Talk:Jeff Lindsay/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

This is a valid entry. I know it's written kind of sarcastically and with some POV, but please don't delete it. I'll try to fix it later; I didn't sleep last night and I think I have to go die now. If it turns out I don't, I'll probably come fix. [19:48, 14 Aug 2004 Cookiecaper]

That was quite a while ago -- time to remove the self-described sarcasm and POV? And is this person really of encyclopaediac notability? Alai 19:26, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I believe this fellow is probably the most famous one-man website LDS apologists around, but the article curiously harldy covers that at all. Cool Hand Luke 12:48, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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. So unless someone does something with it, I will agree with Alai's 2nd sentence of 5 Feb 2005. --Blainster 09:29, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Self-promotion? Was it created by the subject? I agree, the article doesn't really establish notability: the initial impression one gets is "average college professor", and if one follows the links, the further impression is Yet Another Conservative Blogger. Neither of those are encyclopaedic. What we really need is a quotable opinion as to what an important LDS apologist he is, that sort of thing, if that's what he's indeed notable for. Alai 19:26, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Well, it looked like it to me, but I have been informed it is not the subject's own submission. I made a few edits to make it more neutral. I think it is now ready for someone to expand as you suggest. --Blainster 19:42, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I've written Lindsay to ask for some more biographical details, especially in relation to his interest in and work with apologetics; I believe he is a very important member of the LDS apologetic community. I'll add some updates and try to highlight these areas soon. Deadsalmon 03:59, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

I just received a reply from Lindsay, who's happy to help fill in some details. Because of schedule, the update could be done anytime between now and the end of the year. Of course, I'm probably the only one paying close attention to this article at the time, so I'm really just talking to myself in cyberspace here... here... here... Deadsalmon 00:02, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Deadsalmon - "you're not alone" (yes, suddenly now, I hear music)...We'll have to watch what is written. Jeff, when you edit, please note that Wikipedia frowns upon articles that are written by the person the article is about, however, as you will likely be editing, that is fine. Similar examples of self-reference/self edit that has been allowed is Sheldon Rampton, who interestingly enough is a former Mormon. Hope to have you stay around, and hope you edit and find some of the comments on the talk pages useful. You may want to check out WP:LDS -Visorstuff 00:35, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

The Magicians Illusion

By his own admission his hobby is magic. His greatest trick has been creating the illusion that the Mormon Church has some kernel of truth to it. When in fact, there has not been one claim about Mormonism that is not in dispute. Not one. His web site is proof of that. Here in one location you have a great number, though not all of the disputations about Mormonism.

His writings are always based on criticism and discrediting authors, science and research but have very little fact, especially outside of Mormon circles. His attitudes are pompous and egotistical. One example of this is his declaration that the Smithsonian institute does sloppy work. See http://www.jefflindsay.com/MyPages.shtml. One has only to visit the Smithsonian website, http://www.si.edu/ to see that it is a masterwork of organization, that there is no discrediting of sources or authors, only the presentation of facts.

In Jeff we have an example of the true nature of Joseph Smith. A highly intelligent man skilled in the art of illusion taking advantage of those in search of a little truth.

Dr Jon :>()

Dear editors

This page needs some sources that aren't his own site to display that he is a well-known figure. —porges_(talk) 00:35, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

This was the sum total of the debate

Jeff Lindsay

This person is not notable enough for a Wikipedia entry. --Riley 19:23, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete You seem to be correct. Alexa rank for his official website is 198,116. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:17, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Research turns up nothing more. Aguerriero (talk) 18:42, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete clearly a vanity page. -- DrunkenSmurf 19:46, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep it I'm new to Wikipedia, but I think the article should stay. "There is currently no consensus about what degree of recognition is required to justify a unique article being created in Wikipedia. ... Borderline cases are frequently nominated for deletion and discussed on WP:AFD. Lack of fame is not the same as vanity." This article was written by one who is completely unknown to Jeff Lindsay (by his own admission). I myself have never spoken Mr. Lindsay. I do know, however, that Jeff Lindsay's work with regards to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is known to thousands of people. Many people, not just members of the LDS Church, use his work which is indexed at his site. He has several standing articles listed on LDS.org as well. I often find

myself discussing Mr. Lindsay and his work on a weekly bases. I believe he is notable enough to deserve an article. He has been spoken about even by high members of the Mormon Church and has held the office of Bishop within the LDS Church, himself. I’ll agree with anyone who says that the article should be expanded, but to delete it would be wrong as well. If this is incorrect, or if I have stepped over my stewardship, then I apologize and figure this will get deleted, but I say expand the article and allow it to stay, or maybe move it to an appropriate LDS page? In fact, Mr. Lindsay is probably the most well known one man website apologetic. Check this page to see one of Mr. Lindsay’s articles at LDS.org/ (The official site of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints): http://www.lds.org/newsroom/mistakes/0,15331,3885-1-18078,00.html -- AlexMunro 18:48, 13 June 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.

