Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Angela Beesley (6th 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 in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was No consensus - default to keep. Opinion on this seems to be quite evenly divided. A merge/redirect however may be appropriate. As to what should be merged, I think that should be decided in another discussion. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 19:53, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Contents 1 Angela Beesley 1.1 Discussion Section 1 1.2 Discussion Section 2 1.3 Discussion section 3 1.4 Discussion section 4

[edit] Angela Beesley

Angela_Beesley (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Commment Attempted cleanup of nom by including header tags, hopefully it is correct now (even though this is listed as 4th nomination when it's really much after that.) Were I better at editing, I would attempt to speedy close this nom and then immediately reopen another without prejudice, but with proper numbering sequence. LaughingVulcan 04:58, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I am relisting this article, because of a number of cases whereby a figure who has not wanted to be published in Wikipedia has either been deleted, or merged (the latest being Daniel Brandt. For the record, I oppose the merge, however given that the community wishes to honour these wishes in some way, at the very least I think we should be revisiting this issue. Angela wishes her article to be deleted, and her notability is in doubt outside her previous work on Wikimedia (no offense to Angela, I count her as my friend).

If a deletion is not be to be done, then a merge into Wikimedia should at the very least be undertaken. - Ta bu shi da yu 11:00, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Note: Previous nominations were: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Angela Beesley 1, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Angela Beesley (2nd nomination) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Angela Beesley (3rd nomination) --Itub 11:06, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Cheers :-) Ta bu shi da yu 11:07, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it's not the 4th nomination. It is the 3rd nomination. - Ta bu shi da yu 11:11, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Oops, I got confused because it gave a blue link. We must have been stepping on each other's toes. --Itub 11:23, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

And just to be more confusing, I made a typo. You were right all along. Blast! - Ta bu shi da yu 11:24, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I knew it! I thought I had seen the third nomination page! --Itub 11:26, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, sorry about that... - Ta bu shi da yu 11:26, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Strictly speaking I think this is the sixth nomination (e.g. Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Angela_Beesley_(nom_4), Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Angela_Beesley_(5th_nomination)) but the last two were speedy kept. --Coroebus 15:36, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion Section 1

• I'll say delete, because apparently the rules have really changed. Now it seems that anyone who complains enough will get deleted, although it may take fourteen nominations. And among the three cases that have been discussed recently, this seems to be the least notable. --Itub 11:08, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - Seems like the only reason to delete is WP:IDONTLIKEIT. If privacy is an issue, why have your own website? Insofar as notablity, there are apparently bona fide current gnews hits - [1], [2], [3] & [4], and 57 archived hits. If this is going to be a de facto delete in any case, then just delete it, as we can all do without the chain pulling - Continual AfDs are non-constructive, and citing Daniel Brandt is counter-productive - Tiswas^(t) 11:52, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Actually, it's not. Can't you read? What part of "notability" above don't you understand? I hate it when people resort to stupid acronyms and don't actually read what's being stated. - Ta bu shi da yu 12:55, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

• Aside from demonstrating an egregious misunderstanding of what an acronym is, how about keeping it civil? "I count [Angela] as my friend" screams WP:IDONTLIKEIT, or rather, WP:ILIKEHER, and for that reason want it removed. Notability is established outwith wikpedia, with multiple, non-trivial mentions, from independent, third-party, reliable sources. - Tiswas^(t) 13:05, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

• • The difference between having a personal website and having a Wikipedia article is obvious: one can control one's website, but not one's wikipedia article. This difference by itself is not a reason for deletion, but should answer your question about why someone might want to have a website but not a Wikipedia article. As for notability, all the news stories I saw only say that she founded wikia (she is just mentioned in passing in one sentence), but the stories are not about her. That fits my definition of trivial mention. Some of the archived results you link to even seem like they might be about a different person! --Itub 13:08, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

• 'Comment - The difference is in the degree of control, not in the degree of privacy, which is the context in which I asked. Not wanting a wikipedia article is not a reason for deletion. Neither should dependable, non-trivial mentions be discounted merely because of the existence of trivial coverage, or unrelated coverage. The notion is somewhat absurd. - Tiswas^(t) 14:13, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

• Privacy is not all-or-nothing, but that's a tangential discussion so I won't elaborate. While not wanting an article is not a reason enough for deletion, it does matter according with recent changes in policy (Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#BLP_deletion_standards) which were the reason for the deletion (or at least the latest nomination) of Daniel Brandt, which had been kept 13 times before. Would you mind saying exactly which of the links you provided is a dependable, non-trivial mention? I got tired of wading through the ones that only made trivial mention of her name. --Itub 14:29, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

• Here for an article on the subject. The WP:BLP issue is one for the closing admin -It is not enough to cite it as a reason for deletion (and is but days old) - Daniel Brandt precedent is only relevant in the context of the WP:BLP discussion, and is isolated from this article. - Tiswas^(t) 14:42, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Keep Not a private person, notability is absolutely proven: [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], also a published author. So person has INTERNATIONAL news coverage of an ongoing basis, their own web site to garner publicity, is a published author, and wants their bio deleted? This sounds like a case of them wanting to delete something which they cannot control. Keep as a conflict of interest. This will not be deleted. Notable celebrity. Also, regularly on international television, so she's a broadcast public person as well: [18]. Personal wishes don't trump the world if you're not private. Nominated by admitted real life "friend" COI. Going To Texas 13:13, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep If it were just about her role within the Wikimedia Foundation, I might let it go, but as the founder of Wikia and a consultant to the BBC, it's pretty hard to justify deletion. The folks at Wikitruth think this whole brouhaha is ridiculous, and I don't blame them. YechielMan 13:54, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per Going to Texas. Edison 14:22, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
• Not many times do I see a "I don't want to be in wikipedia", usually it's people putting something on wikipedia that shouldn't be. Unfortunately, her notability is obviously easily noticed. Because of that, her article is deemed worthy of being in Wiki, and it won't be deleted just because they don't want it to be. --sumnjim ^{talk with me·changes} 14:38, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

