Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeff Lindsay (second nomination)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. 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.

The result of the nomination was Keep. Eminence in his field of apologetics is established by the references in the article. --Tony Sidaway 19:48, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jeff Lindsay

• Previous nomination at: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeff Lindsay

ATTENTION! If you came here because somebody asked you to, or you read a message on a forum, please note that this is not a ballot, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus amongst Wikipedia editors on whether a page is suitable for this encyclopedia. We have policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting heads. You can participate and give your opinion. Please sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Happy editing! Note: Comments made by suspected single purpose accounts can be tagged using {{subst:spa|username|UTC timestamp [optional]}}

NOMINATOR: Please add a specific justification for deletion to this nomination, here at the top of the discussion. AfD is not an (un)popularity contest - you must cite specific justifications for deletion. Georgewilliamherbert 08:29, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

• • Another Rewrite - I attempted another rewrite to remove vanity type stuff, provide additional verified sources for some claims, and shortened the article considerably. I ask participants below to pls review the new page. --Trödel 14:04, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
  • And another... David L Rattigan 19:28, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete This is still a vanity page. --Jonquière 01:03, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

• Comment - "Jeff Lindsay is an amateur..." I think that right there is reason enough to delete this article. --Jonquière 22:53, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Improvements have been made - more are needed but the page should stay so they can be made --Trödel 01:12, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep He is a significant person within Mormon apologists. Several Mormon related pages refer to the article. It is a stub, but not (IMHO) really a vanity page. I rewrote the page, adding more detail than the original. I don't know the person, and have no connection to him. I added the article because I believe he is noteworthy. wrp103 (Bill Pringle) 03:09, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• Obvious Delete There haven't really been any changes since the last one that make it worthy of a Wikipedia entry. Most of the links on "web references" aren't even notable enough either to be on a wikipedia page. That's like listing all the webpages that have references to CNN. Hmm...maybe I should reference my own webpage under the CNN website? Also, this was deleted previously. When it went for a deletion review, they decided to keep it deleted. --Riley 03:55, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. There's way to much vanity fluff/website promotion in this article. Also, where is the notability here? Apologies if I am missing something, but isn't this just a chemist who moonlights as a blogger? The guy who writes those Dexter books, on the other hand, he is notable IMO. - DaveG12345 01:18, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

• Comment The above was my original comment on this topic, but it's moved here now for technical reasons, so have reposted it intact. Just to elaborate, the article doesn't, to me, really make clear what this person is notable for. There is a lot of introductory fluff of no relevance to their supposed notability, then the blogging material at the end which seems more like an advert for the website. Just MHO at this stage. --DaveG12345 04:01, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I read the comments - they were complaining a year ago:

  If there is anything of substance here except self-promotion, let us see it. I say this not out of a negative view, but I see little evidence here of value. I shouldn't have to go to his website to know what he is about- and that seems like what the article is seeking to do. It looks more like a personal webpage than an encyclopedia article.

The comment sadly still holds today. --DaveG12345 04:46, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

• Keep - give the stub time to fill out. Someone who holds 65 US patents should at least have a stub. He is notable, much moreso than many wikipedia entries. See comments on talk page of article [1]. -Visorstuff 04:06, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I guess I must be missing a distinction between notable and those who are not and more importantly who determines this issue. Some of the articles that we have on WIKI are truly useless; think of all the articles on small towns of no significance, or those on episodes of TV series, or about people who have done absolutely nothing except play one inning of professional baseball. Now we have a fellow who is very active in the religious sector and he is insignificant??? It makes one wonder. Storm Rider ^(talk) 04:39, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• Remove non-notable personal info "Lindsay developed an interest in magic around the age of 11. He continues to enjoy magic, but strictly on an amateur basis. He still performs for small groups, with no high-tech effects." This is not encyclopedic!—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Xrblsnggt (talk • contribs).
• Rationale changed, see below. Delete Do we have a museum for deleted articles that display exactly what WP is not? This article is just begging to be the centerpiece of the traveling exhibition. ~ trialsanderrors 05:18, 6 July 2006 (UTC) / 18:14, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - It's not that hard to get a patent. "We have worse" is not a reason to keep; nominate those and I'll vote to zap them as well. Vanity, definitely my favorite sin. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 06:23, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Same reasoning as last time. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 07:13, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Bill. I will do what I can to try to improve the article. David L Rattigan 07:39, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Bill. By the way, he's up to 86 patents now (said 92 - corrected) - as a patent attorney, I don't think it is "easy" or common to get 86 patents - I have a few individual inventors among my clients that are higher than that, but that is considered a rare and impressive accomplishment by all involved. That alone makes him notable. I have also, as an exmormon, been familiar with his work as an LDS apologist for years, through a variety of sources - he is widely referred to in discussions of the LDS church, making him doubly notable. I have no connection to him and do not agree with most of what he writes, but he merits a Wikipedia article. * (Correction - I've corrected the number of his patents to 86, after screening out a few alternate Jeff Lindsays) - Reaverdrop (talk/nl/w:s) 08:18, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Turns out he's listed on 92 patents as co-inventor for products patented by his company, Kimberly-Clark. For a research scientist we're not in extraordinary territory. ~ trialsanderrors 08:43, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

