Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lawrence Auster


 * 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 keep albeit weakly Star   Mississippi  01:41, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

Lawrence Auster

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

I don't believe he is notable, the article is heavily based on unreliable sources (mainly his own blog), and I don't think there are enough reliable sources out there to fix it. Hence given the paucity of reliable sources to cite, I feel he is not notable and the article is better off deleted. Ascendingrisingharmonising (talk) 18:53, 29 April 2022 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗  plicit  23:44, 6 May 2022 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:38, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and Politics. Ascendingrisingharmonising (talk) 18:53, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. The sources on the page are mostly just his own website, but there's a lot more out there that could be incorporated. In the book Huddled Masses, Muddled Laws, author Kenneth Lee states Auster's Path to National Suicide "has gone on to become a cult classic among restrictionists", and Peter Brimelow from Forbes compared it to Thomas Paine's Common Sense (seen here). He is described as a "prominent immigration scholar" in the book Refuge in the Lord by Lawrence J. McAndrews (seen here); Michael C. Moynihan wrote about Auster's ideas in Reason (seen here); there's a 2019 review of his book Our Borders, Ourselves that appears on Countercurrents.org (seen here); VDARE wrote a remembrance of him a year after his death (seen here); and his work is referenced a few dozen times in books if you Google search it. While not the most comprehensive of sourcing, I think it meets GNG. --Kbabej (talk) 23:46, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Weak Keep—I concur with Kbabej on his estimation of the sourcing. There's a number of journal articles (The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science), public issues magazines (New Republic), and book coverage (in rightwing press like National Review, and otherwise.) I didn't find some meaty profile or something that would be a slam-dunk for coverage, but the length of sustained mentions and number of sources I think still pushes him over the threshold. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs  talk 23:03, 19 May 2022 (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.