Deletion of Jeff Lindsay (second nomination)

Comment: 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  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
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS||WP:BLP||WP:NPOV)

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.  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
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:NPOV)