Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Vigilant Christian

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. consensus DGG ( talk ) 04:48, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Vigilant Christian[edit]

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

There appears not to be substantial coverage of this person in reliable sources. There are a number of references to him, including the two given in the article, regarding a theory about Usain Bolt. In one of the supplied sources, he's one of a number of people mentioned as espousing the theory. If anything, this might mean that the theory is notable, but not The Vigilant Christian, since the articles carry no appreciable information about him. Largoplazo (talk) 11:09, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The references cited mention "The Vigilant Christian", but are not substantial coverage of him. Searching for more sources, I found Youtube, Facebook, The Vigilant Christian's own web site, a couple of open wikis, blogs, Twitter, etc, but nothing that could possibly be regarded as significant coverage in any reliable independent source. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 13:50, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The sources that mention him are mostly non-reliable (blogs etc.) and there is not sufficient mention in reliable sources to show notability. Sjö (talk) 15:47, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - In addition to the notability issues, there is also Draft:The Vigilant Christian. Delete this stub version and the author can work on the draft version. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:09, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Commment The histories seem to show that on 20 January this article tagged for speedy delete due to lack of context, moved to draft & the speedy removed, edited a few hours and then dropped on main space again. Moving to draft is helpful to allow context to be established. Leaving it in draft if the subject is not notable not so much. Gab4gab (talk) 17:20, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Following on from what Gab4gab says, moving an article to draft space is even more unhelpful when the creator of the original article re-creates it in draft space, making a history merge necessary, and that history merge is complicated by the fact that another copy of the page has meanwhile been deleted, and one or more editors have edited the draft while the new version of the article exists. I think and hope I have correctly merged the histories, leaving out edits which don't belong there, but it was quite a job, and required individually checking each edit to see where it originated. Moving an article to draft space can sometimes be very helpful, but it can also create problems in situations like this, and if the article is never likely to be acceptable because the subject is not notable, there is nothing to gain from draftifying, and a lot to lose. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 21:01, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I moved this to draft for the editor initially and they started working on the draft. The draft version used unverifiable and unreliable sources. As it stands currently, the article should be deleted for failing WP:VERIFY and WP:RS. -- Dane ^talk 20:32, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am the editor who removed a significant portion of this article's contents as it was quite unreliably sourced. The only line remaining after my editing was one line, which was honestly the only line I could reliably source. This should be deleted, but with no prejudice against an early recreation, purely because the probability of this entertainer (if you may) coming up to be covered by reliable sources is quite high, given the coverage he seems to be getting for his somewhat nonsensical and unusually worded spiels. Lourdes 05:24, 21 January 2017 (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.