Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jerry Bergman (2nd nomination)

Jerry Bergman

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Jerry Bergman
• Articles for deletion/Jerry Bergman (2nd nomination)

Jerry Bergman (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)

Fails WP:BIO, WP:PROF, WP:AUTHOR, and WP:FRINGEBLP. Not notable enough for any of these things. Article was recreated out-of-process in defiance of 2009 consensus: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jerry Bergman. jps (talk) 00:57, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

• Delete - still fails to meet our standards for notability, either as an academic or a fringe-theory advocate. --Orange Mike | Talk 01:13, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
• DeleteNon notable. - - MrBill3 (talk) 01:53, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
• Delete: Lack of substantial and persistent coverage in multiple reliable independent sources. Clearly fails WP:PROF 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. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 02:02, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose:Sorry. Creationists comprise 40 to 50% of 'believers' in the US. All over Wikipedia, you have authors for JFK conspiracies, 9/11 conspiracies, etc. If you prowl around the interwebs you will find creationists websites, linking/commenting about these books and this author. You will find religious programs and websites promoting this author. I think the Young Earth creationists are irrational folks that will not see evidence not matter how clear it is but my thoughts are irrelevant. Based on Wikipedia policy, this author is notable and is a reliable source (FOR CREATIONISTS) and therefore he can have an article. CanadianLinuxUser (talk) 02:28, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Are there reliable sources which establish the notability of the subject? That is what policy requires and what should be discussed here WP:NOTFORUM. If reliable sources are provided here or added to the article there can be discussion of the notability of the subject, currently there are not adequate sources to meet notability criteria. - - MrBill3 (talk) 03:29, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

A simple Google search of the publications will clearly demonstrate that creationists use his work often. "Slaughter of the Dissidents" and "The Darwin Effect" search the titles with the quotes. CanadianLinuxUser (talk) 11:02, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

The question was whether any RELIABLE sources discuss him. Fringe sources add little, if anything, to notability. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 11:14, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Creationists may be "fringe" groups to you and me, but they still make up 40 to 50% of Americans. Why were the Moon Hoax, 9/11, etc fringe groups allowed on Wikipedia with even less "believers"? CanadianLinuxUser (talk) 11:37, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Not because of the coverage they received within the fringe community, but because they received substantial coverage in multiple reliable independent secondary sources from real world scholars and journalists. As does the topic of creationism and many figures in the creationist movement, which is why we have articles about them. The subject of this article, however, has not received substantial coverage in reliable sources, and is therefore not notable according to our policies and guidelines. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 11:49, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

• Comment Toledo blade is an RS, albeit not as popular as The New York Times its still a newspaper, although it is a tabloid: The Blade (newspaper).--Mishae (talk) 03:59, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Six sentences, only two and a half of which are about the subject, the other four being rather blatantly attributed direct or indirect quotes from what appears to be an interview, but may be the film reviewed. Not very much to write an article on, and way short of substantial coverage in multiple reliable independent secondary sources. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 04:50, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Lets ask user @Randykitty:. Maybe he will shed some light on the topic notability since I can't find his h-index in Google Scholar.--Mishae (talk) 05:57, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm afraid I cannot help much. "Bergman J" (or even "Bergman Jerry") gives many results in both GScholar and the Web of Science, but most of that refers to other people (and there are so many of those, that it would take a lot of time to separate out the works of this person). WorldCat shows meager holdings of all of his books, except for one on teaching the evolution/creationism controversy (curiously enough, this is not mentioned in the article), which is in over 200 libraries (for whatever that may be worth). So I cannot come up with any citation data showing notability. Of course, that does not prove there is no notability, but that will have to come through GNG, because I don't see any evidence that Bergman meets any of the criteria of WP:ACADEMIC. For the moment, I !vote Delete. --Randykitty (talk) 12:54, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Dbrodbeck (talk) 17:38, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
• Delete This article doesn't meet the burden for inclusion. --Adam in MO Talk 04:45, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
• Delete. The article fails to demonstrate notability. Passing mentions in fringe publications amount to nothing. And incidentally, one of the few sources cited (answersingenesis.org) is not only a questionable source, but entirely failed to support the material it was being cited for. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:17, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

• Delete based on lack of clearly-established notability. Having said that, at least to my eyes, this article seems to fall somewhere in the range of what might be our biggest and most problematic area of contention, the intersection of what might be called areligious academia and what might be called religious academia. I know that there are at least a few reference books relating to that broad area, like the Encyclopedia of Science and Religion, and I think a few others, and if anyone wanted to get together lists of the topics they give articles to that might help a lot both in terms of being better able to find out which topics are notable in this field, but also which topics are more or less important in that broad area and, thus by extension, provide some sort of outline for the topic which would help make it easier for us to determine which articles to give more weight to, and which topics whose independent notability can't be clearly established might be best discussed in which related notable articles. John Carter (talk) 23:09, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
• Keep 'The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors.' WP:AUTHOR 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 [1]). 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. Cpsoper (talk) 21:04, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Please provide a verifiable source for your assertion that Bergman is "an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors". AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:08, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

[2], [3], [4], [5], [6] etc etc, as you rightly pointed out an author is RS for his own opinions, and these two large societies are RS for the view of many thousands of creationists and IDers. See also [7] Cpsoper (talk) 21:25, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Not a single one of those "sources" comes remotely close to being reliable, and cannot be used to gauge notability according to our policies, which require substantial coverage in multiple reliable independent secondary sources. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 21:31, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Reliable as an opinion for his own peer group, per last reference, I could add the ICR, [8],[9], [10]. Cpsoper (talk) 21:39, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

I think ICR is more reliable than the previous refs.--Mishae (talk) 21:54, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

ICR and AIG are certainly not reliable sources for anything but their own wild assertions and fantasies about the past. They aren't even reliable sources on the views of Creationists, due to the frequent disagreements and lies between the two.--Adam in MO Talk 22:02, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Yup - if Institute for Creation Research#Criticism from creationists is correct (it cites sources, though I've not checked them), it appears that creationists have their issues with the ICR too. And I note that Cpsoper still seems to think that Bergmann is a reliable source for the notability of Bergman... AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:06, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

'Bergmann is a reliable source for the notability of Bergman' - evidence? CS — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.176.105.133 (talk) 20:14, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

What? I wrote that ' Cpsoper still seems to think that Bergmann is a reliable source for the notability of Bergman' - Clearly implying that (per WP:RS/WP:N) he isn't. This is a matter of policy, and needs no further source. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:11, 1 January 2015 (UTC)dn

Dear Andy, you do seem to have problems perceiving fine distinctions. All I have claimed from the outset is that creationist groups cite Bergman freely and extensively, demonstrating he is widely regarded by many of them as a cogent and articulate spokesman. Please produce evidence it is otherwise. Now whether a widely regarded advocate for 46% of all US college students' and 25% of postgrads' views is notable or not, especially when is claiming in 300+page book with 68 pages of footnotes that other such advocates frequently face career destruction or the silencing of their best judgement and conscience. In the meantime, speaking a little more personally, and as a long practiced diagnostician may I suggest this for you [11]? BW, Cpsoper (talk) 22:22, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

• Delete. Clearly not notable. QuackGuru (talk) 07:46, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
• Delete. Doesn't meet notability requirements and appears to only be cited by fringe sources. Kingofaces43 (talk) 17:40, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:21, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:22, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:22, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:22, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

• Delete. 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 WP:NPOV and WP:FRINGE) 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". —David Eppstein (talk) 02:27, 2 January 2015 (UTC)