Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Angela Beesley (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 on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was KEEP as notable. >: Roby Wayne ^{Talk • Hist • E@} 05:33, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Angela Beesley

If Sonja Elen Kisa and Tim Shell aren't notable (and I'm starting to believe they aren't, either, not trying to make a point), neither is Angela. Angela is a great user, but I don't believe she is notable, either. --WikiFanatic^{Talk Contribs 17:56, 13 October 2005 (CDT)}

• Such a minor branch of a subject that it doesn't deserve an article: Merge the useful content into a more comprehensive article [Wikimedia] and redirect --SPUI (talk) 23:02, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Thank you for your suggestion! When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the Edit this page link at the top. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to). The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes — they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. --Phroziac^(talk) 01:56, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - Doesn't seem to have notability outside of Wikipedia. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tim Shell for the long version! --Phroziac^(talk) 01:56, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep for the reasons I stated in the previous VfD. If anyone wants to merge that's okay with me too. JYolkowski // talk 02:02, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Angela is like a Wiki celebrity. She's worked with Jimbo, and started alot of Wiki things. Let the woman have a page.Rhetoricalwater 05:51, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Same vote as ~6.3 months ago. ~⌈Markaci⌋ 2005-10-14 T 07:27:47 Z
• Keep Angela's been around since God wore short pants, and I think it's reasonable to bend the rules for one of Wikipedia's elder stateswomen. Denni☯ 08:27, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete 'Reasonable to bend the rules for one of Wikipedia's elder stateswomen'. Why? Proto t c 08:47, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
  • WP:IAR Denni☯ 18:50, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, notable user and board member. Angela has been in articles about Wikipedia. Rhobite 13:54, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep notable. see my argument at Tim Shell AfD. Xoloz 17:38, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
• Weak keep as this figure appears to be a significant figure within her field. [1] We should not "bend the rules" for anyone, regardless of their affiliation with Wikipedia, when it comes to determining if a subject is encyclopedic or not. Hall Monitor 20:22, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Be careful. There's another Angela Beesley that that search turns up, and you are excluding articles that mention her in connection with Wikipedia. Fine-tuning a Google Web search is actually somewhat tricky in this case. Uncle G 17:14, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep per "Angela has been in articles about Wikipedia". Kappa 23:46, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
• keep please she is a celebrity we do not need to be biased against people on wikipedia really Yuckfoo 23:48, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
• Comment - is it just me, or is there not much point in relisting this? I mean, fundamentally nothing has changed in the last six months, either about Angela's notability (or lack thereof) or the content of the article... Shimgray | talk | 00:09, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep per Denni. -- DS1953 04:15, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I'm sure she's great, but this looks much like Wikipedia self-adulation. Martg76 07:31, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep want to know who is who in Wikipedia --133.44.1.220 14:23, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
• The best guide to notability, be it of people, companies, software, products, or web sites, is whether other people, independent of the subject itself, have considered the subject to be notable. The litmus test for that, outlined to greater or lesser extent in all of our various notability criteria (WP:BIO, WP:CORP, WP:WEB, and so forth) is whether the subject has been written about in multiple separate published works that whose sources are independent of the subject xyrself. (WP:BIO talks about press coverage and independent biographies. WP:WEB talks about media attention. WP:CORP uses the broad term of published works, and is explicit about excluding self-promotion.)

  Furthermore, as Geogre says, it is a disservice to AFD and to the encyclopaedia as a whole to apply criteria erratically and inconsistently. It is wrong to hold the Wikimedia Foundation, its board members, and its web sites to standards that are different to the standards to which one holds other companies, people, and web sites.

  It is also wrong to argue that "If Tim Shell isn't notable then neither is Angela Beesley.". The two are very different cases, as research shows. Researching this person, I find that unlike Tim Shell Angela is the subject of multiple works published by people independent of Angela, Wikia, Wikipedia, or the Wikimedia Foundation. Angela is quoted in reports, and conference sessions given by her are published and commented upon.

  As such, unlike Tim Shell Angela does satisfy the criteria for notability. Keep. Uncle G 17:14, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Putting Tim Shell on the Google test, he gets 14,600 hits. This satisifies notability for me. --WikiFanatic^{Talk Contribs 15:27, 17 October 2005 (CDT)}

• Weak Keep I don't think she has general notability on her own, but she does have notability in Wikicircles which would at least give her a subsection of some sort somewhere ("Board Members of Wikimedia" or something like that), and quite frankly, i'm unsure of the perception of whether or not board members of corporations truly are notable or not after the Tim Shell Afd, and none of the criterion pages help the decision on that factor, so i'm erring on the side of caution. Karmafist 17:25, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete or Userfy not recognized outside of wikipedia. Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 23:20, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
• Weak keep per Uncle G, but strongly oppose any arguments that she deserves inclusion because this is Wikipedia and she works on Wikipedia. ~~ N (t/c) 23:29, 17 October 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.