Deletion of Andrew Schlafly (3rd nomination)

Comment: Refs seem to be trivial mention or passing reference, not the substantial coverage needed to satisfy . Notability is not inherited, so being the son of the woman who prevented the Equal Rights Amendment from being added to the Constitution is insufficient. He seems to get only passing reference in coverage of Conservapedia
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BIO)

Comment: Per Notability Quote:  The topic of an article should be notable, or "worthy of notice"; that is "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded." I fail to see how this guy '''isn't interesting''' to someone, and his IN-YOUR-FACE attitude and behavior is '''unusual''', so while David Eppstein almost had me convinced, the cites really don't matter a whole hill of beans relative to the overall mission.  rules, as usual, in any case. {{indent|3}}What's there in footnotes certainly supports the brief sketch that is present. That last paragraph certainly is unclear, though. Stuff has to be written as if links aren't on the page, or the writing fails. When pray tell does another encyclopedia rely on link to find out why PZ whoever is in conflict with Schlafly, or the professor field of study? Poor writing there. "Carl Zimmer stated that it was readily apparent that "Schlafly had not bothered to read Lenski's paper closely",22 and PZ Myers criticized Schlafly for demanding data despite not having a plan to use it nor the expertise to analyze it.23. Schafly ignores the possibility of adressing the editor of the journal with publishing a comment." So who the heck is Carl Zimmer and why is he stating something? THAT's what needs fixed in this, not its presence. That double period on footnote 23 don't look to good neither. We have a Bot looking for those
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Ignore all rules (WP:IAR)