Deletion of Andrew Schlafly (2nd nomination)

Comment: per nom on account of failure to satisfy . Article which talk about Conservopedia make only passing reference to SAchlafly, and things like his wedding announcement are also inadequate
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:V)

Comment: After !voting keep last time, I'm one of the ones who volunteered to source, expand and keep this libel free, and I (and everyone else) am failing on all three counts. While Schlafly has, obviously, received a lot of publicity, it's virtually impossible to find anything to say about ''the man himself'' as opposed to his role on Conservapedia. A number of editors are - I'm certain in good faith - repeatedly adding potentially libellous personal attacks on Schlafly, sourced from blogs, other wikis and Conservapedia itself, and aside from than nobody has managed to find any legitimate content to add. As those of you who've had any dealings with me on XfDs presumably know, I do make an effort to dig out sources & expand articles, but there really does not appear to be anything to add to this page. This article seems to be unexpandable and increasingly unmaintainable - and at some point someone will post something offensive enough to goad Schalfly & Brandt into taking action (yes, they'd probably lose - but do we really need the hassle and bad press). Although he undoubtedly ''does'' pass , I feel that in this case we should  and delete this article, without even merging the content to Conservapedia, as attempting to preserve NPOV is proving impossible. If sources can be found to genuinely expand an article about the man himself, as opposed to the organisations he works for, the page can be recreated (although, I think it would warrant at the very least semiprotection from the moment of its creation), but with the sources as they stand at present, delete
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N||WP:IAR)