Moral of the story, ya snooze ya lose. I don't really know what can be done now. I would assume the Nay sayers above did not google his name...there were only 10,800,000 hits for Jeff Lindsay and 180,000 hits for Jeff Lindsay, Mormon. If this is evidence of the kind of review that Riley, Drunken Smurf, and Agguerriero are capable, I would encourage them to either refrain from voting or just try using google! Storm Rider ^(talk) 23:51, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

That was a pretty speedy delete - much faster than the (used to be a) week guideline - I think we should seek to have the article re-instated in some way. I can undelete as an admin, but not sure of the process to be honest. As he is a significant individual, no doubt a page will be re-created. It is also sad that two of the three that jumped on the speedy delete have been registered users for less than six months. -Visorstuff 01:19, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

• As much as I appreciate you feeling I don't know anything about this guy, I actually know quite a bit, and have done a bit of research of him in the past. If you have a problem with the article being deleted through the proper channels, you are more than welcome to try to create the article again, and next time use the watch feature of the article and vote if it becomes a category for deletion. He is not notable enough for a wikipedia article, as he doesn't have anything credible published (I can also create my own website on block scheduling, but that doesn't make me notable enough for a wikipedia entry). Also, I urge you to review the policy for deletion, as anybody is eligible to vote on an article for deletion. Telling us that we don't have enough "evidence" to vote goes against everything that Wikipedia stands for. --Riley 18:09, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

As a side note, what is your defintion of "anything credible published?" His work has been published in various mormon and non-mormon journals, by apologetics forums, by the LDS Church, has written a novel, and has been interviewed by at least two dozen newspapers and the like. In addition, he has regularly published at least 50 technical papers dealing with his field. He currently hold 65 US patents, and has recieved multiple awards for his publications. I don't think that "he doesn't have anything credible published" applies here. Especially, if we have articles about Sonia Johnson, Sheldon Rampton or Jerald and Sandra Tanner. Aside from those within the LDS movement, you have dozens of articles about blogger personalities, so credibility is not a problem. I imagine that the page will be re-created at some point, but with better citations. Let alone the papers done on how he has affected Mormonism apologetics and culture online. Future editors will undoubtedly cite all of these references to satisfy those who don't think he is "prominent" enough.

The problem I have is that there was no clear consensus to deleted the article and that normal guidelines were not followed. Usually, there is a cleanup tag or discussion of the nomination for deletion discussion on articles prior to a vote for deletion, and contributors are notified appropriately - or at least it is suggested in the deletion policy. I can count at least four or five guidelines that were not followed in this delete case (see "Wikipedia:Articles for deletion"). I'm not attacking you personally Riley, but the Wikipedia process broke down on this one, and I think all who read this discussion will agree on that. Not upset, as I know that someone will re-create a better article, but it is a shame that the wikipedia cleanup process couldn't have spurred it rather than a delete. -Visorstuff 23:20, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

• • If you're so upset with the process taken, you are more than welcome to recreate the article. --Riley 03:18, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Riley, I'm not angry about this issue, I just believe it wasn't done right. As an admin, I'd gladly undelete the article, however, that is not the process that needs to take place. There is a request for undelete already underway. The process needs be followed prior to someone just simply undeleting or recreating the article. I agree the page in in bad need of cleanup, and work was planned by at least a few editors on the article, according to user pages linked to the article. These are all things the speedy deletion process doesn't currently take into account, but did at one time. You've been around for three months and have about a hundred edits or so, and you seem to be doing a great job - keep up the good work. I've been around since early 2003, and realize that processes fail due to user opinions, rather than what I think is objectivity. I do not believe that most articles should be deleted, aside from vandalism and pure vanity pages created by users about themselves, and a few other cases (such as merges, etc), as listed on the guideline page. However, I also support the community's decision to move this direction as an admin. And I will support it until the policy changes. It's too bad that so many editors are so trigger happy when space is not an issue for wikipedia. That said, I've learned to be patient and work through the processes to get things done right. This is such a case. -Visorstuff 04:42, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

As a side note, I find it ironic that you feel Linday needs deletion, when an article you created: JessicaAntalek, has just as few references, and only 1200 google hits and really should not exist - especially if this one shouldn't. The article is only linked to by one IP address user page, has been deleted under another name without a space (I'm sure this one will be deleted as well). Then there is the uncited Martin Lemay bio you created, anyway I won't go on as it is just interesting as a side note to your invovlement in this process. -Visorstuff 04:53, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

• For the record, the Martin Lemay is translated over from the French language version of Wikipedia, I didn't create is as much as I just translated, which you can find on the history page. It is not cited, because it was not cited on the French wikipedia page. Also, Martin Lemay is an elected politician (and known by almost everybody throughout the province of Québec). As for the Jessica Antalek article, I created it for a page for a friend as a birthday present, and only intended for it to be temporary. --Riley 21:30, 22 June 2006 (UTC)