• I can't help myself but putting in another comment. With all due respect to your privacy, just because you resigned from the Board from Wiki, doesn't mean you are now non-notable. If Bill Gates quit his job and lived in his house for the rest of his life, without ever being in the public eye again, he is still notable. Again, with all due respect...I would think with your experience on Wikipedia you would know that past or present, once notable, always notable. --sumnjim ^{talk with me·changes} 15:11, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

• Merge the data - redirect the article. Wikipedia should not pretend that a handful of notable facts constitutes a biography. WAS 4.250 15:30, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - to quote myself "I don't think even her activities as a part of the Foundation are particularly notable (how many representatives of notable companies speak as their representatives and yet would not be considered notable themselves? Lots, that's how many)...a bit of wikicruft double standards..." A handful of name checks does not make someone a notable subject in their own right. --Coroebus 15:40, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Evidence of notability beyond the Wikipedia community and multiple failed AFDs. If the subject doesn't want media coverage (and that's what Wikipedia is) then they should never have stepped into the public eye by doing stuff like writing a book or working for the BBC. Obviously the article needs to be checked for any WP:BLP concerns, and if the photo is copyright it has to go, but otherwise I can't see any reason for this to be deleted and it sets a dangerous precedent for Wikipedia if articles start to be deleted on the basis of requests (obviously I'm not talking about articles that are attack articles or so full of libel that they can't be rescued). Obviously this is someone with a Wikipedia connection, so if she feels there is "misrepresentation" going on -- as alleged by one of the votes in Section 2 -- then she should be enlisted to make sure the article is accurate and, if someone is insisting on messing about with it (I have not checked the history) then it can always be locked. Otherwise I also agree with the comments made by Going To Texas, above Any reason why this AFD been split into two sections? 23skidoo 19:14, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: I'm having a hard time understanding what's going on here. It seems apparent that Angela B. is on the cusp of notability, which is what most of the discussion is about; but it also seems that, given her membership in this community, her own preferences and the preferences of those that know her are coming into play. I strongly encourage Angela and anyone else with a personal connection to this AfD to disclose their bias, and explain their reasoning. It's unclear to me what Angela's preference is, and why. Without saying that her preference should necessarily trump other concerns, I do think it would be very helpful to know. -Pete 08:39, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion Section 2

• Delete per request of subject, unless someone can cite entries in established encyclopedias or standard Who's Who type biographical reference works. Randolph Stetson 16:44, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - Where do these criteria spring from? - Tiswas^(t) 16:52, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

• Common Sense. Randolph Stetson 16:56, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

• So just out of thin air then. That's reassuring, at any rate - Tiswas^(t) 17:04, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

• C'mon, Sense. Gosh, I can't see much sense in the equation Common Sense = Thin Air, and I can't really think of anything more to say on the matter, but maybe this bit of grounding will help sum it up. Randolph Stetson 17:30, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

• No policy-based reason, this argument is a red herring and should be dropped. If this standard were to be applied (and to my knowledge, it never has been), zillions of valuable WP BIO articles would be deleted. -Pete 08:19, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

• Not meaning to cause offense, but you seem to be saying that if common sense was applied to AFD, then most of our "bios" would be deleted. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding something here... - Ta bu shi da yu 13:37, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

• Sorry if I wasn't clear. I don't agree that it's "common sense." Wikipedia is its own thing, a product of the community that exists in support of it, and of the guidelines and policies by which they've chosen to govern themselves. Those guidelines and policies may not be perfect, and they may be subject to change, but they're there for a reason. If we were to base coverage on what other sources follow, we would sharply curtail the potential of this resource. It could well be that A.B. is not included in any other encyclopedias because they are not as well-equipped as WP to properly assess her notability. Thus, this line of argument will not lead us to the proper place: a determination of her notability. I don't know what the answer is, but I'm pretty sure that this particular line of reasoning is not productive - and the fact that it is not based on any WP policy or guideline would seem to support my position. -Pete 08:36, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

• Cheers. I see what you are saying now :-) Ta bu shi da yu 08:58, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

