thus the front name on a huge range of medical malpractice/abortion type debates), and the Conservapedia thing (both of which are easily confirmed), that's sufficient. Dramatic edits in the article are probably in order, but not removing his bio entirely. RayAYang (talk) 21:53, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think the sourcing for him being General Counsel of AAPS, or creating Conservapedia, is unreliable. David correctly argues that they only mention him trivially. However, as GC of AAPS he appears in dozens of news articles over the years, on a fairly broad variety of legal topics (getting trivial mentions in each one). This may be a case of quantity overwhelming quality -- but when combined with the Conservapedia thing, it does render him notable. I wouldn't object, on the basis of sourcing arguments, to cutting the bio down to a stub. But I don't think we have grounds to delete it, which is something else entirely. RayAYang (talk) 22:39, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * If you are going to stub this why not just do what we decided to before and redirect to CP with info about Andy in that. A stub article fits perfect in CP. Tmtoulouse (talk) 23:10, 16 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep - Agree with arguments already given for keeping. Skoojal (talk) 01:14, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - notability is not inherited; consensus does not change that fast; just a plain mess. Bearian (talk) 01:17, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * It is true that notability is not inherited but that is more in the sense that just because a person is notable it does not mean everything they have ever done is notable. Instead one of the best ways for a person to become notable is to do notable things, which Schlafly has done. -Icĕwedg Ё  (ťalķ) 05:03, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * But he is not notable outside of CP, can you find me one reliable source that talks about him in a non-trivial fashion that is not connected with CP? Verifiability trumps almost any other possible policy concern at Wikipedia, and there are not enough sources to create an article that meets the verifiability criteria. This belongs as a redirect to CP with information on Andy in that article. Tmtoulouse (talk) 05:14, 17 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete and redirect to conservapedia; there is nothing notable about him outside of that web page, no matter who his mother is. csloat (talk) 05:38, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Conservapedia. He isn't notable outside of his website, and there is little encyclopedic information to give about him. Contrary to popular belief, creating a marginally notable website does not automatically make on notable. R. fiend (talk) 19:50, 17 July 2008 (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.