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. consensus support that the subject is WP:GNG notable (non-admin closure) Off2riorob (talk) 00:47, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Schlafly[edit]

Andrew Schlafly (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I'm nominating this article for deletion, though I am in favour of keeping it. I know this isn't orthodox, but we're getting into a minor edit war in which two editors have undone the page and returned it to a redirect to Conservapedia without discussion, while other users contributed to the article. Therefore, I think AfD is the more appropriate medium. If consensus says we keep the article, we keep it. If not, we redirect. SmokingNewton (talk) 21:00, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep for the following reason:

1. Schlafly has become SIGNIFICANTLY more notable outside of Conservapedia since the article was last deleted. He is Lead Counsel for the AAPS's bid to declare ObamaCare unconstitutional, and more importantly: He is currently going through the courts on a precedent-setting case about Senatorial Recall.
2. He has become increasingly well known in the blogosphere, especially in fundamentalist right-wing & christian circles (within American politics).
3. His dialogue with Richard Lenski was widely reported across the Internet and by a couple of serious news sources.
4. He is one of the best known Internet critics of Wikipedia. In the interests of both neutrality and fair coverage, I think he should be covered here.
5. I know we should try to avoid, in AfD, "If this is notable, then that is notable." But let's be honest, inclusion of celebrity's children who have achieved very little and are questionable notable is relatively high on Wikipedia. Even forgetting Conservapedia, as Phylis Schlafly's son who has made a couple of Newspaper appearances because he's leading important court cases - that should be notable enough. He's a well known name in many Internet communities, and for me: that's enough for notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SmokingNewton (talk • contribs)

AfD is not the proper venue for deciding a "Redirect". This should be handled on the talk page if anywhere. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 21:14, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for my mistake - although, does it not make sense? Blanking & Redirecting a page is basically the same as deleting it, whereas I want to keep it. I've tried to talk about it on the talk page, but two separate people obviously weren't up for taking part in that. If you could explain to me the best way to handle this, that'd be appreciated. Thanks! SmokingNewton (talk) 21:20, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also strongly in favor of just, oh, I dunno, discussing it. That's what the talk page is for. I'll start a new section so people can list sources that establish notability. Then we can informally (and without much drama) decide whether to turn it back into a redirect or not. --Sid 3050 (talk) 21:35, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or redirect to Conservapedia. Fails WP:BIO due to lack of reliable and independent secondary sources with significant coverage specifically of him. He should be mentioned in the articles about other right-wing causes he is linked to. With respect to the argument "as Phylis Schlafly's son..." notability is not inherited. Edison (talk) 21:51, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Conservapedia. I don't see enough new sources to justify a different decision from the previous time we discussed this (not the 4th AfD in July 2008, but the merge discussion on the talk page in August 2008, which closed with a very clear consensus to merge and redirect). —David Eppstein (talk) 22:54, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Andrew Schlafly is now marginally notable now that his activity outside Conservapedia (such as his Recall Menendez activism) is being noted. Andrewlp1991 (talk) 23:05, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Obvious Keep. I know it's considered lame to !vote with a "per Foo", but SmokingNewton's bulleted list makes the clear case why the article should be maintained. TJRC (talk) 23:10, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• • • • I feel that people are expecting a higher level of notability because this is a contraversial person. There're articles about minor actors who appeared in a couple of episodes of second-rate soap operas, and that's just fine, because there is no controversy. I'm a pretty liberal guy... and I don't accept what Schlafly says for a minute... but right now, I'm starting to feel like this is the Liberal Bias he's talking about. If I tried to throw in a left wing activist who wasn't unpopular and had all the same coverage as Andy, I don't think I'd find the same opposition. I hope we can have some serious debate, though. SmokingNewton (talk) 23:40, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The thing is that most of the potential Schlafly-coverage is actually Conservapedia-coverage. Schlafly is mostly notable through Conservapedia, most of the notable stuff was done through and at Conservapedia, so if he should get his own article, it's important to highlight (with sources) what he has done that's not just Conservapedia-related. And since people are now voting Keep after reading your arguments, here's my take on them:

1. We need sources. The currently new sources that go beyond Conservapedia-related coverage are the AAPS (the organization Schlafly is lead counsel for), Conservapedia and mention of his appearance in the recall issue. That's not a terribly impressive line-up, though the last one may have been a good start if anybody had bothered to discuss these things first before moving directly to AfD.
2. Being known in the US-centered politics-related blogosphere (by being a discussion item or through his site, which already has a long article) is a somewhat fuzzy metric, and I mildly doubt that it has a major impact on WP Notability (though I didn't doublecheck this, so I might be wrong).
3. The Lenski issue was handled through Conservapedia and is covered in its article already.
4. Even if we ignore the whole "All of this was done through Conservapedia and is covered in its article already" issue, "Andy Schlafly / Conservapedia criticizes Wikipedia!" was just a minor blip in the first half of 2007 that completely failed to develop momentum, and his status as "person on the Internet that criticizes Wikipedia while also not being completely unknown" didn't make him notable even back then. How did that change? Did some of his recent criticism make it into any kind of mainstream beyond mocking notes? I can't recall anything.
5. If you know WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS, why do you use it as an argument anyway?