• To express this in my own words, there's been a poorly defined gray area and some controversy about what constitutes borderline notability. Some editors have complained that the precedent of courtesy deletions would lead to a slippery slope: either the site would be prone to censorship when people who've had negative press demand deletion of their articles, or that anyone and everyone up to George W. Bush would bow out - thus causing substantial harm to the database. The threshold I've proposed for courtesy deletions is paper-and-ink encyclopedias (including specialty encyclopedias). I understand that carves an exception to WP:NOT and WP:V, yet I consider the tradeoff worthwhile: Wikipedia's attempt to reformulate the concept of encyclopedic content shouldn't cause unwanted disruption to the lives of unwilling subjects. This site has a far larger problem with non-notable people trying to spam a presence here than with notable people asking us to let them out. The courtesy deletion standard I've proposed would earn considerable goodwill with minimal impact on our database (and non-permanent impact since nobody lives forever). Durova^Charge! 01:08, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks for the explanation, Durova. I appreciate the spirit of what you say, but I think the standard of "ink encyclopedia" is too broad a brush, and would affect different disciplines/cultures/societies in vastly different ways. Though this seems like an important discussion, my present view on this (as explained below) is that there's a reasonable case to be made that A.B. is not sufficiently notable, and that in combination with her request, that's plenty to justify deletion. I would like to continue the discussion of "what's the threshold," but I don't think this is a good place to do it, because I think it's only tangentially relevant to this case. -Pete 01:42, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete My own view is that the wishes of a living person should be respected except if they are of major public interest (note this is not the complicated technical legal standard of "public figure"). -- Seth Finkelstein 18:29, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - Although I find this AfD to be an indictment of various failings of Wikipedia, and despite being left with a feeling that this whole debacle needs a nappy change, this is, on reflection, about a person that obviously takes issue with misrepresentation of themselves on the internet. Consequently, and despite what I might infer from and about all involved, I'm fine with letting it go - Tiswas^(t) 19:07, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Notability is clear. I do not agree with the "established encyclopedias" standard proposed by Randolph Stetson. One advantage of Wikipedia is that it can be more comprensive than those other encyclopedias. There's no reason for us to forfeit that advantage. JamesMLane t c 20:27, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Semi-notable, and subject has requested deletion. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:23, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per news, TV coverage. Notable. Cornea 21:27, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as not a public figure and doesnt want the article on her, ie re the nominator, SqueakBox 23:49, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
• Strong KeepThis article serves an important encyclopedic biographical function on a notable individual intimately involved with the Wikimedia Foundation. The idea that any notable public figure (especially one involved with a free-knowledge enterprise) gets to pretend they aren't a public figure and erase any useful information about their work is simply absurd. If you don't want to be a public figure, remove yourself from a position that invites public scrutiny. Otherwise, to put it bluntly, grow up and take your lumps like a professional person. The BLP admonishment to respect privacy does not extend to a public figure's professional work, only to personal information. VanTucky 01:39, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Also, it should be noted the precedent is not policy or even a guideline, and the idea that a subject simply doesn't want a Wikipedia bio about them as a legitimate qualification for deletion is far from set in stone. No where in the deletion policy is it mentioned. Also, if the the key reason for deletion is Angela's personal objection, I think we need to hear from her why she feels that her right to privacy supersedes Wikipedia's objective of a comprehensive encyclopedia. As to the article's relation to the attacks on Angela online, I think that it's pretty clear that the article is very NPOV and makes no comment on the merit of any of Angela's actions or behavior. The day that notable subjects of biographies can get their biographies deleted on privacy grounds while they simultaneously run personal publicity sites is the day Wikipedia has failed. VanTucky 02:06, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I'm not taking a position on this article, but somebody broke this article into sections titled "Vote section X" which could have given the impression to folks that this discussion was a vote. It's not, and therefore I have changed the titles. FrozenPurpleCube 01:46, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Lol, according to who this aint a vote, SqueakBox 01:47, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

WP:!VOTE and WP:AFD FrozenPurpleCube 04:06, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nomination. WP:NN EnabledDanger 03:03, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete and comment - delete because of non-notability, not because they have requested it. Deletion by request is a drastic undermining of wikipedia fundamentals and should not tolerated. --Merbabu 03:11, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I don't understand how a subject that has a link to WikiNews articles about her, is a published author, and has been the subject of the numerous cited news articles above by users such as Going to Texas, is non-notable. VanTucky 03:18, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
    • The "numerous" articles cited above are generally not about her. The closest one was an interview with her. Not everyone who happens to get interviewed is notable. There is probably over a million published authors in the world, and not all are notable either. Go and read a newspaper and count how many people happen to be mentioned on any given day. Do you think all of them are notable? --Itub 17:49, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
      • The basis of per request is supported in policy now and is also a longstanding precedent in borderline notability cases. Please see my posts on how to rein the range of courtesy deletions within reasonable limits. We don't have to embark on a slippery slope here. Durova^Charge! 16:23, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete not notible and the subject does not want an article. we should be sensitive to that. DPeterson^talk 03:25, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Good grief. She is a notable person and will become even more notable when Wikia Search will be launched within the next two or three years. Now then, how many people have heard of Google? Angela, along with Jimmy, are making plans to trump Google. A lot of media coverage will soon follow (after the launch). :) - Mr.Gurü (^talk/_contribs) 03:52, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
  • What's preventing us from creating an article when Angela's notability increases? - Ta bu shi da yu 13:38, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment Thanks for being honest her 'notability' will only 'increase' in time. Therefore, no reason to delete. Google is very well known. When Wikia Search is launched, her notability will increase and could make her extremely notable. I am convinced this article should be kept. Have a nice day. :) - Mr.Gurü (^talk/_contribs) 17:21, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

If that's a response to my question above, it's mere speculation that she'll be more notable in future. - Ta bu shi da yu 08:59, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. Highly-referenced article on a highly notable individual owing to her past and present reponsibilities with a top-ten website. --JJay 17:54, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
• Comment on Notability Angela's notability has been established concretely by the three previous AFDs. But notability is not the central issue behind this nomination, according to the words of the nominator, "I am relisting this article, because of a number of cases whereby a figure who has not wanted to be published in Wikipedia has either been deleted...". This is the issue at hand. I for one see zero policy or guideline that says that simply not wanting a wiki-bio is a reason for a notable person to not have one. Once again, precedent is not policy. VanTucky 19:03, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. Jimmy also went on to co-found, along with Angela Beesley, the for-profit company Wikia, Inc. in 2004. These are the facts. She is a notable person who also co-founded a notable corporation. Angela passes the notability test with flying colors. We have established notability. :) - Mr.Gurü (^talk/_contribs) 19:22, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. Beesley's desire to have the article deleted is a conflict of interest - whatever reasons they are, they're clearly personal reasons. Nothing wrong with the notability criteria here. - Chardish 21:15, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: I asked this above, but have not gotten a response. Lots of people seem to assume that Angela Beesley wants the article deleted, but that is not made clear anywhere that I've seen in any of the AfDs. (I've looked, but not pored over them exhaustively; corrections welcome.) If Angela Beesley chooses not to clarify this point, I think we should disregard it; her desire might be relevant if it were uncontroversially known, but if it has not been publically expressed to this group, taking it into account flies in the face of rational decision-making. -Pete 08:41, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
    • I wrote to her before I nominated Seth Finkelstein and Daniel Brandt for deletion, asking whether I had been correctly informed that she wanted her Wikipedia biography deleted and offering to nominate her page in the same group. Her reply implied that she'd rather not be the subject of a Wikipedia article while it stated explicitly that getting the page deleted wasn't her top priority right now. That's why I didn't nominate her page with the other two but I do support this nomination. And to comment on the keep reasoning - I do think people such as Angela Beesley deserve a legitimate voice in whether Wikipedia should have an Angela Beesley article. Actually her opinion deserves more weight than mine: it will make little difference to my life whether this article exists tomorrow, or next month, or next year whether a biography describes her on this site. She has more at stake than any of us who comment here because it's her life on display and anyone who happens to download that page in between a vandalism and a reversion will read things that shouldn't be there. Because I have strong objections to subjects who attempt to exert editorial control over their Wikipedia biographies I do support this deletion. I invite all editors who have strong principles about WP:COI to help WP:COIN. That noticeboard is backlogged and really could use some help. Durova^Charge! 01:20, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: I found that in the third nomination, written by Angela, does make some attempt to spell out her position on whether the article should be deleted. Unfortunately, she did not make much effort to spell out her position - it's clear that she was frustrated by the situation, but not exactly why. I still don't feel like there's sufficient basis for making the right decision. Arguing from notability, she certainly seems notable enough for an article; I don't think notability should be the overriding issue, but it's the only one that's been presented with any clarity. -Pete 19:09, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

