Deletion of Jason Lisle (2nd nomination)

Comment: 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 . 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
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: I would not take a passing mention in a PhD dissertations as being . Other sources are likewise insufficient. Despite , the notability threshold has not been met in this case
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:SIGCOV||WP:HEYMAN)

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

Comment: I guess we're really doing this. The issue here is that this is a . I don't think anyone is arguing that this person passes , , , 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 . In this case, the lack of notice by  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
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Fringe theories (WP:FRINGEBLP||WP:AUTHOR||WP:CELEBRITY||WP:PROF||WP:FRIND||WP:NPOV||WP:MAINSTREAM||WP:OR)

Comment: How did this article get recreated in the first place? I think a  dinner might need to be delivered
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Whacking with a wet trout (WP:TROUT)

Comment: 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. &ndash;&#8239
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Fringe theories (WP:FRINGE)

Comment: Does not look to pass /. 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. &mdash
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:BIO)

Comment: No significant coverage in mainstream sources, needed to provide |neutral coverage of |fringe subjects
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:NPOV||WP:FRINGE)