• Reply - 35 U.S.C. 102(f) requires that the true inventors, and only the true inventors, of an invention are named as inventors on the patent. If someone is named who is not an inventor, it could invalidate or otherwise limit the enforceability of the patent; if someone who materially contributed to the invention is not named as an inventor, and later found to have been a true co-inventor, they have full independent rights to the patent, including the right to license away to a competitor unfettered joint rights to the patent; which they have been known to do, to very great remuneration. Either way, millions of dollars often ride on naming the inventors accurately; it is a big deal. This is not like a senior professor plugging his name onto his students' research articles. The distinction implied above is without a difference. And for anyone, 86 patents is extraordinary territory. Note also, that he is also named on 107 pending patent applications, at least most of which can be expected to become issued patents in the next few years - and those are only the ones that have been pending at least 18 months. One guy with 200 patents is certainly notable, whether or not his employer is paying for the costs of obtaining the patents - which would be hard for an individual to do in this case, where his 200 patent applications have likely cost somewhere in the neighborhood of two million dollars. - Reaverdrop (talk/nl/w:s) 09:12, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

• Rejoinder Thank you. I don't see how that addresses my point. It is notoriously easy to get a U.S. patent, with approval rates estimated to be upward of 75%, so with corporate funding I mostly see someone who, as the corporate patent strategist, has his mind set on getting as many patents as possible, for reasons possibly more strategic than scientific. I laud those who trimmed this article down to the essentials, but a list of below-notable accomplishments in various areas still doesn't bestow notability. Besides, if his patents were to bestow notability, should we write about his contributions to wet wipes dispensing technologies, or decorative elements in feminine hygiene? ~ trialsanderrors 17:30, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

• Re-rejoinder (???) - Hey man, where would civilization be without wet wipes dispensing technologies? :-) While not all patents are on par with inventing laser or warp drive, but looking only at issue rate per application masks the self-limiting layers of in-house counsel, managers, and outside counsel deciding whether or not an engineer's submission for a patent application is likely enough to be passed to be worth the mound of cash and the years of effort to apply. A lot of would-be applicants are counseled - even by their outside attorney (including myself) - that their idea is not likely to get an issued patent. In short, I don't think the arguments for minimizing the accomplishment of a guy with 86 patents and over 100 more in the pipeline hold much water, and I think that in itself satisfies notability. There are a number of astronauts who list a single or a handful of patents on their bios alongside their spaceflight experience. Ray Kurzweil is famous as an inventor, and he holds 15 patents and 37 published pending patent applications. Lindsay is notable. - Reaverdrop (talk/nl/w:s) 19:18, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

• Re³joinder My point is mostly about the very limited value of patent counts. Patents are a massive long tail story, with only a tiny fraction creating the bulk of value. I'm a bit disinclined to buy the in-house controls argument if the subject himself is in control of the process. I should amend my comment above though by noting that the decorative elements seem to be about the riffles on toilet paper and paper towels rather than feminine hygiene products. If there is a patent among the bunch that received significant outside attention, I'm willing to reconsider. On sheer counts, I'm not. ~ trialsanderrors 19:37, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

