Deletion of Tony Anthony (evangelist) (2nd nomination)

Comment: 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.http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jul/28/tony-anthony-kung-fu-shamhttp://www.southendstandard.co.uk/news/10575771.Evangelist_Tony_Anthony_sought___20million_for_film_deal/http://www.christiantoday.com/article/tony.anthony.fake.accusations.are.unfair/33236.htmhttp://www.christianitymagazine.co.uk/Browse%20By%20Category/features/Shaming%20the%20Tiger.aspxhttp://www.reform-magazine.co.uk/2013/09/christian-pulp-testimony/http://www.christiantelegraph.com/issue7911.html He is also subject of a children's book, Cry of the Tiger, although it probably counts as an official biography.http://books.google.co.uk/books/about/Cry_Of_The_Tiger.html?id=oeoAzYmG1UoC&redir_esc=y 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
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:NPOV)

Comment: 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 , 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
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:V)

Comment: 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 , and the coverage as far as I can see is exclusively limited to the subject being caught out telling porkies in their autobiography
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BIO1E)

Comment: declaration of interest - I recreated the article).  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 -  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 , , or  then these can be corrected
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP1E||WP:LOWPROFILE||WP:RS||WP:BLP||WP:NPOV)

Comment: 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 .  (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 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tony_Anthony_(evangelist)&oldid=479644002 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
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP1E)

Comment: 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  . 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
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP1E||WP:BIO1E)

Comment: Subject is a published author and international speaker so  applies. As required by this policy, article documents what multiple reliable sources say, and subject should not be allowed to prevent inclusion
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:PUBLICFIGURE)

Comment: 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  and . 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
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP||WP:NPOV)