Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tony Anthony (evangelist) (2nd nomination)


 * 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   keep. The consensus of this discussion is that Tony Anthony meets the requirements to be covered as a subject of an article, and that there are no reasons based on Wikipedia's rules to delete the article. If Tony Anthony has any concerns that the article is inaccurate (in that it does not reflect material published by reliable sources) or otherwise problematic, he should raise these concerns on the article talk page or by e-mail.  Sandstein  11:29, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Tony Anthony (evangelist)
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

OTRS ticket 2013100310011439; subject requests deletion claiming the article is prejudicial. &mdash; Coren (talk) 13:51, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep Anthony is a public figure who has been widely accused of lying in his autobiography Taming The Tiger. It is not the purpose of Wikipedia to determine the truth of the allegations, but to see if he is notable, and if so to produce a neutral article. Here are some sources indicating notability. He is also subject of a children's book, Cry of the Tiger, although it probably counts as an official biography. Wikipedia rules allow people of borderline notability to request deletion of an article about themselves to protect privacy. They don't exist to cover up allegations against someone who remains a public figure, co-author of an autobiographical book and a frequent public speaker. If there are factual inaccuracies that can be dealt with by editing. --Colapeninsula (talk) 15:11, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:40, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:40, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:41, 4 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete Since the previous AfD found him non-notable, the only thing that has changed is the new controversy over the authenticity of autobiography. That would be a WP:BLP1E WP:BIO1E. Most of the sources in the article are unreliable. A reliable 6 sources are listed by Colapeninsula above, all but one dealing with the controversy (the last primary source interview). So it seems the only thing he is notable for is the controversy ie. One Event. If he had been considered notable before the controversy it would be different (I actually don't know if he was notable before the controversy just going by the results of the last AfD which was 5 Delete to 0 Keep). -- Green Cardamom (talk) 21:57, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment - I have reviewed the previous AfD and the delete decision was based of a lack of reliable sources for his claims, not on notability grounds. This has now changed. SmilingFace (talk) 15:29, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, that's how notability is defined on Wikipedia, lack of sources. My contention is that the new sources are all for a single event controversy about the book. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 17:41, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep -- It is in the nature of conversion biographies that the level of wickedness before conversion tends to be exaggerated. I would suggest that the Taming The Tiger (book) controversy is a bit more than WP:BLP1E.  (Taming The Tiger is an article about an unrelated album). For one thing, the article lists two further books with the same ghost writer.  A book that gets multiple awards and then is knocked off its pedestal is again noteworthy.  I would accept that Tony Anthony's notability is limited, but I do not think we should delete the article out of hand.  It might be better to restructure the article as concerned with the book and the related controversy.  The previous AFD related to this article, which said nothing of the controversy.  That article was deleted last March; my vote was "(with regret) delete".  We are now talking about a new article created in August, following the authenticity controversy.  It is that controversy that makes the difference.  We can add the subject to a number of American TV evangelists, who have been knocked off their perches.  Peterkingiron (talk) 12:26, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Right, I came to the same conclusion: the controversy made the difference. 1E. On reflection what is really notable is the book. Although the book is about/by Tony, the controversy is in regards to the book. If the article was redone as a book article it would easily pass WP:NBOOK since all the available reliable sources are about the book, there is no such thing as 1E for book coverage. We should follow the sources. We should also be careful about taking a position in the debate eg. "TV evangelists who have been knocked off their perches" because there are two sides to the story, we have no idea what kinds of biases are involved here. If this article is kept, the entire controversy section probably needs to be deleted due to unreliable sourcing and re-written using the 5 or so reliable sources, per WP:BLP. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 16:56, 5 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep (declaration of interest - I recreated the article). WP:BLP1E says it only applied to low-profile subjects. Anthony is a published author whose book won an award, and he worked internationally as an evangelist - WP:LOWPROFILE would suggest he is not low-profile. Also, a couple of months ago, Christianity Magazine (a national UK magazine) had a front cover and multi-page feature on the controversy which no-one has yet added as a ref. There are probably other new sources as well. It's worth pointing out that this AfD request came from the subject who obviously has a vested interested in keeping the reports of his alleged wrongdoing out of the public eye. If there are issues with WP:RS, WP:BLP, or WP:NPOV then these can be corrected. SmilingFace (talk) 15:51, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
 * WP:BIO1E can also apply here which has no low-profile rule. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 17:41, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
 * If we regard the authenticity controversy as notable, which I believe it is (multiple reliable sources), WP:BIO1E can only be used to support a move, for example to Tony Anthony biography controversy. It does not support deletion. SmilingFace (talk) 07:52, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't follow the logic there, but as I said above I think the thing that is really notable here is the book, based on the sources. We have three article-type possibilities: biography, book or controversy. Biography seems the most contentious since we found him non-notable prior to the book controversy, the book controversy is arguably a single event situation, and the sources are all about the book controversy. There is no debate about the book itself being notable per WP:NBOOK. If the book controversy should be a standalone article I think takes it too far since it can be included in the book article, along with other things (book summary, book reviews, etc.) A book article would cover all aspects and be unambiguously notable, per the sources. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 08:27, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Respectfully, the sources are not all about the book controversy. But all types of article would be equally contentious as they would have essentially the same content. SmilingFace (talk) 15:54, 8 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep. I nominated a previous version of the article (partly written by Anthony's supporters) for deletion, on the grounds that it was not verifiable, consisting mainly of Anthony's own claims. I supported the decision to re-create the article after The Observer and other sources published an exposé of his fantasies. I believe the Canadian and Dutch sources confirm notability as an evangelist, and this plus the notability for the exposé make the subject notable. As for WP:V, the main facts of the article are also now verifiable using the sources stated. Reporting verified adverse facts about an individual is not a ground for deletion. – Fayenatic  L ondon 22:07, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment - I have just expanded the article with additional citations including those given by Colapeninsula that were not already present. I'd suggest it is now very well-referenced with reliable sources proving notability. I accept there may be some grounds for moving it to Taming the Tiger (book) but that would not address the subject's complaint, which I regard as unfounded. He's targeting Wikipedia as other websites are far less likely to take down their articles. SmilingFace (talk) 15:46, 8 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep: According to the Oxford dictionary, prejudice is “preconceived opinion that is not based on reason or actual experience”. The current article is nothing of the sort. It is based on verifiable reports from reliable sources, as required. It also quotes the subject’s response and is written in a balanced and responsible style compliant with WP:BLP and WP:NPOV. The article is not preconceived opinion, but a summary of credible reports that do contain reason and actual experience.  It cannot be described as prejudicial. Roundhse  —Preceding undated comment added 16:01, 8 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep: Subject is a published author and international speaker so WP:PUBLICFIGURE applies. As required by this policy, article documents what multiple reliable sources say, and subject should not be allowed to prevent inclusion EutychusFr (talk) 07:59, 9 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep, but clean up. I do think the article places a bit too much undue weight on his autobiography scandal and it fails to even mention that he's written two other books.  The scandal should probably be split off to Taming the Tiger (book) and the balance of the article fleshed out, but all-in-all, I think he passes the GNG threshold.  -- ShinmaWa(talk) 06:29, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete. To start with, I don't believe that the article in its present form is prejudicial.  Embarrassing to the subject perhaps, but given that everything there is backed by reliable sources, not prejudicial or unfair.  With that said, even though there are rather a lot of sources, I think this is still a case of WP:BIO1E, and the coverage as far as I can see is exclusively limited to the subject being caught out telling porkies in their autobiography.  Lankiveil (speak to me) 11:21, 12 October 2013 (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.