• Re⁴joinder His employer is #135 on the Fortune 500. I guarantee you, he does not have unfettered rights to pour the company's money into a collection of vanity patents for himself. If they are anything like other F500 companies, there is a big department of in-house patent attorneys and managers taking a long, hard look at every thousand dollars being spent and deciding whether the likely benefit to the company of each patent application is worth the expense, with the knowledge that only a tiny fraction of patents are ever useful for litigation. So, again, I don't think it's apt to minimize the notability of one researcher with that many patents. - Reaverdrop (talk/nl/w:s) 19:57, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

• Rrrrrejoinder. Again, I'm not debating the value of his (co-)inventions to Kimberly-Clark, who might be very happy about his new ways of grooving wiggly lines into toilet paper. I'm debating their encyclopedic value. If he appeared in "Sanitary Products Monthly" for it, we have a different case. R&D is only notable if someone notices it. Only his track record in print media, see below. ~ trialsanderrors 20:04, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

• Rrrrrrrrrrrr... errr... - I'm very sad to report that a Google search of "Sanitary Products Monthly", in quotes, returns no results. (At least until their bots crawl onto this page.) So, you admit you are denying the vitality of new squiggly line designs on toilet paper to this nation's proud economy? ☺ But seriously, that is not a fair representation of the achievements of his patents. - Reaverdrop (talk/nl/w:s) 20:21, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

• R→∞joinder By no means, decorative elements in toilet paper have turned what was once the drab performance of a bodily function into an expedition into a world of wonders, but as long as Mr. Lindsay continues to toil (no pun intended) in obscurity to enrich our lives, we have to deny him notability, much to my own regret. It's not how WP works – we don't include anyone for being tall, we include them because someone with a press pass looked up and said, "Wow, this guy is tall." ~ trialsanderrors 20:35, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

• Interjoinder ;) I selected that patent (and the tampoon one) - not for their particular notability as I only read a few of the patents - but to show the diversity of the patents being sought - also Lindsay is the lead inventor on at least one of the patents I reviewed - I would have included a note to that effect if I thought it would have been important. I think the main consideration should be that there is enough noteriety using only the impact DNA research is having on the LDS Church and the professional achievements add depth to this persons article. It is, after all, a stub not a complete article. --Trödel 23:57, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

• Reflection I didn't even notice the listing (it's probably not encyclopedic to list them by their titles anyway, which reader can tell that "Absorbent article having good body fit under dynamic conditions" refers to maxi pads?) In any case I agree that the issue of notability should center around his activities in LDS research, but I also haven't found anything that gives me disinterested confirmation of his activities. Btw, this article is a stub??? How long is it supposed to be when it's done? ~ trialsanderrors 02:12, 7 July 2006 (UTC) (PS I rearranged the indents to fit the topic under discussion)

• Annotation - I agree - it shouldn't be much longer - the most significant LDS Apologetics is the dna research - DNA research "Jeff Lindsay" gives quite a few hits --Trödel 02:52, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

• Comment I left the stub template in the rewritten article because I realized it was a first stab at a new article. Since then, Trödel has greatly improved the article, so it can probably be removed by now, although there is more work to be done (like Criticsm). BTW - the guy is a chemical engineer, specializing in things to do with wood pulp who works for a paper company. Chances are his patents aren't going to be glamorous and exciting to those of us who don't appreciate the wonders of paper.;^) He did have two "best article" awards from a trade magazine, and co-winner of a "Best Technical Paper" from a professional institute, which sounds like professional recognition. wrp103 (Bill Pringle) 02:47, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

• On DNA Research This is a lengthy article from the LA Times on the discussion of DNA vs. LDS. Lindsay isn't even mentioned once. I still didn't see any encyclopedically usable material on him. ~ trialsanderrors 03:29, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

• Neutral??? I just read this article - btw, this is a great example of how traditional news is not neutrally presented - it doesn't quote any apoligists by name - that I could see just people talking about what they say. But being the LA times I'm not surprised --Trödel 01:59, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Any website that cites it's Wikipedia article on the front page (check out his "official site") does not deserve to be on Wikipedia. We don't need his resume. I'm sure he can host it in his own webspace. Alphachimp ^talk 13:25, 6 July 2006 (UTC) I am changing my vote to keep per recent changes to bring article to Wikipedia quality. Alphachimp ^talk 23:43, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