• Well, that's bc the "personal wishes" thing has had precedent in the deletion of at least one major debate (Daniel Brandt), but is not spelled out as part of policy or guideline anywhere expressly. There is no "WP:Personal" for BLPs like the very clear Notability definition. I personally have left a note on Jimbo's talk page (not that I think he'll do anything if it doesn't come from the admin IRC channel) that a ruling needs to be made on whether to make it policy or not. VanTucky 19:24, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

• The lack of a clear policy does not prevent Angela from articulating her reasons for requesting deletion more clearly. That's what I'd like to see. -Pete 20:14, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

• True. We're not even sure if she still wants deletion, we're just assuming here as it wasn't her but another user who nominated it (per her wish to have it deleted though). However, she may not have nominated it again bc she decided to accept the consensus (or the lack of consensus) that resulted in keeping the article or possibly feels getting involved is a COI. Anyway, you're correct about needing to hear more from her. VanTucky 20:31, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

• I've traded e-mails with her. This is a back burner item for her right now but I firmly believe my voice for deletion is a reflection of her wishes. Durova^Charge! 01:27, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - notability proven, and someone with their own media focused/orientated website who doesn't want an article seems daft! Rgds, --Trident13 23:04, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: It makes perfect sense - recall what she said at the start of the last AfD - I'm sick of this article being trolled. It's full of lies and nonsense. . Trolls don't get to vandalize someone's own website. -- Seth Finkelstein 03:04, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - notable of co-founder of Wikia. --h2g2bob (talk) 02:47, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, sources indicate notability. Everyking 04:15, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Notable person. see you are for the 5th version of this. --Fredrick day 09:40, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. I contacted Angela Beesley when I was preparing the Daniel Brandt and Seth Finkelstein nominations. Her response amounted to saying that getting the Wikipedia biography deleted wasn't the biggest item on her plate. So I didn't put this in myself, but to the best of my knowledge she does want off this site. The standard I've proposed is that anyone who isn't notable enough for a paper-and-ink encyclopedia entry should be a candidate for a courtesy deletion if they want it. Per WP:BLP, let's do the decent thing. This encyclopedia won't be much less complete and we'll earn goodwill for being considerate. Durova^Charge! 14:36, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

• Well, that standard is not policy or guideline anywhere Durova, and is not a concrete reason for deletion. What happened to remembering that Wikipedia is most definitely not a paper encyclopedia, and that different standards apply? Courtesy deletions are only the vaguest interpretation of an already vague "do no harm" admonishment. if you take the policy in context, it goes on to say that the point is to keep Wikipedia from becoming a tabloid. This bio is certainly in no way tabloid-like. This article is no way doing harm to Angela. zip. zero. If yo're so interested in adhereing to paper encyclopedia standards, then Britannica would never not include a notable bio that does no harm just out of courtesy to someone's personal dislike of being the subject of a biography. It's ludicrous, and it totally destroys any attempt at being patently comprehensive. What ever happened to "the sum of all human knowledge"? VanTucky 03:18, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

• That's right, it's my own proposal based upon the recent policy change at WP:BLP, which has no clearly defined upper limit of notability. I agree this carves an exception to the WP:NOT not paper clause and I think it's a reasonable exception: Wikipedia's evolving standards of notability and encyclopedic content are extremely recent developments and most of the people alive today who might be notable made some significant decisions before those standards developed. That is, they chose a career path or made some disclosures in the paper-and-ink era (or at least the pre-Wikipedia's-a-prominent-website era) and just don't want to be on display. If they'd known Wikipedia would come into existence they might have chosen differently. It's not for me - or for anyone who hasn't received a specific assurance from a BLP subject - to presume how much harm a particular biography does or does not do to its subject. Some of the most compelling reasons could be things that the person would certainly not want dissected (and Google indexed) online. To offer one purely hypothetical example, suppose the subject of a BLP article were the target of a stalker. Durova^Charge! 05:54, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

• I'm not sure what relevant point you're making with this hypothetical stalker nonsense, but the point I'm trying to make is that the Daniel Brandt article was deleted per "do no harm" and courtesy deletion bc it could never be comprehensive, his actions were more concretely notable than his person, and included what was most certainly tabloid-like content. Angela's stub will most definitely grow as more sourcing and information on her and her activities happens, she is a notable personality not just notable actions, the content is straight-forward and contains none of the tabloid rumors and criticisms of her that pop up on the net, and as such does not fall under the BLP policy. While her notability is certainly arguable, this seems to me to be an attempt to extend courtesy deletion to a subject that is patently not warranted by policy. The "do no harm" clause is in place for the admirable ethical reasons you advocate for Durova, but if no harm is being done, then the deletion (for that reason) is not grounded in policy. VanTucky 15:29, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

