The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 15:01, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lenny Schafer[edit]

Lenny Schafer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This does not appear to satisfy WP:GNG. His primary claim to notability is his activism, but the sources available are not third party, other than a little bit in New York Magazine. The award does not seem significant. It's an award from a notable foundation, but winning the award seems to have attracted little notice and certainly does not carry any weight, notability-wise. freshacconci talk to me 19:02, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am very much active and internationally known as an autism advocate. My work is political and generates political opposition who would like to see me disappear from here. Visit my website at http://www.sarnet.org and you will find numerous awards from national autism and disability rights groups. Also, are a number of commendations and awards from the State of California. I did not reference these on the wiki page over concern for appearing immodest. I publish an online newsletter with 20,000 subscribers. I have a total of 10,000 followers on my facebook page. https://www.facebook.com/alenny.schafer and group Schafer Report: https://www.facebook.com/groups/Schafer.Report/ schaferatsprynet —Preceding undated comment added 01:28, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - I researched this person for two minutes and found independent secondary sources that cover this person and his role in the report listed within the article ([1], [2]). His work is also cited in books such as this one, this one, and this one to name just a few. A notable researcher involved in autism and reports that are used by many organizations and government studies. Definitely passes WP:GNG; I see no reason to delete this article. ~Oshwah~ ^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:39, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

- Changed to Delete. ~Oshwah~ ^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:46, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I also did some research for two minutes and came up with what you did. leftbrainrightbrain is essentially a blog run by one person and would need to be evaluated as a reliable source. The book mentions seem trivial at best. I see no evidence of "reports that are used by many organizations and government studies." Just the few cites that you mention. The only unambiguous, verifiable source is New York Magazine, which I mentioned in the nomination. His online activism appears to be no more than a self-aggrandizing one-man-band (see his comment above, obviously a conflict-of-interest, but that's another issue). I cannot find any evidence of actual notability, otherwise I would not have brought it to AFD. freshacconci talk to me 03:25, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Freshacconci - I'm actually starting to lean towards your viewpoint now that I've taken more time to look at this. I re-read my opening statement in my !vote just now - I want to apologize if it somehow came off in the wrong way. "I researched this person for two minutes" was not stated to imply that you didn't take the proper time to consider this article for deletion before nominating it :-). I think that your statements are valid regarding the actual reliability of the sources I responded with - I'm going to look into this further and redact my vote if necessary. I'll follow up once I have done so - stay tuned :-D. "A notable researcher involved in autism and reports that are used by many organizations and government studies" - I said this to simply summarize what I found within the sources that I read - so far, I'll admit that this statement has no true merit at this time. Not without sources that support it :-) ~Oshwah~ ^{(talk) (contribs)} 05:37, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK  14:41, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK  14:41, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete for now and draft and userfy later likely as I'm not seeing much better improvement aside from some Books, browser and Highbeam links. SwisterTwister talk 07:41, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I apologize for taking so long to follow-up with my vote above. I After taking some additional time to review the sources I provided and their weight in my argument, I agree that the coverage isn't significant regarding the person himself and doesn't cover the person with enough detail to create an article that doesn't include original research. My initial argument doesn't appear to hold enough weight to justify WP:GNG as a pass. ~Oshwah~ ^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:46, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - searches did not turn up enough to show the article meets WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:11, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.