Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrew Schlafly (3rd nomination)
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
— User:Iain99, 20:47, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Stance: delete
Cited policy: WP:NPOV||WP:UNDUE||WP:UNDUE (Wikipedia:Neutral point of view)