Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jason Lisle (2nd nomination)

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. Consensus indicates that this creationist has not enough coverage about himself, rather than about associated organizations, to be a notable creationist. Discounting the "keep" by OtisDixon who does not seem to understand what it is we are discussing about.  Sandstein  20:45, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Lisle

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Jason Lisle (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)

Like former AfD, this person fails WP:ANYBIO and WP:SCHOLAR. a BEFORE search brings up mostly quotes, and/or Lisle's association with Institute for Creation Research (a potential target for merging). Claims of discovering a planet [1] appear to be based only on Lisle's own assertions: independent corroboration in reliable sources of this claimed discovery are needed. --Animalparty! (talk) 19:01, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. --Animalparty! (talk) 19:07, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. --Animalparty! (talk) 19:07, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. --Animalparty! (talk) 19:07, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:19, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:20, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - What I find outside of creationist sources is minimal, like this article which announces the Creation Museum and makes a mention (not significant coverage and is the only mention in The Guardian; I found no mention in The Washington Post even if that's more local). Even "instrumental in developing popular planetarium shows" claim of significance from the nominator's article link is in-universe, since the planetarium is the museum's. —PaleoNeonate – 20:36, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Seven years ago, during the previous AfD, someone wrote "It may very well be that he becomes a prominent spokesman for Creationism in the future, in which case he'll genuinely merit a page on those grounds. But for the moment, he's notable neither as a scientist or as a creationist." It has been seven years, and he is still not notable as a scientist nor a creationist. The previous AfD got it right. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:11, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: How did this article get recreated in the first place? I think a WP:TROUT dinner might need to be delivered. jps (talk) 23:33, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The previous AfD is publicly accessible from the new article's talk page (at the top) or from the above box in this AfD (which everyone can notice and consult). —PaleoNeonate – 03:28, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - even if that exoplanet exists (very questionable on its own), finding a single planet in Kepler data doesn't automatically lead to notability of the discoverer, and I see nothing else beyond that. --mfb (talk) 23:43, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or delete  It didn't take much research to find that this topic has a pseudonym confounded with another prominent astrophysicist, so all of the analysis from the first AfD and above has been superficial.  This topic has an astrophysics degree from the University of Colorado, yet our article tries to paint his work as pseudoscience by inferring that all scientific work put into creationism is pseudoscience.  That is a logical fallacy, and the source used for this claim does not mention Lisle. 
    As per the article, "his ideas are widely regarded...in the scientific community"  Well, so that should satisfy the question of notability, so keep.  Or is that using Wikipedia's voice to disparage a BLP?  So delete.  Or maybe merge to ICR.  Or delete and redirect to ICR with option to write more there.  Unscintillating (talk) 02:46, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"his ideas are widely regarded...in the scientific community" this is clearly the editor's wording for "are pseudoscience" and yes, some of my, or your ideas, may also be widely regarded as erroneous by science experts, even if they don't happen to know us... —PaleoNeonate – 03:32, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The two verifiable sources attacking Lisle's views (I have no idea what Haarsma 2010 refers to) do not mention Lisle at all, and so cannot bear on notability. My grandfather's beliefs in Creationism are equally disregarded by the scientific community, that doesn't merit him an article. We decide notability by the existence of significant coverage in reliable, third party sources, not the present state of any article. --Animalparty! (talk) 04:00, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Supporting ideas that are notable doesn't make a person notable. The pseudoscience ideas are notable and they have their own articles, but this is unrelated to the discussion here. --mfb (talk) 08:46, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- seven years on, the subject is still nn either as a scienties or a creationist. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:04, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No significant coverage in mainstream sources, needed to provide neutral coverage of fringe subjects. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:40, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep WP:HEYMANN I cleaned up, sourced the article. it is brief, but his bio, career and opinions are reliably sourced to multiple articles in national and international big city dailies going back more than a decade. He is an oddity, a PhD in astrophysics from the University of Colorado who pretends to make evidence-based arguments for the Young Earth creationism theory. However, Arguments for deletion above referencing a 7-year-old AfD are pretty irrelevant in a youthful career, especially as that AfD speaks to his h-index when the notability for Lisle is clearly about his role as a science director for an ambitions museum, the Creation Museum, and as house scientist for the Institute for Creation Research, an organization that we need ot regard as a think tank for a non-mainstream POV that many people JUSTDONOTLIKE. Do we have to agree with Lisle to acknowledge that sourcing exists to support an article? No. We have a responsibility to expand this page so that impressionable youth coming to the page can read a neutral, encyclopedic account of Lisle's work and opinions. Debunk him, don't delete him. E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:05, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • It still looks like a delete to me — it's definitely an improvement, but the new nonlocal sources (Dallas News and Spiegel) are mostly about the ICR (which is notable), not about Lisle, and only mention or quote him in passing. So they don't provide the depth of coverage needed to convince me. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:04, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cumulatively, I believe they suffice to meet WP:SIGCOV. What I am certain of is that I merely scratched the surface here, he has had a great deal of coverage, and I suspect that a good faith search will enable the article to be expanded, with both admiring profiles and detailed debunkings in wp:rs. 00:58, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
Editors have been doing "good faith searches", so the results are not surprising or a mystery at this point, despite what is "suspect". Unfortunately, such a search will not enable the article to be expanded. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 00:17, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep: Per E.M.Gregory, who vastly improved the article and added several reliable and independent sources, showing that Lisle is notable enough for his own Wikipedia article and meets WP:GNG. It's been seven years since the last AfD for this article, and much has changed since then. If people actually look for reliable/independent sources about Lisle (which E.M.Gregory did), they will find that what all I just said is the case. --1990'sguy (talk) 21:48, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Alright, if you don't think this page meets the notability guidelines - though Lisle has been mentioned by the Guardian, as pointed out by Aniamparty!, and featured in a CNN programme debating Eugenie Scott, as well as being a central figure in creationism - I think it is worthy at least a section in one of the creationism articles, as I can find plenty and plenty of creationist sources mentioning Jason Lisle. In addition, as already explained by above users, the article has been cleaned up, and references have been added which satisfy the WP:GNGOlJa 21:51, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails PROF as well as GNG. People keep discussing sources that mention him as being relevant to notability; they are not.Jytdog (talk) 22:11, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Jytdog: Quote from WP:GNG: "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material". If you look at the Dallas News, there is an entire section dedicated specifically to Lisle. There are numerous other texts about Lisle in non-creationist sourcesOlJa 23:51, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not significantly covered by reliable sources fails PROF GNG, and ANYBIO. Also, this CNN link provided above [2] does not signifigantly cover the subject, but rather U.S. Representative Paul Broun. The Guardian article mentioned above is passing mention. Per David Eppstein significant coverage of fringe activity in multiple reliable sources is required for a neutrally based Wikipedia article. Steve Quinn (talk) 04:17, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Does not look to pass WP:GNG/WP:BIO. The best sources I've seen have him speaking on behalf of the Institute for Creation Research, for which we already have an article, and little coverage independent of the ICR (coverage doesn't absolutely have to be independent, but I'd want to see more about him in particular rather than consulting him in that context). Not opposed to a Redirect should he be mentioned in the ICR article. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 04:22, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep From what I've read, Lisle is as well known among Creationists as all of the other creationists who have WP pages. Even if you eradicate all creationists from WP, it is highly unlikely that it will make much difference in the general public. They will just look elsewhere, while they wonder why WP appears to censor certain people and groups. It is better to have a page on WP where you can marshal rebuttal against them, that the public is unlikely to get else where. It seems to me that the following WP policy applies to Lisle and Creationists in general:
Undue weight: “Wikipedia should not present a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserves as much attention overall as the majority view. Views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views.” And, “Theories and viewpoints held by a minority should not receive as much attention as the majority view, and views held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views.... Minority views can receive attention on pages specifically devoted to them… But on such pages, though a view may be spelled out in great detail, it should not be represented as the truth.”