• The example illustrates one reason why it's inappropriate for us to suppose how much harm a BLP article does to its subject. This site's attempts to balance BLP concerns have often undervalued the human factor. As I expressed at the Daniel Brandt and Seth Finkelstein deletion nominations, it's always been my view that ethical decisions where good people disagree should rest in the hands of the individuals who live with the consequences. Angela Beesley lives with the consequences of the Angela Beesley article, not you or I. The policy acknowledges the wishes of a BLP subject as a legitimate factor but is silent about how far semi-notability extends. All I've done is defined a limit that keeps us off a slippery slope. It's a modest expansion of existing precedent, but unlikely to have much effect on our database or to be invoked in very many cases. Durova^Charge! 16:35, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
• It's more than safe to say that neutral information solely about her professional work that appears on her personal publicity site can do no harm. In fact, far more personal info is found on those sites. BLP privacy/ethics does not apply here. VanTucky 16:48, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

• To the closing admin: I'd be equally satisfied with a complex merge per the Daniel Brandt closure (move the professional information to related articles, eliminate the personal stuff, and turn this bio into a protected redirect). Durova^Charge! 19:21, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

• I don't see any reason to keep this. Oversaw one not-for-profit, co-founded another. Not enough material for a proper biography. Delete. All the relevent, encyclopedic material is already in the wikia and Wikimedia Foundation articles. --Tony Sidaway 15:18, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. I support deletion of any semi-notable or marginally notable BLP, especially when the subject requests it. I believe that Wikipedia should be a passive observer, and avoid being an active factor in its subjects' lives, which would happen in such cases. Crum375 16:27, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - The person is notable enough to have an article of this size or even bigger on Wikipedia. huji—TALK 16:34, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - Not notable, this should have been deleted ages ago, but we still obsess with ridiculous Wikipedia navel gazing, such as the Joshua Gardner article I failed to get deleted. Wikia is not a big notable company. Whether Angela wants this article or not is irrelevant (she doesn't), and it shouldn't be, but given the now ridiculously vague "Do no harm" interpretation of BLP it probably means this can be speedied and we'll see this on WP:DRV. - hahnchen 19:48, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

• Um, no. This cannot be speedied. The debate as it stands has not reached a sufficient majority consensus. VanTucky 21:50, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, Redirect, Meh. This is not a biography. After all this time and energy, what we've got is a few short sentences, most of which is already covered in the articles for the relevant corporations. You can't seriously make such a fuss over so little information. There's some WP:BIAS here, as we tend to overestimate the importance of Wikis, and there's some bloodymindedness because her friends are pushing for deletion. Well, I'm not even an acquaintance, and I'm all for courtesy deletion here. Put the bloody article out of its misery. --Abu-Fool Danyal ibn Amir al-Makhiri 21:03, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete and redirect, per Aby Fool Danyal. I just finally looked at the articles listed by Going to Texas - at least, the ones from publications I recognize. Not a single one is an article about A.B.; rather, they include a single quote from her, or a photo, or mention her board membership. Her status as a "published author" is based on a book she simple contributed to. I have just become unconvinced of her notability. If she doesn't meet notability, her desire - even though unexplained - to have the article to be deleted becomes totally sufficient for deletion, in my view. -Pete 21:11, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
• Change to undecided, because other sources (Guardian, Register, Sidney Morning Herald) provide for a stronger case for notability than those I was considering above. -Pete 19:09, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

• According to the notability/deletion guidelines, the heads and founders of notable corporations (Wikia is a notable corp. It meets notability guidelines and has an extensive article) are considered notable by virtue of runnning/creating the company. Also, she is listed as a coauthor, not just a simple "contributor" (generally, someone who contributes to a major portion of a published work is called an author, as a matter of fact). The sources provided are not sufficient under the usual notability guideline, but they prove her key involvement in Wikia and other projects. VanTucky 21:56, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

• Having trouble finding the policy you reference, but the equation "company is notable enough to merit an article" = "company is notable enough for its principals to merit articles" does not make sense to me. Nobody is disputing that she is a Wikia founder; a few of the articles would be useful as citations, but they do nothing to help the current discussion - establishing notability, or assessing A.B.'s desires. -Pete 23:49, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

• An article on a person that would be deleted BUT for the fact that there is press about her trying to have it deleted? --Abu-Fool Danyal ibn Amir al-Makhiri 19:22, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

• I see it as a bit more complex than that. One of the articles asserts that A.B. resigned her board membership in the hope that her article would be deleted. I'm not sure how accurate that assessment is, but that's what the article says. That's not mere desire to get the article deleted, that's taking a significant stand. More important, though, is the Sidney article, which predates the deletion kerfluffle. It introduced A.B. as an "educational researcher and expert on online collaborative authorship," and goes on to explore her perspectives on many things Wiki. Unlike the sources I looked at before, that one is centrally focused on her, not merely on her title within an organization. The list of media appearances seems significant to me as well; it looks like she was not merely promoting an organization, but exploring many aspects of online collaboration in those appearances. So, all of this makes her more notable than I previously understood. I'm still undecided on whether that makes her "notable enough" for a WP article. -Pete 21:32, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

• Here's a little reminder of WP:Notability...""Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than trivial but less than exclusive." Which I take to mean that with all the many smaller mentions, key-note speaker appearances, and at least one definitively significant news mention, she has significant coverage. This is backed up by, "The number needed varies depending on the depth of coverage and quality of the sources. Multiple sources are generally preferred." Multiple sources, some of very strong coverage and a bunch of minor coverage. Seems pretty pat. VanTucky 22:11, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

• Yes, I agree with you, VanTucky. Many of the arguments given for notability were poor, simply asserting it without evidence, which made it appear to me that the arguments resulted more from ideology than fact. However, I now believe A.B. is unquestionably notable, as the subject of one significant article in a mainstream publication (Sidney Morning Herald) and being prominently featured in several others. She is presented not merely as a representative of a company or organization, but as an expert in her field. I have a hard time imagining a person in any field, meeting these criteria, who would not be considered notable. Keep. -Pete 17:14, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

• Complex merge. Haukur 23:39, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

