Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tony Smith (preacher)


 * 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. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 19:35, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Tony Smith (preacher)

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Smith doesn't appear to be notable. All of the sources are either to his church's website or YouTube/Google Videos. A search of the Google News Archive returns one link with the name of his church and current news returns no hits. It would appear this is just a controversial, though marginal, local figure with a biography that likely can't be sourced with reliable, third party sources. AniMate 06:11, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions.  -- -- Lear's Fool (talk | contribs) 06:31, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions.  -- -- Lear's Fool (talk | contribs) 06:31, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. Controversial, perhaps, but really just an ordinary pastor. No significant covergae from independent sources. StAnselm (talk) 07:51, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. Tens of thousands of hits on YouTube and Google Videos plus extensive and animated blog contents make the notability quite quantifiable despite the disinterest of individual editors. If he is just a "local figure" in Atlanta, then why is he showing up in televised venues in Fort Lauderdale, Saint Louis, etc. and being criticised by people whose bios are in Wikipedia? Sorry, but if people want to read about this guy, keep him. Rammer (talk) 16:45, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Where are the sources? You'd be amazed at the number of people who get tens of thousands of hits on YouTube and Google, but without reliable sources backing up these claims you cannot prove notability. You should also read Reliable source examples. AniMate  21:28, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Good point. Hits on YouTube are just one measure of support, albeit (for reasons cited in "Reliable Source Examples" and other reasons) inconclusive at best. On Wikipedia the article has over 1000 hits since its creation earlier this month. My vote is still to retain the article. Rammer (talk) 03:17, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Let's try this again. Hits on YouTube or even here are meaningless. If you cannot find reliable sources discussing this man, the article needs to be deleted. Understand that our biographies of living persons have to contain excellent sources. People liking the subject is irrelevant. AniMate  04:37, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Also, this argument is not relevant per WP:POPULARPAGE. AniMate  04:42, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed. The entire discussion is not relevant. Many of the comments on this subject expressly do NOT like him. Many do like him. Others are just amused over the controversies he stirs.  Rammer (talk) 15:05, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * There still seems to be a disconnect between what I'm saying and what you're reading. The number of hits and comments, be they negative, positive, or amused, don't matter. Similarly, the number of hits our own article has received are irrelevant. Those are arguments the closing administrator is going to ignore. Essentially, you haven't offered an argument to keep. AniMate  18:19, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

RETAIN - This is first place I check when I am trying to find information. He is a controverial person of interest to not only me, but lots of other people (I am sure). It is a great article and gives me some, if not all, of the information I need and want. If this article is deleted, where else will I get this information? Earl —Preceding unsigned comment added by Drearlmurphy (talk • contribs)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:07, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
 * '"KEEP"' - This article encourages me to disregard the media blitz, and realize that some of this preacher's teaching goes beyond the scope of New Testament authority, as well as binding Old Testament practices which Christians were liberated from with the death of our Savior, (Col.2:14). Neal —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sewol (talk • contribs)  — Sewol (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Relisting comment. More participation is needed from established editors.--Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:09, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete nonnotable at this time. google search for the strings "pastor tony smith" and "Way of God Church of the Lord Jesus" gave no reliable sources, out of 70 hits. the Lexi show, which he appeared on, is not particularly notable (no wp article at this time, only 1 mention on WP within articlespace, and is notable for only 1 event so far). no prejudice to recreating if and when he is notable (and, if recreated, article must be npov, which means including his views on homosexuality, women preachers, etc., and criticisms of them once anyone notable pays attention to him).Mercurywoodrose (talk) 00:33, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete no evidence of notability: references in the article are all to his own website and his own videos. Google seems to mostly find a Baltimore-based preacher of the same name: there seem to be no mentions of this Pastor Tony Smith. This preacher also doesn't seem to have an official YouTube identity, so it's hard to mount a notability case based on total hits, as is sometimes done with vloggers. -- Radagast 3 (talk) 06:45, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Strong delete Clearly not notable; no reliably sources reasons verified at all! Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 17:22, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete, NN. -- Nuujinn (talk) 16:30, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
 * (with some regret) Delete - NN. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:39, 8 May 2010 (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.