Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrew Schlafly

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 13:43, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Andrew Schlafly

Andrew Schlafly (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Andrew Schlafly is not notable outside of his role with conservapedia. Doesn't merit a separate article. Tmtoulouse 06:50, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I can understand the problem with him but he is alo notable for his work with the AAPS. Of course Wikipedians tend to focus on his Conservapedia efforts. There is also the issue that deleting his entry is tantamount to some sort of censorship. I started the article but if consensus is for deletion then that's OK by me. Barfbagger 12:25, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep but keep a very close eye on it as it's likely to be a vandal-magnet and I'm sure he'd love a chance to jump on the slightest breach of WP:BLP. I think he gets enough coverage for his role at Eagle Forum University, as a right-wing activist, and as lawyer for the AAPS, to warrant a keep even discounting the whole Conservapedia thing, and would also warrant a keep in light of his running Conservapedia, which has garnered significant media coverage. (He's probably WP:N in more fields than Jimmy Wales, and try sticking a {{prod}} on Jimbo and see what happens.) - iridescenti (talk to me!) 08:48, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep He's notable for all the reasons given by Iridescenti. Nick mallory 09:29, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nomination. Having a job as a lawyer or editting a small online encyclopedia or being ultra-conservative does not satisfy WP:BIO. The sources do not satisfy WP:A. The only reliable source is the NY Times, which only has a routine story that he got married. Perhaps mention in his mother's article. Edison 16:04, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Comment plenty of multiple non-trivial etc exist, just nobody had bothered to add them. I've added a few legitimate sources for him, but don't feel particularly keen to step into the hornets nest of actually writing anything about him (this is the man, lest we forget, who maintains a dedicated attack page about Wikipedia and works closely with Daniel Brandt on attempting to find a legal basis for suing Wikipedia editors[1]) - iridescenti (talk to me!) 17:37, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep -- while Aschlafly is largely notable in terms of being a subject for centrist and left-wing ridicule, I'd argue that still makes him notable, if far less so than his mother. Haikupoet 20:20, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Sufficient notability has been established. Davewild 21:09, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Any source that meets WP:ATT is in the context of conservapedia, pages should redirect there. He does not meet notability criteria. What non-trival, secondary sources discuss Schlafly outside of a context of conservapedia? Tmtoulouse 21:51, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Seems notable enough. Algabal 08:51, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep I'm keeping him in exercise by vandalizing everyday some of his stupid encyclopedia's articles. Maybe this can prevent him to use his time to his absurd propaganda. Bye. --Attilios 18:27, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Time has passed, and refs were added, but they tend to be about Conservabedia with passing trivial reference to Schlafly, or to be non-independent and non-reliable sources, or to be routine coverage like that he got married. Insufficient to satisfy the requirements of WP:N, WP:BIO and WP:ATT. I took a look at Conservapedia, and it is lightly populated with articles, and the have deleted and salted the articles on "naughty" body parts. Edison 19:20, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment AFD's are not a vote, but sometimes they seem to go down that way, I would strongly urge whoever looks at this to see if the arguments being made have true merit for Wikipedia. Schlafly is notable only through his involvement with CP. It should be merged there. Tmtoulouse 21:10, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment I think even discounting Conservapedia he'd pass WP:N as general counsel for AAPS, given that in that position he's been involved in so many - er - "unusual" legal cases — iridescenti (talk to me!) 21:27, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Although some Wikipedians would like to think Schlafly is only notable for Conservapedia he has many contentious legal cases via AAPS. With his involvement with Eagle Forum University I can see him being more of a high profile player in right-wing conservative Christian politics. Especially with his mother's money behind him. I think he bears watching and documenting. Barfbagger 21:51, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
He is a minor figure at AAPS and Eagle Forum, he is basically a home school teacher and a staffer for various right wing groups, he hasn't done anything of note. But even if he had, the criterion is what WP:ATT sources could we use to construct an entry about it. All most all such sources are either primary or about conservapedia. We can not construct an article with only primary sources and second thought references in articles about something else. I still say merge and redirect to conservapedia. Tmtoulouse 19:58, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Mr. Schlafly isn't notable outside of his role at Conservapedia. If Conservapedia wasn't just a bash-fest of Wikipedia, this would be a no-brainer. I personally don't want this to become the next Daniel Brandt. --Hojimachongtalk 01:10, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete "Who?" -Gobonobo T C 08:04, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. When reading about Conservapedia, I want to know about its founder. Who is he? How is he related to Phyllis Schlafly? etc. — Emiellaiendiay 17:22, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Comment I don't see why that requires a DIFFERENT article. We can say that in the conservapedia article fine. Hence merge and redirect is probably the best strategy. Also we can't write articles that we want to see with out sources. There are no non-trivial secondary sources that address Schlafly beyond a secondary mention in an article about conservapedia. Redirect and merge again is the better approach then trying to piece together a WP:BLP with no sources.
  • Delete More US-centric nonsense that smacks of wiki navel-gazing. Fails WP:BIO. Eusebeus 11:22, 29 April 2007 (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.