Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrew Schlafly (4th 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 Speedy keep. The last debate closed on July 18 as a default keep. This is way too soon to be relisting. Take it to DRV or the talk page if you think the last closure was invalid. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells• Otter chirps • HELP!)} 19:34, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Schlafly[edit]

This article was originally deleted and redirected to conservapedia after an unanimous afd that pointed out its lack of verifiability and notability. The article was resurrected and failed a speedy delete because it was not the exact same article. However the AFD that followed resulted in no consensus. I am bringing it back up because I feel that the arguments made to keep the article are invalid and all of the substantial problems that lead to an unanimous delete and redirect are still present.

The basic rational for deleting is that the subject does not have enough reliable sources to create a neutral, and verifiable article that fits the basic standard outlined in biographies of living persons. The sources used in the article are either trivial, include only trivial mention of the subject, or are related to conservapedia.

Andrew Schlafly does not inherit notability from Conservapedia, or from his mother. His article must stand or fall based on sources available for him. I would like to call particular attention to an analysis of sources given by User:David Eppstein in the last AFD to quote him:

"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."

All of the issues of verifiability and notability are still present, there has been no substantial movement towards addressing any of the issues, expanding the article or dealing with neutrality issues. My recommendation is that this be deleted and setup as a redirect to conservapedia. Tmtoulouse (talk) 19:10, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep surely. Whatever us terrible liberals at Wikipedia may think, Conservapedia exists and is notable. I think that he does acquire notability from the act of founding Conservapedia. From whence does Jimmy Wales get his notability - do we question his bio here? — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 19:21, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Notability is not inherited this is an invalid argument, Conservapedia is notable, no one is denying that but he does not gain notability for an article because he founded it. Tmtoulouse (talk) 19:29, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep way way too soon Sceptre ^(talk) 19:32, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.