• What's complex about it? Wouldn't just putting A.B.'s bio details in the Wikia article be sufficient? -Pete 23:49, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

• If I understand correctly, that seems to be a request to follow the precedent at Daniel Brandt of merging non-personal content into other articles, discarding the personal life stuff, and turning the article page into a redirect. Durova^Charge! 01:24, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

• Yes, that's what I meant - I was feeling a bit whimsical so that's how I put it :) Haukur 22:44, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
• Yes, that's what I mean, and what I've seen work well in local cases like Joe Keating. I'm not familiar with the Brandt case, but thank you for summarizing the outcome of it. -Pete 01:42, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion section 3

• KeepNotability indicated by sources. --MichaelLinnear 23:53, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

• Remember, this is not a vote. Please reply to specific points above re: notability. -Pete 00:29, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete or stubbify and protect, because 1) she requested it; and 2) I don't think Wikipedians can write a neutral article on her. anthony 23:54, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete not notable as per Brandt.--Oakhouse 00:04, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, not really notable outside wiki-land. Multiple non-trivial reliable sources is a requirement for inclusion, but does not inherently warrant it. —ptk✰fgs 01:45, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable. - Nabla 01:52, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Since BLP appears to have changed, this subject is no longer notable. Add that in to the personal request to delete, then this is a no-brainer.--Alabamaboy 02:05, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Notice. I have noticed a high number of administrators are voting to delete this article. I thought there was no cabal on Wikipedia. Hmmm. :) - Mr.Gurü (^talk/_contribs) 02:25, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

• Just bc things don't seem to be going our way doesn't make a cabal. However, this courtesy deletion bullshit smacks of cabal, that's for sure. It certainly was never vetted comprehensively in the community. VanTucky 03:22, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Never knew I was a member of a cabal. What's the secret handshake? Do I get a bumpersticker? Seriously, I'm merely going by what WP:BLP says and by the new precedent of the Brandt merge. There seems to be a growing consensus that such material is not allowed here. In this case, the new consensus means this article should be deleted.--Alabamaboy 20:01, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

From WP:CABAL...Extreme Unction's first law: If enough people act independently towards the same goal, the end result is indistinguishable from a conspiracy. I would agree that the consensus seems to be delete, but as I say below, I want to have it recognized that the consensus is on notability grounds and not courtesy grounds. many of those in favor of deletion are adamantely opposed to courtesy deletion in this case. VanTucky 22:08, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Just for the record, I'm the founder of Category:Eguor admins and a dedicated anti-cabalist. I had nothing to do with the policy change that was related to this and two related deletion nominations, nor did anyone tell me this article was going to go up for deletion also. The only off-wiki discussions I've had on this subject were with the article subjects themselves. Durova^Charge! 15:53, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh, not sure what you took from my quotation, but what I meant was that just bc consensus seemed to be leaning away from Guru's opinion doesn't make a secret conspiracy out of those opposed to keep. VanTucky 17:20, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. I'm not a big fan of courtesy deletion--the decision should be based on notability. This article doesn't have enough non-trivial reliable sources to establish notability. --Akhilleus (talk) 05:01, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - Published works by reliable sources demonstrate notability of this person. --Oakshade 05:58, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete/Merge. She as an individual does not appear notable. Her activities are however. Those should be merged into relevant articles. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 14:14, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - As notable subject. Kukini ^{hablame aqui} 22:40, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
• Comment on progress so far It seems there are so far by my count 17 for Keep and 27 for Delete or Merge. VanTucky 23:25, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

What are the real consensus/votes if you only count the regular editors and not the administrative cabal. Hmmm. :) - Mr.Gurü (^talk/_contribs) 23:45, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Let's quit with the cabal nonsense. You're welcome to have whatever opinion about administrator excess you please, but it doesn't further the discussion. VanTucky 23:47, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

All I am saying is that I find it odd a large number of administrators are voting here and are voting to delete this article. What is really happening here? Hmmm. :) - Mr.Gurü (^talk/_contribs) 23:53, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

• Keep, we don't delete articles because the subject requests it. The person in question meets notability guidelines. -- Ned Scott 01:57, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep agree with Everyking and Kukini. Acalamari 02:42, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
• weak keep Angela Beesley has acted politely throughout her endeavor to get her article deleted and I'm thankful for that. However, at this point, she meets WP:BIO. The question therefore becomes how much weight should we give her desire not to have an article? I think it is hard to give that desire much weight when a) her initial reasons for wanting deletion in earlier AfDs was her belief that she didn't meet WP:BIO(which seems to be no longer the case) b) she has a webpage that is not just a personal webpage but is for public promotion of her role in Wikia and related matters. Once someone is actively trying to be in the public eye, any desire they have to get their Wikipedia articles should be given minimal weight. So we have an example of someone who just barely meets WP:BIO (indeed passes the threshold by much less than for example Daniel Brandt or Seth Finkelstein did) but for whom we can only give minimal weight to her desire for deletion. The fact that she does not very strongly desire the deletion should act like a multiplier with the fact that we can only give her desire little weight. That is the equation seems to be something like B-WD where B is by how much she exceeds WP:BIO, W is the weight we should give her wanting to get the article deleted and D is her desire to get it deleted (and clearly I've been reading too much political science junk where people pretend that everything is quantifiable with simple real numbers). Now, B is small, but W and D are also small, so WD is really, really small, so it might be enough to make B-WD positive. Thus, we should keep. JoshuaZ 02:56, 20 June 2007 (UTC) changing to full keep B-WD logic still applies but per Mondegreen and Peteforsyth's comments below the level of notability is much higher than a previously thought. JoshuaZ 16:24, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Non-notable person who has indicated her wish to have the article deleted. BCST2001 04:15, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment: I took a closer look at the biographies of living people, notability, and notability (people) policies, and found these relevant sections:

“

If reliable sources only cover the person in the context of a particular event, then a separate biography is unlikely to be warranted. Marginal biographies on people with no independent notability can give undue weight to the events in the context of the individual, create redundancy and additional maintenance overhead, and cause problems for our neutral point of view policy. In such cases, a redirect is usually the better option. Cover the event, not the person. Editors should consider whether the names of private individuals could be redacted from articles without the loss of significant information. Evaluate on a case by case basis; and be willing to discuss any removals on the talk page.

