Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anthony J. Motley

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. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 01:51, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony J. Motley[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Questionable notable and easily A7 with its current state and the best my searches was this, this and this. This has existed with basically no significant improvement since starting February 2009. Pinging past users Nikkimaria and Ground Zero. SwisterTwister talk 04:47, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:52, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:52, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:52, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:52, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve; article needs a thorough re-write, and sourcing. However, it is not a good candidate for deletion, The Rev. popped right up on google. Involved in what appear to be a series of scandals involving misappropriation of grants and donations. [1] , misuse of public funds [2] convicted [3] and given probation. He was a D.C. activist of some note, and a Marion Barry cronie. Certainly notable enough to keep. WaPo has lots of stories here: [4] on his good works and leadership, as well as on his financial skulduggery. E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:20, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- From what I see in the article, I would have thought he was NN, but it sounds as if he is notorious. Is that sufficient to keep? No vote Peterkingiron (talk) 17:34, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is, his positive accomplishments can be on the page, along with his criminal activity. I have been involved with a somewhat similar situation at Matthew C. Whitaker, popular professor, real accomplishment, but most coverage is about his plagiarism, which has caused page-blanking and whitewashing, similar to the history of this page. The solution is not deletion.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:38, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 16:05, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve to give a full and balanced summary of the range of views available. The sources E.M. Gregory points to above are sufficient to meet WP:GNG. The Washington City Paper pieces are well larded with speculation, innuendo, and sensationalism, and would have to be used carefully, but the Washington Post pieces are better, and several are substantial, such as [5], [6] and [7], and [8]. Worldbruce (talk) 00:15, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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.