• Reply - David Brin also links to his Wikipedia article on the front page of his website. Does that mean he has suddenly become deserving of deletion? I don't see that in the WP policies. - Reaverdrop (talk/nl/w:s) 16:08, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

• Reply - David Brin doesn't have his Resumé listed on his wikipedia page. David Brin is also much more well-known than Jeff Lindsay. David Brin also has an entire series of published books. Jeff Lindsay has a few articles. There's a big difference between the two. --Riley 18:37, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

• Hey look it's Elvis - Those are separate issues from "Any website that cites it's Wikipedia article on the front page (check out his "official site") does not deserve to be on Wikipedia", the rebuttal of which above I take it from your subject-changing you accede to. - Reaverdrop (talk/nl/w:s) 19:18, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Reply - As this comment is based off of what Alphachimp said, it is on subject. --Riley 20:44, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Reply - I don't see it in WP policy, but it speaks to the notability of a subject. A lot of NN people and organizations will cite their wikipedia article as a primary source of information about them. When you are famous/important enough, you don't have to cite Wikipedia. There are really no parallels between Brin and Lindsay, except the Wiki citation (I could not find it on Brin's page, btw.) Alphachimp ^talk 23:00, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

What is the issue here? It seems there are two issues being discussed: (1) Is the person noteworthy and (2) Did I do a good job writing the article? Question #1 is valid for a discussion of whether or not it is a vanity page, but question #2 would be better for a discussion of whether the article needs a rewrite. wrp103 (Bill Pringle) 13:55, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

• Comment The article has been improved since many of the above comments were made - see this early version for its earlier problems. --DaveG12345 14:25, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. It still lists that he graduated summa cum laude. It's still a resume. Wikipedia is not web hosting. Alphachimp ^talk 23:00, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

• Changed to Keep. The article is now much improved, with the vanity fluff, overt advertising and irrelevancies removed. I'm giving the benefit of the doubt on the notability issue. --DaveG12345 14:25, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - per last AFD. --Kungfu Adam ^(talk) 15:06, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Have you reviewed the new article - it has changed substantially since the last AFD which only had 4 voters. --Trödel 15:23, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete This article is obviously a vantiy page. --137.142.17.120 16:24, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, 113,000 on Google. --Domthedude001 17:54, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
  • In the interest of full disclosure, there are several people named Jeff Lindsey - but this 33,000 is probably more accurate "Jeff Lindsay" (mormon OR pulp OR patent) --Trödel 18:03, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment A Lexis-Nexis search for "Jeff Lindsay"/last ten years/Midwestern regional news creates 9 hits, none of which are about the subject. Western regional news: 21 hits, none about the subject. Major newspapers: 25, zero about the subject. ~ trialsanderrors 19:16, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete vanity page. JChap 18:13, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete vanity page. --68.191.11.249 18:16, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Notable in his genre - Mormon apoligists - professional accomplishments add depth Abeo Paliurus 18:55, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Vanity. Moriori 04:00, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, vanity Dr Zak 04:32, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. It was probably vanity to begin with, but this person has actually made some accomplishments worthy of note. RFerreira 07:47, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Lindsay is famous for polemically dismissing anything not faith-promoting to Mormonism, and his scientific expertise is often touted by his followers in this regard, who represent a fundamentalist faction within Mormonism, unyielding in their literalism. So Wikipedia is touting his scientific expertise for these followers without precedent, thus giving his controversial and unrelated apologetics added weight. Here is the problem explained, from a Mormon researcher: My particular interest is Missouri Mormon History. Of this time ( 1831 - 1838 ), I concentrate on 1838. The 1838 Mormon War in Missouri - This is THE definitive book on the 1838 period, and is a must read for any student to the topic. Please note that Jeff Lindsay has written an unkind rebuttal of this book, and I fully dismiss Lindsay's work here as almost totally inaccurate. For an alternative to LeSueur's work, see Alex Baugh's A Call to Arms: The 1838 Mormon Defense of Northern Missouri. I know both authors personally, and they are two of the best historians in the field. Bro. Lindsay has done a disservice to his church in this area - he would be best advised to read Baugh's book, and follow his example. A full bibliography of the Missouri period can be found at the bottom of this page. For a rather complete chronology of 1838 Missouri, see 1838 Chronology, o this site. http://www.tungate.com/Missouri_1838.htm Anon166 15:50, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Actually this is an argument that there should be an article so that those seeking information about him can get an neutral perspective. --Trödel 17:05, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
    • It's not an argument for or against as long as it doesn't leave the narrow confines of LDSDNA discussion forums. I'm still waiting for evindence that his work has trickled out into the wider world of disinterested reporting. ~ trialsanderrors 17:20, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
      • Interestingly - I searched some other ways (non-internet) and the only thing I have found so far relates to his anti block-scheduling for schools crusade Kenney, Linda Chion. "Back from the block--or not?", School Administrator, American Association of School Administrators, 2003-10-01.. In my own little world he is so obviously notable - I'll keep looking as I get a chance. --Trödel 18:51, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
      • For example, when Concerned Christians banned Mormons from quoting anyone who was not a General Authority (Betts, Bob (2005-11-23). A New Rule For Mormons. Concerned Christians. Retrieved on 2006-07-07. ) the only person named was Jeff Lindsay. --Trödel 19:19, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