”

While board membership or founding a company are not exactly "events," and while there are not one but two such instances, this seems close to covering the Angela Beesley case. The "reliable source" pieces that mention her only cover those two facts, and do not go into great detail about either one.

“

When closing AfDs about living persons whose notability is ambiguous, the closing admin should take into account whether the subject of the article has asked that it be deleted. There is no consensus as to the weight that should be placed on the subject's wishes, so this is left to the discretion of the closing admin. When a BLP is deleted, moving data to another article should be given serious consideration, but bear in mind that this policy applies to all pages of Wikipedia; material should never be moved from a deleted BLP as a way of thwarting the point of the page deletion. Also, if content from a BLP is to be merged, the edit history should be preserved due to the GFDL.

”

Some unspecified amount of discretion on the part of the closing admin is explicitly permitted; thus, even if Angela Beesley is marginally/sufficiently notable for an article, her desire could be sufficient to lean toward deletion. This strikes me as more nuanced than mere "courtesy deletion": it requires marginal notability, and the allowance for discretion seems to permit merging with another article, which ultimately doesn't remove much content from the encyclopedia. However, I don't think we have to go to that exceptional length in this case, since her notability is minimal. One of the following conditions must be met to estabilsh notability:

“

The person has been the subject of published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject.

”

“

Significant coverage is more than trivial but less than exclusive.

”

The above two phrases are drawn from the Notability (people) and general notability guidelines. I would argue that "the subject of" and "significant coverage" are substantially the same, meaning that an article should not merely mention the subject in passing, but should devote some attention to detail. This condition does not pertain. The Riehle interview might seem to meet this condition, but I believe it does not: first, it interviews three separate subjects, not just Beesley; and more importantly, it appears to be a web site written by one person, with no editorial oversight, thus failing to meet the reliable source standard.

“

If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may need to be cited to establish notability. Trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability.

”

So it's necessary to have multiple sources; but this does not say that multiple sources are sufficient to establish notability. When all sources merely parrot the same basic facts, I sould contend that they do not enhance the case for notability.

“

The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in their specific field.

”

Beesley's contribution may appear to be widely recognized, but that's because we are all Wikipedians: this is where we must be cautious of our own bias. Also, the "enduring historical record" of the field of wikis has yet to be established; we may have theories about how much impact wikis will have, or how influential Angela Beesley has been in that world, but at this point in history, that's all speculation and possible recentism.

All of this strengthens my belief that Angela Beesley's notability is not sufficient to merit a Wikipedia article, and that "courtesy deletion" need not be contemplated in this case. I am impressed with her accomplishments, but the same might be said of many people who do not, and should not, have Wikipedia articles.

-Pete 14:36, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

The guideline detailing

“

If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may need to be cited to establish notability. Trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability.

”

Does not say that multiple trivial sources are not sufficient, but that they may not be. Nor does it only mean that multiple sources are needed. It means that a very few sources with significant coverage are on par with many trivial sources. If multiple sources make a mention (or group interview), and all confirm that AB is notable for being involved in Wikimedia and Wikia, then multiple trivial sources establish her notability on those grounds. The passage exists to legitimize alternative pathways to establish notability, not to dismiss a large group of significant sources that make a trivial mention of the subject. The fact that they say the same thing about her strengthens the case for notability, because they all mention the same reason she is notable, the same reason they are mentioning her. Multiple sources make a small mention of Angela as being notable. Thus, it meets the guidline. VanTucky 15:34, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

What? No. The fact that they all repeat the same two or three bare facts just makes for a remarkably content-free non-biography. This single sub-thread on this one AfD is already longer than the article is ever likely to be, unless and until Wikia hits the jackpot or some such thing makes her known outside our own inward-gazing circle of wikipedians. --Abu-Fool Danyal ibn Amir al-Makhiri 16:15, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

The sources affect on the content of the bio is not under discussion. These sources prove notability, thus a bio is merited despite the stub status of the present article. Being a stub is not an acceptable argument for deletion. VanTucky 16:19, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Of course it's under discussion. In the same paragraph you reference, that essay says "consider whether the information in the ideal version of the article would be worthy of inclusion", and that is exactly what I was doing (above I say "is ever likely to be"): if all reliable sources just repeat the same couple of facts, then it is always a stub, and should be merged into relevant articles (if the info weren't already there). --Abu-Fool Danyal ibn Amir al-Makhiri 16:34, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

First off, talking about deletion bc you think an article is never going to be expanded beyond the present content is totally absurd and unverifiable. Second, the content of most of the sources is already included as content, which speaks to the strength of the argument that they prove notability. You haven't disproved that the multiple trivial sources, including those already included as encyclopedic content, do meet notability guidelines. Your arguments still can be summarized as "it's badly written". VanTucky 18:18, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Van T, I think you misunderstand the argument that Danyal and I are making. The reliable sources all repeat the same short list of details. Those details are already included in the A.B. article, which is very short. No reliable sources have been identified that have more information, so (at least with what's been shown) there's no reason to believe that more notable & verifiable information exists. (I'm discounting the interview for reasons given above.) So the article is likely to remain short.