Reliable Sources: “Questionable sources should only be used as sources for material on themselves, such as in articles about themselves”… “ “Questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities, without the self-published source requirement that they be published experts in the field.” --OtisDixon (talk) 04:41, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@OtisDixon: thank you for reviewing those policies, you are right. But we also have articles covering creationists who are notable and those are not about to be deleted. —PaleoNeonate – 21:39, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to me that the sources to be used to determine if he is notable would be, according to the police above, creation sources since he is part of that minor movement. --OtisDixon (talk) 19:56, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Despite E.M.Gregory's improvements, I'm not convinced there are sufficient sources here. Google turns up a lot of creationist outlets and sceptic blogs, but very little in the way of reliable sources. Of the few that are out there, the article in the Dallas News seems to be the only one that does more than drop Lisle's name for a quote or in relation to the ICR. This is a BLP on a fringe topic; we need more than a weak case for notability. – Joe (talk) 12:07, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I guess we're really doing this. The issue here is that this is a WP:FRINGEBLP. I don't think anyone is arguing that this person passes WP:AUTHOR, WP:CELEBRITY, WP:PROF, etc. What we need is non-trivial mentions in independent sources identifying the person as notable (not just a quote or an off-handed mention that this person with their fringe beliefs exists). This is something we lack. Now some may object, "Why do we need such high standards?" The answer is because fringe subjects need to be written to comply with WP:NPOV. In this case, the lack of notice by WP:MAINSTREAM subjects of the person who is the subject means that there is no way we properly write the article to comply with both the protections for living people (sourcing) as well as properly couch the ideas that this person espouses. Essentially, we need to avoid the original research that would be required to properly identify this fellow as a pusher of pseudoscience which is the mainstream assessment. Because he hasn't received the non-trivial outside notice we demand to write Wikipedia fringe biographical articles, it is not appropriate to keep this article. If he becomes more famous like, say Ken Ham or Duane Gish, we can revisit the issue. jps (talk) 15:24, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note that there is INDEPTH coverage in rs media that is decidedly not ideologically part of young earth creationist. Letting Science Interpret Scripture is a Slippery Slope Says Young Earth Creationist Alex Murashko, Christian Post, 13 August 2013.
I can see no "subhead to Lisle" ?? Theroadislong (talk) 19:08, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Still, there is no subhead to devoted to Lisle. The subtopic is "Creationist cosmology and science" not "Lisle" in a Wikpedia article. So saying "devoted subhead to Lisle" is inaccurate and confusing. The Lisle reference in this subsection is a primary source that has not been covered in third party reliable sources, so it does not qualify as indicating notability for this biography. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 00:01, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • More formal debunkings of Lisel and his work can be found in a 2014 University of Louisville PhD dissertation An analysis of the Creation Museum by Steven Mark Watkins and in Righting America at the Creation Museum, Susan L. Trollinger, William Vance Trollinger, Jr., Johns Hopkins University Press, 2016. Look, its not that I fail to understand the logic of wanting to exclude fringe theories from the project. I vote to delete them with some regularity. But the Creation Museum exists, as does the Institute for Creation Research, and they make a mot of noise in the world. Moreover, his books sell, and they get discussed beyond the surprisingly large circle of other people who write young earth books - by writers who take his arguments apart, sometimes temperately, and sometimes intemperately. I just don't see how we delete a guy who gets this much ink.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:32, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Again, nobody is arguing for delete just because this is fringe. That's a strawman. But I'm not seeing that much "ink". The PhD is about the creation museum (indisputably notable); it only mentions Lisle once (pg. 298). Righting America at the Creation Museum has two passing mentions (pg. 71–72 and 145–146). The section of creationist cosmologies you just claimed was "devoted" to Lisle doesn't even contain his name in the text. The creationist sources are irrelevant and the evangelical Christian Post is hardly mainstream.