• Trodel, yours is merely an argument for including anything. Whether or not it can be neutral is another question. (I personally don't think so because a belief system is under threat from scientific data.) Furthermore, two shortcomings don't add up to a success. His apologetics is not noteworthy as an entry without his unrelated scientific expertise, which is not noteworthy on its own. Anon166 19:42, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

• No only ones that are "famous", are "touted by his followers", and controversial enough to be denounced by "Mormon researchers" - sounds like plenty of verifabile information to be included in an article --Trödel 02:03, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

• I think Lindsay's followers number about 50, all of them from the internet, about ten or so of them seem to be Mormon editors on Wikipedia. I've never met a Mormon in real life who's mentioned him in relation to his apologetics, as there are about a dozen or so names in front of him. Since you quoted me on his fame, you should have the rest of the story. Anon166 03:4, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
• Can you enlighten us where Lindsay posts/publishes his LDSDNA articles? This is still obscure to outsiders after all this debate. ~ trialsanderrors 04:01, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

LDS DNA Articles:

• from the official LDS Site (PDF)
• from his own web site (HTML)

Again, it isn't necessarily what he is best known for (I personally like his "My Turn" page, but the DNA article is the only one that was published on the official LDS site. wrp103 (Bill Pringle) 18:10, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. I notice that the resume-esque bullet points have been removed from the article. It's a good start, but everything I'm reading just seems so unremarkable and not NPOV. Allow me to illustrate: It says that he interrupted his time at BYU for a mission thing. That's great, but it's a normal thing for LDS members to do. For instance, the claim that he is a "prolific" inventor wreaks of NPOV issues. Looking at the article, I just find it extremely hard to justify its inclusion in Wikipedia. Alphachimp ^talk 18:30, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
  • First the article should decide what it wants to be. As a corporate executive, the subject is wildly non-notable. As a former academic, he seems to fail WP:PROF. As an inventor, he doesn't seem to be anywhere near the top. The way it looks like right now it seems that all the information about his various non-LDS-related activities are brought up to make a false appeal to authority (given that he has no standing as a molecular biologist) to bolster his role in the LDSDNA debates. Which would make this a very POV undertaking which should be deleted with prejudice. I'm still open to hear about his role in the LDSDNA debates, but so far the findings have been very meagre. ~ trialsanderrors 19:12, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Response I admit I didn't do a good job of the initial rewrite. (I'm better at tweaking than creating), but the discussion should be based on the topic, not the quality of the article.
    • Everyone's milage may vary, but the LDS DNA article isn't (IMHO) the most important thing he did. What makes it unique, is that it is the only paper that the official church web site references. (lds.org usually limits references to articles to top church leaders.) What he is best known for (for good and bad) is a variety of papers in the anti-mormon field. As I mentioned earlier, if you google "anti-mormon", his site shows up on the first page. That should indicate he is notable within Anti-Mormonism. The next question would be "Is anti-mormonism notable?" If the answer is yes, then it seems that Jeff Lindsay is noteable. If the answer is no, then the answer would be no. His page is linked to from Anti-Mormonism, Mormon apologetics, and Criticism of Mormonism, which lends credence to him being known among Mormons. Now, granted, if you aren't a Mormon, a former Mormon, an Anti-Mormon, or a friend of a Mormon, that may not mean much. But does that make it non-notable?
