Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jason Lisle (2nd nomination)
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
— User:9SGjOSfyHJaQVsEmy9NS, 15:24, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
Stance: delete
Cited policy: WP:FRINGEBLP||WP:AUTHOR||WP:CELEBRITY||WP:PROF||WP:FRIND||WP:NPOV||WP:MAINSTREAM||WP:OR (Wikipedia:Fringe theories)