Deletion of Jerry Bergman (2nd nomination)

Comment: Lack of substantial and persistent coverage in multiple reliable independent sources. Clearly fails  by a wide mile. As a fringe figure, he is a minor bit player at best, and earns only a short paragraph in the most authoritative and comprehensive RS book on the topic, and my own searches turned up nothing even remotely promising. Sorry, just not enough in reliable sources to base much of an article on
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:PROF)

Comment: I don't think the Stansfield source (which briefly summarizes Bergman's beliefs before suggesting a student exercise comparing them with mainstream biology) is enough by itself, and other than that we have no reliable mainstream sources that we need (per  and ) to counter the fringiness of this, let alone to prove sufficient notability. I don't think the talk.origins and ICR sources are reliable and neutral, and as for the Toledo Blade piece, besides not really having much actual information about Bergman or his beliefs, and taking the fringe side of the issue, it's hard to take seriously when it has solecisms like "doctorate in evaluation
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:NPOV||WP:FRINGE)

Comment: Fails 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors.'  He is indeed extensively quoted by creationist and ID peers, which are RS for their circle, which remains substantial in the US and elsewhere (46% of US college grads, 25% post grads http://www.gallup.com/poll/155003/Hold-Creationist-View-Human-Origins.aspx). He has written extensively on this and other subjects. Controversy over the undesired skewering of sacred cows is not the same as non-notability. Proper reference to criticism of his position is also needed
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:AUTHOR)