![]() | This discussion was subject to a
deletion review on 2008 July 4. For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review. |
The result was DELETE and redirect - Docg 23:48, 25 May 2007 (UTC) reply
The article Andrew Schlafly was nominated for deletion a little less than a month ago Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrew Schlafly. I have been trying to find sources for the article, and encouraging others to do likewise all this time. Nothing has come up, I was going to wait till a whole month had passed but have been encouraged to go ahead and put this in now.
One of the fundamental criteria for articles at wikipedia is verifiability. This is a core principle. Another core principle is Neutral point of view. If these two criteria can not be met then no amount of "notability" or "really wanting an article about something/someone" matters. I intend to show that this article can not meet the criteria for verifiability and can not meet a neutral point of view. These are the primary issues. I am not questioning his notability, his "worthiness" of an article, but rather the fact that no matter how much some of us would like a well researched article about this person it is impossible to build one meeting core wikipedia guidelines.
Article fails verifiability:
Below are all the sources that have been found the whole time we have been working on this article, and a month after a call was put out to find the best sources we can. These are not sources that can construct an article.
These articles focus totally on Conservapedia and offer only passing mention of Andrew Schlafly
These are primary sources
Sources that are referenced to address claims in the article but do not mention Schlafly
Secondary sources that mention Schlafly not related to conservapedia
This is it, there are no non-trivial secondary sources that we can use to build this article. Therefore, it fails WP:Verifiability.
Article can not be written with a NPOV
A review of the article history will show that it has been difficult to keep out inadequately sourced criticism. This is particularly worrisome for a WP:BLP article. The other angle though is most of the criticism is valid. There are things to say about this man that are not the most flattering. But there are no sources for it. There are no sources for the things that we can say good about him. The only thing we can put in this article are basic skeleton facts. Born, raised, married, children, ect. This is not an interesting article, and more importantly it is not an article that reflects a neutral tone when weighed against the extensive criticism that has been leveled against him and his actions.
This at first might seem like a contradiction, how can someone have extensive criticism and not have sources per verifiability? The problem is that the criticism is located in sources that fail WP:ATT.
Summary
Based on the above reasons and evidence I urge this community to reevaluate its previous decision to keep this article. Anything that needs to be said about Andrew Schlafly can be said in the conservapedia article since all the sources relate to that anyway.
Tmtoulouse 18:57, 20 May 2007 (UTC) reply
![]() | This discussion was subject to a
deletion review on 2008 July 4. For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review. |
The result was DELETE and redirect - Docg 23:48, 25 May 2007 (UTC) reply
The article Andrew Schlafly was nominated for deletion a little less than a month ago Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrew Schlafly. I have been trying to find sources for the article, and encouraging others to do likewise all this time. Nothing has come up, I was going to wait till a whole month had passed but have been encouraged to go ahead and put this in now.
One of the fundamental criteria for articles at wikipedia is verifiability. This is a core principle. Another core principle is Neutral point of view. If these two criteria can not be met then no amount of "notability" or "really wanting an article about something/someone" matters. I intend to show that this article can not meet the criteria for verifiability and can not meet a neutral point of view. These are the primary issues. I am not questioning his notability, his "worthiness" of an article, but rather the fact that no matter how much some of us would like a well researched article about this person it is impossible to build one meeting core wikipedia guidelines.
Article fails verifiability:
Below are all the sources that have been found the whole time we have been working on this article, and a month after a call was put out to find the best sources we can. These are not sources that can construct an article.
These articles focus totally on Conservapedia and offer only passing mention of Andrew Schlafly
These are primary sources
Sources that are referenced to address claims in the article but do not mention Schlafly
Secondary sources that mention Schlafly not related to conservapedia
This is it, there are no non-trivial secondary sources that we can use to build this article. Therefore, it fails WP:Verifiability.
Article can not be written with a NPOV
A review of the article history will show that it has been difficult to keep out inadequately sourced criticism. This is particularly worrisome for a WP:BLP article. The other angle though is most of the criticism is valid. There are things to say about this man that are not the most flattering. But there are no sources for it. There are no sources for the things that we can say good about him. The only thing we can put in this article are basic skeleton facts. Born, raised, married, children, ect. This is not an interesting article, and more importantly it is not an article that reflects a neutral tone when weighed against the extensive criticism that has been leveled against him and his actions.
This at first might seem like a contradiction, how can someone have extensive criticism and not have sources per verifiability? The problem is that the criticism is located in sources that fail WP:ATT.
Summary
Based on the above reasons and evidence I urge this community to reevaluate its previous decision to keep this article. Anything that needs to be said about Andrew Schlafly can be said in the conservapedia article since all the sources relate to that anyway.
Tmtoulouse 18:57, 20 May 2007 (UTC) reply