This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Education, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of education and education-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EducationWikipedia:WikiProject EducationTemplate:WikiProject Educationeducation
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity
I learned of this article from finding it listed as a level-5 vital article despite being stub-class. Noticing that a Bing search for the same names turned up a wiki link with far more text than present in the article itself, I discovered a considerably more thorough version in the Wayback Machine Archived 24 January 2021; however, there is no evidence of this version in the article history, nor can I find evidence of a proper WP:AfD. Therefore, as there is no apparent evidence that the article text was properly removed, and as there is evidence that a more thorough article is "vital" (the goal of that designation being to attain featured article status), I am boldly restoring the unaltered source text of the archived edit. If the article was, in fact, reduced in accord with some proper procedure, that fact should be visibly noted.
—KGF0 ( T | C ) 19:16, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Having restored the archived article at this edit, retaining some of the templates and categories of its more recent replacement, I can see there a fair bit of work is still required, including converting some extlinks to proper references, and possibly removing some material that does not meet WP:RS standards. I find it debatable whether this should be a "vital article" in the first place, but I leave that debate to others who know that Project better than I. —KGF0 ( T | C ) 19:32, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Kgf0, per the article's log, the version you restored was deleted because it had significant copyright violations so we're back to where we started. @MER-C, what is the best way to proceed? czar00:41, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Czar, aha, thanks for that link and explanation; I suspected there must be some record somewhere, as it is extremely rare for an article to simply evaporate silently. (There should have been an explanatory note left behind more visibly however, and it's nearly impossible to tell from the giant pile of scorched earth what problems were specific to this article.) As to proceeding, I think the citation work I have been doing, along with some significant cleanup and rewording, will go some way toward resolving the copyright issues, particularly if cleanup continues through my own effort and (I hope) that of other editors. While the article in its present state does rely on rather few sources, I think it can be made workable. If necessary, I could probably work in userspace instead, or perhaps more laboriously offline (and I have made a local copy of the present sourcecode in case that should become necessary and the page gets blanked again while I'm not looking). —KGF0 ( T | C ) 01:00, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Since it's been a week, I've deleted the Internet Archive copyvio additions. @Kgf0, feel free to expand with your own paraphrase from the sources you used before or let me know if you need a copy of anything. czar05:42, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