This is silly, and your AfD may very well lead to this article being completely deleted. This should have been a simple sourcing discussion on the talk page instead of moving to AfD (by the guy who out of the blue decided to recreate it) without any prior discussion. Until there are some good arguments why being the lawyer for one side in a Supreme Court case makes you awesome and notable (Do you need to fulfill specific requirements to be allowed to represent someone in front of the Supreme Court or could any lawyer do that? How unique and special are Supreme Court cases?), I'll go with "Delete or redirect" since aside from that, his entire notability is just through Conservapedia. --Sid 3050 (talk) 00:42, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: a notable person and for more than one reason. I've found a couple of recent sources that discuss Schlafly with no reference to Conservapedia. His notability appears broad enough to merit its own article. Justin W Smith ^talk/_stalk 01:04, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:59, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or Redirect - Since this discussion seems to have actually gone forward. There are not enough independent sources that do not rely/mention Conservapedia to warrant an article on Andy himself. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 02:02, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - In response to the WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS reference, I guess I should've included my later comment about being contraversial as point 5. I feel that it is fair to point out that Other Crap Exists in this case - because other crap which is a lot less contraversial passes, and this doesn't. I feel like a higher standard of notability is being called for, due to the controversy. And that isn't a notability guildline. SmokingNewton (talk) 02:28, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I get the overwhelming impression that you have never read other crap, because if you had, I doubt you would make the argument that OC is fine here because OC. --EmersonWhite (talk) 03:29, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Lead counsel for AAPS in a case that will never get off the ground, lead counsel in a case before the NJSC where the big questions is "Should we declare this obviously unconstitutional now or wait until after the signatures are collected to declare it obviously unconstitutional?" His notoriety as a critic of WP is nothing compared to Larry Sanger, and even if he were the #1 critic he hasn't done any thing outside of conservapedia, the blog no one can edit, to bring about any changes. Really, his noteworthy exploits extend to conservapedia and at its borders they end abruptly.' --EmersonWhite (talk) 03:29, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep AFD is not RfC. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:42, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or redirect, because that's basically what the nominator is advocating. Notability has been sufficiently established and there's a good case to either keep the article as is, or keep it around as a plausible redirect and discuss Schlafly's involvement with Conservapedia in the Conservapedia article. Echoing the editor right above: AfD is not RfC; there's really no reason to delete the article. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 09:10, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. There is enough notability from his recent political/legal work to say he is not just notable because of conservapedia. Anyway does all that rewriting the Bible stuff really fit under conservapedia? Dmcq (talk) 09:57, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Conservative Bible Project is a part of Conservapedia (note the "a project has begun among members of Conservapedia" on their FAQ page). Where would you consider a more appropriate place for it? – iridescent 10:05, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I admit it's complicated because Schlafly regularly uses Conservapedia as his mouthpiece for whatever wild idea he has. Conservative Bible Project and pestering Lenski were both his ideas, but he then described them as being community projects. I guess we will have to go with what the RS say about them. If they overwhelmingly say "Andy Schlafly says X on Conservapedia", then yeah, it should count more for him and his notability. If they say "Conservapedia, which was founded by Andy Schlafly, has started X", then it should belong more into the Conservapedia entry. --Sid 3050 (talk) 10:32, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• No vote from me yet (obviously it's either redirect or keep), but I think it's worth pointing out that Andrew Schlafly is Conservapedia, and repeatedly refers to himself as such. In his "news" items he's constantly going on about "Conservapedia is doing such-and-such" when it's Andy himself doing it, so he's already pretty well covered in the CP article. As Sid points out above, basically everything notable he's done has been through Conservapedia, with the exception of his lawyering, so in that field we have to judge him against the notability of other lawyers. His sinecure with AAPS doesn't seem to cut it on its own. The argument that the case against "Obamacare" clears the bar seems premature; I believe it is just one out of a slew of cases, and not one of the more important ones (unlike those of state DAs). The New Jersey recall case seems barely notable as it is, I don't think the lawyers on either side qualify on this case alone. The only question remaining is whether several almost notable things collectively add up to notability. I think both sides have their points. I'll think about it some more and look for sources. -R. fiend (talk) 12:42, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep per having been received significant coverage and per the talk page being the better medium for discussing any edit wars. —fetch·comms 23:16, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Super Keep He has been on Colbert and is an expert in multiple scientific fields. Pirate^Argh!!1! 09:24, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. He may be fringey, but is notable and a public figure. Bearian (talk) 20:38, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Public figures are notable per WP:GNG and it's hard to argue that this person is not a public figure in light of increasing amts of coverage (e.g. the Colbert interview). Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 15:19, 10 June 2010 (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.