Deletion of Joseph McMoneagle (2nd nomination)

Comment: undent) Can you point to a reliable source that describes his work as a psychic without just parroting his claims? His work as a "government psychic" is his claim to fame, and all we have is his own word on it. Therefore the cutting-down you describe, if done well, will result in a non-article because there is insufficient independent research on this subject. When a subject appears makes numerous unlikely and unverifiable claims about himself, does it really matter if those claims are quoted in reliable sources? Show me an in-depth reliable source on his psychic career that demonstrates editorial oversight and fact-checking, not just quoting his claims, and I'll give it to you that there is an article to be had. Otherwise all we have is a pile of steaming "what some guy claims about himself". I'm not denying that he seems to be mildly notable, but that's not sufficient to warrant an article in every case. In this instance, the only |verifiable information about the subject's psychic career appears to be self-claims. Do we really want Wikipedia articles about what people claim they did in a secret government program that no reliable source corroborates with independent research
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:V)