    • I also should point out that David L Rattigan has greatly stripped down the article, so I would encourage people to look at it again. wrp103 (Bill Pringle) 22:16, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. I have radically revised the article, excising a lot of the irrelevant stuff that was making it look like a vanity article. If the article is going to stay, it is better that it grows organically rather than just rehashing the mass of information from the old article. David L Rattigan 19:28, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment High praise for David for cutting it down to size and removing the more blatant vanity elements. On the notability of his LDSDNA engagement, the problem is that the LDS webpage has to be seen as a partisan site in the debate, so what really matters is 1. whether the opposing site takes his arguments seriously enough to engage him in a debate, and 2. whether this spills over to a forum where I as an outsider could possibly be informed by it. For instance the LA Times article is good evidence that the debate is of interest to outsiders, but since Lindsay isn't mentioned in it it gives no testimony of his role. WP:NPOV brings up the issue of undue weight, and if it isn't established that he holds a central role in the debate (outside web forums, which are almost never encyclopedic), this article could be seen as a POV fork. ~ trialsanderrors 23:36, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment. I'll second that praise. I've changed my vote to Keep. I'm not entirely convinced of his notability, but the article is borderline enough to save. Alphachimp ^talk 23:43, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Borderline or not, it's still a vanity bit about a non notable to me. Rense 04:11, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. His name is on enough Wikipedia pages about Mormonism (http://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Aen.wikipedia.org+%22jeff+lindsay%22+-%22user+talk%22) to make an actual page about the guy useful. It may need rewriting to get up to Wikipedia standards, but as long as there are so many references to him from other Wikipedia pages, people are going to keep creating the article back again (ignorant of the past, deleted versions of the page). --Dlugar 05:25, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, absolutely. Patent discussions aside, I agree that Lindsay is notable as an LDS apologist — I've become very familiar with his work both as a Mormon and after leaving the church (and know many others who read him that have nothing to do with Wikipedia, Anon). For the record, I've communicated with him via email in a (suspended) effort to fill this article out some, and he was surprised that it had been written — he did not author any part of it. For those voting delete as vanity, be careful to not equate an unfamiliarity with the subject at hand with identifying it as vanity. Tijuana Brass^¡Épa! 07:14, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete and merge pertinent facts into Mormon apologetics. With all due deference to those who did a great job of cutting the vanity from this article, it still fails key thresholds in WP policy. Absent reliable outside sources the subject is simply someone who is vocal on his webpage and on discussion groups but with zero news hits (even Utah or Wisconsin local news) simply lacks the outside standing of a Phillip E. Johnson to be the public face of the apologist position in this debate. The litmus test for an entry like this is whether we can include a properly sourced and attributed criticism of his position. If not, we can either include hearsay and run afoul of WP:BLP or we leave it out and make this a POV fork, giving undue weight to one side of the debate. To be clear, the debate is important and should be properly covered, but we cannot bestow notability to a partisan figure who has not received any attention outside the world he is active in. ~ trialsanderrors 18:14, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I must confess I'm confused about what is needed for retention. For my initial rewrite, I added lots of references, which caused several people to call it a vanity page. Then it got stripped down to mainly apologetics, and now it is too narrow.

So far, we have identified:

• Two books that reference his site, one for religion, and one for magic.
• Two professional organizations (TAPPI and American Paper Institute - now AF&PA) cited his works for best technical papers
• He served as director of AIChE Forest Products Division from 1989 to 1995
• If you search for "Anti-Mormon" on google, his web site appears on the first page of hits.
• Brittanica.com and USA Today each spotlighted his site as a "Hot Site" and "one of the best on the Internet when reviewed for quality, accuracy of content, presentation and usability" respectively. The site has received various other awards and recognitions.
• The educators' magazine, Education Week, ran a story on Oct. 3, 2001 discussing his Block Scheduling site.
• BYU Chemical Engineering Dept. designated him as the outstanding alumnus for 2004

It seems to me that the above list indicates he is notable within apologetics (at least for the lds.org article and high ranking by google on "Anti-Mormon"), professionally (best papers, outstanding alumnus, and director of AIChE Forest Products Division, and the number of patents), general public visibility (USA Today and Brittanica.com), and other fields (e.g., Block Scheduling), so I'm not sure that he has not received any recognition outside of the world he is active in.

