Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jason Lisle
=[[Jason Lisle]]=
:{{la|Jason Lisle}} – (
:({{Find sources|Jason Lisle}})
Fails WP:BIO and WP:PROF quite spectacularly. It is a curiosity to have a sheep-in-wolf's-clothing get a PhD in astronomy, but he's not notable outside of the creationist-cheering-squads as far as I can see. The CNN reference doesn't really do the trick; it's more spectacle than it is conferring notability on Lisle. ScienceApologist (talk) 04:09, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
- Delete - Crackpot POV peddling. Carrite (talk) 04:57, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
- Delete. There's nothing notable there at all. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:21, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:25, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:25, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
- Delete per the above. I agree with the nom that once being a guest on a talking-heads program is not particularly significant and does not amount to coverage of the person himself. Glenfarclas (talk) 00:28, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
- Delete - fails GNG and WP:PROF quite clearly. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 01:32, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
- Delete. I think we have to be very careful here about rendering emotional or subjective judgments in this case. I don't see a real POV problem here, as was floated above. The article reports details on schooling, publications, place of employment, etc. – all of this is, in fact, good biographical fodder. Nevertheless, I feel the subject still fails the notability test per the following: First, because the subject has a doctorate and works very conspicuously under that title, we should probably be testing against WP:PROF. WoS shows 3 publications in Astrophys. J. and Am. J. Phys. (top mainstream physics journals), however, his h-index is also only 3 and the total (collective) citations are only 27 – far short of our traditional requirements. Also, his books are not at all widely held, e.g. "Taking Back Astronomy" (<40), "The Ultimate Proof of Creation" (<40), and "Old Earth Creationism on Trial" (<30). His debate with Eugenie Scott is interesting, but this seems to have been a one-time event. 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 nor a creationist. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 15:07, 13 July 2010 (UTC).
: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.