Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeff Lindsay (apologist) (3rd 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 was delete. Femke (talk) 09:35, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Lindsay (apologist)

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Previous nominations at: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jeff_Lindsay and Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jeff_Lindsay_(second_nomination)

DELETE - The article's subject does not meet the requirements for notability. Per WP:BASIC, "People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." The sources for this article are

1. Fairmormon.org, a posting by Lindsay himself on (not independent)

2. Mormanity, Lindsay's own blog (not independent)

3. Nauvoo Times. A blog showing that he was a contributor, adding nothing biographical. (not independent)

4. Mormoninterpreter.com, a publication on which Lindsay is on the board (not independent)

5. Jefflindsay.com, another blog owned by Lindsay. (not independent)

6. Mormoninterpreter.com, this time with a link to a blog post by Lindsay. (not independent)

7. Fairmormon.org, another blog posting written by Lindsay (not independent)

8. newsroom.lds.org, a link to a blogpost by Lindsay (not independent)

9. Mormoninterpreter.com page listing board members, demonstrating that Lindsay is not independent from the source.

10. exmormon.org anonymous posting criticizing Lindsay. Not reliable

11. A book by Richard Abanes. Book might be a good source on an established article, but coverage within this book is not significant enough to establish notability.

There are exactly zero sources that establish notability. This article was nominated for deletion once, with the recommendation to DELETE. It was nominated a second time many years ago and somehow the decision was to keep. This was in large part due to the number of patents he had obtained. Wikipedia:Notability (academics) makes clear that "Patents, commercial and financial applications are generally not indicative of satisfying Criterion 7." This needs to be looked at again a third time now that better guidelines have been established on Wikipedia. Epachamo (talk) 09:11, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, and Christianity. Shellwood (talk) 09:57, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nomination. A quick search of my own suggests no significant coverage that can be easily found. Macktheknifeau (talk) 14:41, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, basically per nom. Alsdo, there is certainly no indication of passing WP:PROF here, and there are elements of WP:FRINGE here too. Nsk92 (talk) 22:49, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as the others have indicated. The standards of Wikipedia have changed significantly since 2006, and with there being no independent sources there is no reason to keep this article. Rollidan (talk) 00:24, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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.