Can somebody clarify the issues at this point? wrp103 (Bill Pringle) 00:25, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

If you go through your own list you'll notice that exactly one of your (non-blog/non-message board) sources is about his LDSDNA activities – the cite in a book that has probably 500 footnotes total. That is extremely meager. Everything else is essentially an appeal to authority, saying because he has done X his opinion on Y must be taken seriously. That's what WP:NPOV calls "undue weight". As I mentioned before, since Lindsay has no standing based on formal training his standing must be established by outside sources. If he has been involved in a public debate on LDSDNA or has been cited by his adversaries, those are ways to establish his role. Magicianship and expertise in block scheduling aren't. ~ trialsanderrors 00:42, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

He doesn't even really have a good background in block scheduling. Most people in the education field who I've talked to regarding him consider his arguments to be pretty soft. --Riley 04:33, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

One of the problems of finding outside sources from adversaries is that one of the characteristics of most anti-mormon literature is to ignore any apologetic material, and frame their arguments to imply that no counter-arguments have ever been expressed to their claims. This was recognized by two christian theologians in: Mosser, Carl and Owen, Paul (1997) in Mormon Apologetic Scholarship and Evangelical Neglect: Losing the Battle and Not Knowing It?.

The fact that his article appears on the official lds.org site is quite significant, indicating recognition from the apologetic side. This is a site that normally has only writings by high level church leaders and maybe faculty from church-sponsored schools and universities. Every article is carefully reviewed and given approval from high authorities before it is added to the web site, so his DNA article being there is a big deal.

As for block scheduling, it sounds like he is known (if not respected) in that field.

Let me be clear: I don't agree with much of his non-apologetic writings. He's a conservative and I'm a bleeding-heart liberal, and I think he is dead wrong on a lot of his opinions. Nevertheless, I have to admit that he is at least known in various circles. wrp103 (Bill Pringle) 13:04, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I have no idea whether this is true or not, but this very lack of discussion or outside reporting makes it clear that we have a problem with WP:V and WP:NPOV. But in any case, unless there are other sources forthcoming I think we have discussed this from all sides and have to leave it to the closing administrator to decide whether the article can be kept. ~ trialsanderrors 00:58, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

If you read the article I pointed to, you will see that at least the authors (who were not LDS, and in fact were on the anti-mormon side) believe that is one of the problems with their approach so far. This also illustrates how it is sometimes very difficult to teach people with no familiarity of a subject matter enough to make informed decisions. It reminds me a little of when people complain about not having reliable references for video games. The fact is, there really isn't many books written about video games, but the comments that appear in the articles I monitor do reflect the "general opinion", based on talking to others. If there isn't a clear answer, hopefully people will trust those who are more familiar with the topic.

I still don't understand why, if his web site shows up on the first page of a google search for "anti-mormon", how he can't be notable within that field. Is the problem that anti-mormonism isn't noteable? wrp103 (Bill Pringle) 01:19, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I didn't read the full article but I noticed that they 1. don't mention Lindsay but 2. mention Hugh Nibley as the "father of apologetic scholarship", i.e. someone who by academic standing has an article in WP. So I hav no idea if your claim is correct, and it isn't really my job to investigate. My job is to check whether we have sufficient reliable outside resources to write an unbiased article based solely on those sources, and my opinion is no, for reasons amply discussed above: no coverage in the media, no publications is reputable academic outlets, no discussion of his claims in those media. In other words, we are asked to give notability to someone who hasn't established notability for himself in the kinds of sources we consider reliable. ~ trialsanderrors 01:37, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

• Keep seems notable enough - and the controversy reminds me that where there is smoke, look for fire. Lyze 03:28, 11 July 2006 (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.