With all due respect, this is becoming a familiar pattern in your participation in AfDs: I get the impression that either you don't understand what in depth means, or you are deliberately trying to pass off every stray hit from a keyword search as "significant coverage". – Joe (talk) 20:29, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Please WP:AGF what I do is take a simple approach to articles at AfD: I look for sources. Most bios brought to AfD are PROMO. a couple of quick searches sorts the wheat from the PROMO chaff. But most bio at AfD are of people who get very few hits on searches of any kind. Just occasionally I come upon a bio like "Jason Lisle", a name that gets an enormous number of hits and a discussion where editor after editor is making claims like "No significant coverage in mainstream sources" or "I found no mention in The Washington Post" So I searched WaPo ("jason Lisle" site:washingtonpost.com) and got this hit (Atheism and the silly goodness competition - OnFaith newsweek.washingtonpost.com/.../atheism_and_the_silly_goodness_competition.html Feb 17, 2010 - 'In the spring 2009 edition of the Phi Kappa Phi Forum, Molecular geneticist Georgia Purdom and astrophysicist Jason Lisle put up a spirited ...) Any subject at AfD with an enormous number of hits and multiple editors making sweeping, dismissive claims makes me suspicious. And there are some real problems with the arguments for deletion, your ad hominem attack aside. One is that I did not bring mere mentions or mere quote-the-expert sources to the discussion, only sources that spoke, however briefly, to Lisle's bio or to his ideas. Another is your dismissal of The Christian Post as a source. It is a respected newspaper, and Evangelical, but NOT editorially committed to a young earth approach. The great problem with Lisle is that searches drown in a sea of young earth sources. But not one editor has yet tapped the serious engagement with his work by old earth creationists, a good deal of which can be found in The Christian Post, and more in books. Nor have good faith searches been made for debunking of Lisle's work by actual scientists - although that clearly appears to have been the intention of the editor who created this page 3 days ago. There is simply too much material available on Lisle to make deletion reasonable, and too few editors willing to seek it out.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:04, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
For example, the sources cited at Creationist cosmologies#Creationist cosmology and science may have material appropriate for use on this page. I continue to believe that a Lisle is notable. And hope that an editor well versed in young earth and it fallacies will take an hour or so to add a proper debunking to the page.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:15, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry if that came across as a personal attack. I didn't mean it to be one, and I don't like to comment on editors, but I have encountered you at enough AfDs to see a systematic problem that I think needs to be called out. And I think it's exactly this kind of thinking—"multiple editors making sweeping, dismissive claims makes me suspicious"—that gets you into trouble. "Suspicious" of what, exactly? That we have all colluded to expunge Mr. Lisle from the historical record? Have you considered that we may simply have done the same research and come to a different conclusion? You are not the only person who can search for sources. But if you exclude the "hits" that are literally just one or two sentences about Lisle, and the fringe creationist sources (old or young, it doesn't matter), what is left? – Joe (talk) 23:09, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The Christian Post is not independent coverage and is not mainstream RS. The PhD dissertation is passing mention of Lisle. Essentially, again, coverage is passing mention in all the sources mentioned above. I don't agree with characterizing these as sufficient coverage - it is inaccurate and confusing to say so. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 00:17, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Whoa. Are you saying no Christian newspaper can be independent of any Christian?E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:37, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's well established that The Christian Post is an independent and legitimate source when dealing with YEC. Christian does not necessarily equal YEC, at least when looking at the views of Christians, such as those at the C.P. --1990'sguy (talk) 02:07, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note -- I would not take a passing mention in a PhD dissertations as being WP:SIGCOV. Other sources are likewise insufficient. Despite WP:HEYMAN, the notability threshold has not been met in this case. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:45, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note to closing editor page in reliably sources, but underdeveloped condition. For example, it does not even mention Lisle's books, which ought to be listed and discussion of them in reliable non-young earth sources added. I am requesting that this discussion be continued for a week to enable me - and perhaps other editors - to expand and source it.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:42, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. The best sources are poor, fails the subnotability guidelines, and there are no meaningful incoming links. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:15, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- Young earth creationism has the reputation of being FRINGE. It is however a widely held belief, though it is not mine. At present the article has little on his publications, so that his notability seems to depend on his connection with Creation Museum, which seems to have more substance to it than many "halls of fame" that we regularly seem to keep. The museum article is a long one, and I cannot recommend merging or redirecting to it, which might have been an alternative. I would support E.M.Gregory's request for closure to be deferred, perhaps by relisting. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:22, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - well known creationist. Sources indicates notability as well. Third party, like Der Spiegel. WP:GNG.BabbaQ (talk) 02:37, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Does not pass our general notability guideline. When editors do a good-faith review of the sources here and in a search, it is soon revealed that most of them are passing mentions or, in other words, not an indication of notability. For whatever reason, some of the sources are being passed off as indepth when really they are not. Hopefully, any additional !voters realize that and come to a similar assessment as I and others have here.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 08:23, 13 November 2017 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jason_Lisle_(2nd_nomination)&oldid=1137944189"