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. Most keep arguments seem to be from the same person. Proto ► 12:23, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony John Bailey[edit]

Anthony John Bailey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Delete:This article appears to be a piece of self promotion overwhelmingly edited by a single anonymous user who I suspect to be none other than Anthony John Bailey himself. The Boy that time forgot 23:14, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Vanity page: I read most of the articles linked to. The articles were either trivial or biased. The other links were to web sites that this guy owns. That's about as biased as it comes. It's possible that he's notable, but this article definitely looks like a PR piece to me. Also, "Eligo International" turns up very few references elsewhere, and the first few pages worth of links on Google are NN sources: phone books and things like Craigslist. There's virtually no verifiable information on the guy on the Internet. Isn't this odd for "one of the most decorated living Britons"? -- TomXP411[Talk]

Delete Was going to say to keep until I saw that the biggest contributor to the page - Eligo - is also the name for the company founded by Athony John Bailey. I will concur that is mostly appears to be a vanity page. --Ozgod 06:45, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As one of the significant contributors to this article, I principally used the respected and newly published Debretts People of Today of 2007 to find most of this information including all the foreign honours and positions. I also used various online websites to back it up including as many non Bailey sites as possible ie medias. Bailey is an interesting person for me by the nature of his very wide activities, growing political influence and the fact that he has given money to a major UK political party during the ongoing political crisis here with the UK Government. I therefore oppose deletion but if you want me to re-edit it I can or you can. -- Seisal[Talk]— Seisal (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

KeepIm not one and the same person. I have though used text seen on the Eligo site although have put enough references to back it up I think. I think there is enough merit in keeping it but do tell me some suggestions to edit as I am still new at this. -- 81.149.151.110 [Talk]— 81.149.151.110 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Probably easier to start again. Addhoc 22:56, 16 February 2007(UTC):

...my thoughts entirely...--Couter-revolutionary 10:41, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please only say keep or delete once per discussion.--Isotope23 17:12, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Erm, how often do you want to take a vote still? ~~ Phoe talk 19:35, 17 February 2007 (UTC) ~~ [reply]
Editing the bio doesn't change the fact that, to all accounts, he's a non-notable. No reliable references seem to be linked to from this article. -- TomXP411[Talk] 02:54, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
After a little more research, I've turned up some articles about him or his companies... but the way they all talk about him makes my skin crawl. It keeps triggering that "too good to be true" flag in my head. Also, his web sites (Elios, and the art foundation) don't have ANY links from other web sites. That seems odd for organizations that claim to be so important or influential. On the other hand, one article I found said that his fee for some arbitration was over £1 million. When you run in those circles, you don't exactly need Google for clients to find you. If the article is kept, there's got to be a way to make it sound less like a résumé and more like an encyclopedia entry. Perhaps, instead of listing all of his awards, charities, etc, we could shorten it and say "works with several organizations, the most notable are:" and "has received several awards, such as..." -- TomXP411[Talk] 06:22, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eligo, his company, also makes charitable contributions and boasts about them on its website. Any company doing this makes very sure they get newspaper coverage. (And they don't just do diplomacy; they also do website design) The company site claims that he was Anthony Bailey appointed to the UK’s Ministerial Task Force on Gifted and Talented Education in Jan 07. Such appointments are announced. It isn't in google. The best positive evidence so far is photographs on the Eligo web site, which seem to show him with world leaders. Have we ever accepted that as a RS for N? DGG 04:15, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm wondering if part of the problem is that most of his contributions are in the Middle East. The media in these countries won't be accessible to english-language search engines. This is so frustrating, because this guy may indeed be notable, but I can't prove it. I also can't prove that he's not. What I do know is that he is listed as an owner or major contributer to nearly every site that talks about him. -- TomXP411[Talk] 05:42, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: and see [3] and [4] and [5] and [6] and [7] and [8], which corroborate his noteworthiness, and his extensive reputation in certain circles. Tricky 09:49, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes - he seems OK at self-promotion. That is his job. Still nn. - Kittybrewster 10:49, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
All of those sources bar one are about some aristocratic religious club - I don't see wikipedia's notability guidelines indicating that as a cast iron reason to have article space. The other references simply indicates he owns a PR firm - again not any sort of reason for notability. The phrase "self publicist" jumps out at me with this case - and when phrases like that are about I am very careful about fuelling ego's - especially when they own a PR firm and there is a very high probability that the editors involved in creating this article have a COI. SFC9394 13:55, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have looked further into this and find the following additional links which reinforce his notability:

The Times also refer to his various roles and awards:

Comment. I have added all the references and links I could find to the revised text. >[Talk]

  • Comment WP:NOBLE, is a proposal, it has not gained community consensus as a guideline, so meeting those proposed criteria doesn't necessarily mean an individual is "notable" for article purposes.--Isotope23 16:29, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, Yes but the primary criterion on WP:BIO is also disputed, and a guideline anyhow is only that; each article should stand or fall on its own merits. The Bailey article regardless of whether it originated as a vanity item, has generated such controversy that if its reduced content is finally deemed factual on grounds of acceptable verification, then the combination of his characteristics renders him notable enough - and if and when he marries his Princess, then even more so.Tricky 16:42, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment eh, the dispute at WP:BIO is a whole other can of worms... and you are right, it is a guideline, not a rule, so it is subject to interpretation. I am just saying that I don't know if I would put too much stock in an individual meeting a proposed guideline because it is my experience that proposals are not given much weight without community consensus. For the record, I have no opinion on this particular individual other than that the article needs sourcing or a good hard edit to remove everything that is unsourced.--Isotope23 17:32, 19 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Comment and keep if it decided to keep I think I may have made a mistake with his name as he is know by all accounts as Anthony Bailey and not Anthony John Bailey as I first thought. Can you advise me on this. Seisal

Seisal, what is your interest in or connection to Bailey? -Kittybrewster 17:35, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I do not have any connection to Bailey but became interested in his inter-religious work as a British Catholic and have seen articles on him in the past in the Catholic press in this country. I too felt orginally that at his age it must be too good to be true but his story does stack up even when you remove all the eligo references. When I read in January his engagement to the Austrian Princess in the newspaper I was already aware through history books of the Hohenberg anti-Nazi role during the Second World War and saw that this was not properly reflected on the Wikipedia entry on the Family so added some. The connection between the two led me to start to investigate Bailey some more and I started adding to the existing page on him. I have never played a role on wikipedia before and so started to change articles without being properly qualified in terms of the community's requirements. Yes I made many mistakes but my persistence with this article is that I believe him to be notable in many circles but at the same time have learnt a great deal as to how wikipedia works and what is expected of it and I hope the community will understand - even those that seem to suggest that whatever I do on Bailey and spend so long to correct my mistakes and get it right in the end are unwilling to accept. It seems one or two in community have grudges against him for be a Labour Party supporter or for other reasons but that should not affect my work or indeed some of their comments in relation to the context of this article. Seisal
Don't worry the result shan't be keep, as he's non-notable. --Couter-revolutionary 16:47, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, but he is indeed notable, we've already established that - albeit not without controversy - otherwise why would you be taking such interest? But, the article still needs further polishing. so, Keep, and improve (but without Eligo references) Tricky 16:57, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please only add a keep or delete' once per discussion.--Isotope23 17:12, 20 February 2007 (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.
More