Deletion of Andrew Schlafly (3rd nomination)

Comment: mostly per David Eppstein's analysis of the sources - and the sources added since his post (Wikipedia_talk:Reliable_sources/archive6#Is NNDB a reliable source?|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  and particularly , 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 ... 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
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:NPOV||WP:UNDUE||WP:UNDUE)

Comment: 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
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP||WP:V||WP:NPOV)

Comment: 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 . To break the footnotes in http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Andrew_Schlafly&oldid=225164613 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  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
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BIO||WP:POLITICIAN)

Comment: This guy is hilarious. No, but seriously, he is notable. If Conservapedia is notable, then he is too. Sources get him through  easily
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BIO)

Comment: notability is not inherited; |consensus does not change that fast; just a plain mess
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Consensus (WP:CCC)