Ultimately, I think it's important to consider these things in terms of "service to the reader." Either we could have the present article, or we could have a redirect from A.B. to Wikia, with all her relevant vitals at that article (and also in the WMF article.) How is the reader better served by the present situation? I don't understand why "merge and redirect" poses such a problem. -Pete 19:32, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Because I think that the article will be growing significantly in the future. But to be perfectly honest, a merge with Wikia and a redirect is something I would be okay with as long as we are clear that it is on Notability and lack of current content grounds, and not Courtesy Deletion. If the content about her does grow significantly enough to merit a re-creation of the article (like a couple signigicantly large news features on her alone), then it could just as easily be re-created when that occurs. In my view, the arguments for the usefullness of having the little info there is on her in Wikia or in her own is semantics, except for creating a false precedent for more borderline courtesy deletions. If we are clear that it is only the grounds I just mentioned, then I'd definitely support merge and redirect. VanTucky 20:34, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

VanTucky, I think you and I are in complete agreement then. Merge and redirect, with the possibility of recreation if the case for notability increases significantly. Sound about right? -Pete 20:41, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

sí. anyone else have concerns? (maybe we leave it for a few more hours to let those who aren't online catch up?) VanTucky 20:49, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, per WP:NOT we can't really base our decision now upon speculation about how much more notable or verifiable the article might become in the future. I'm fine with a merge. Durova^Charge! 00:37, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion section 4

keep UNCENSORED We like to pretend that we just sit here "collecting" knowledge. But we know that isn't true. We have articles about Wikipedia as various things and people and problems become notable. Perhaps Angela Beesley wasn't notable before, though I find that hard to believe--our notablity guidelines are not that strict. But if she wasn't before, she certainly is now. Do you know how many articles the attempted deletion of this article has focussed on? The attemped deletion of this article, and again, and again, and now again made and makes waves through the blogosphere every time and the number of google results for Angela Beesly multiplies and multiplies--sadly more for this than for her work with wikia. And it's not just the blogs, because we can ignore those--cast hundreds of blogs aside as "unreliable". There are articles in newspapers and magazines, some, used for sources in other Wikipedia articles, but not fit for fodder here. Wikipedia is in the business of collecting information--and at the same time, it makes news, and has to collect information on that, no matter how painful it may be. Angela Beesley gets plenty of press coverage--more so every time this happens. Miss Mondegreen talk  06:37, June 21 2007 (UTC)

Could you give examples of some of these newspaper and magazine articles? That might help. In any event, it seems problematic to me to justify having an article about someone because the discussion about that person's wishes made the person notable. JoshuaZ 13:57, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Didn't make the person notable--made the person more notable. The only reason Angela Beesley would have ever qualified for the deletion of her article would be her own requests. She is covered, significantly--(more than trivial but less than exclusive) in a lot of places. And yet, that coverage did pertain mostly to the role she played/plays here. Given that, and that she wanted deletion, she could have been deleted, although I'm basing that on our guidelines now--I believe that they're significantly changed and didn't say that then. Was she notable? Yes. Did the coverage focus on one area (similar to an event) making it a candidate for a merge? Probably? And she didn't want an article. But, coverage on her not wanting an article doesn't fit in other places--and while blogs can be brushed off, reliable sources that give her and her blog a significant amount of coverage can't:

• http://technology.guardian.co.uk/weekly/story/0,,1882027,00.html
• http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/07/26/wikipedia_school_lawsuit/

There are more, I'll find them when I have the time. The fact that this information has been systematically cut out of the article bothers me, but that's not my point. If there's someone on the verge of notability who then goes and gets additional press coverage by doing something--releasing an album, drunk driving, dying, fasting for 30 days--whatever, that changes things. And as there is no room for this kind of material in any article that her current bio would be merged too, I'm strongly against deleting or merging this article. So her notability only has to do with Wikipedia. But I didn't hear about Angela Beesley because I'm a Wikipedia editor. I read about her in the big outside world in which she has received a lot of press coverage. Is some of it trivial? You bet. But a lot of it isn't.

One of the consequences of notability is that when you give interviews and blog and wiki, it has a tendency to stay around. I don't even have to read her blog or look through her contributions--others do and report what they think is newsworthy. How on earth does that make her not-notable? The news may have a celebrity dumpster-diving stalkerish feel, but when notable, people watch. At least people are only following her to her online trash. Miss Mondegreen talk  23:06, June 21 2007 (UTC)

• Miss Mondegreen, I somehow missed these articles before, but now I've read them. I must concede that they make a much stronger case for A.B's notability than the articles I read previously - as does the Sidney Morning Herald article I missed before, as well. None of these articles, nor the subject matter they present, are currently present in the Angela Beesley article, which may be a big factor in the amount of current confusion and disagreement. At any rate, I'm now reconsidering my position…and also marveling that so many strident supporters of her notability didn't bother to point out these articles earlier in this discussion, or include them in the article in question. -Pete 16:05, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

• Wow, yeah I can't believe I missed those somehow! These all feature Beesley prominently, which strengthens the case for notability. Actually, the funny thing about those articles is that, in addition to the Wikimedia and Wikia stuff, Beesley is famous for trying to get her bio deleted. Maybe we should include a note about that in the article?! VanTucky 16:52, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I've always favoured deletion due to marginal notability, but when people have attempted to include those references in the past a large wikimob descends to protect their mate's article - giving rise to this AFD. This article is utterly unworkable. I disagree that those references make her notable, but they are some of the more notable references to her, yet they are excluded from the article (just look at the talk page, e.g. here). --Coroebus 16:58, 22 June 2007 (UTC

• Unworkable? What the heck does that mean? Impossible to improve or expand at any time now or in the future? That is patent nonsense. Also, from looking at the talk page I caught the following section (deleted from the article for some reason) that strongly supports notability, as it demonstrates that she has been a very significant spokeswoman for Wikimedia, (currently lessened, but notable events/actions don't disapear with time).

“	Public appearances section (deleted from article) I'm just copying this deleted section into the talk page because it might be a useful reference in case anyone questions Beesley's notability as a public figure. Sbwoodside 18:35, 22 September 2006 (UTC) With the press June 22, 2006: Appeared on the Primetime Morning Show on Channel NewsAsia about Wikipedia's growth and how vandalism is dealt with. June 21, 2006: Appeared on Asia Squawk Box on CNBC Asia with Lisa Oake about semi-protection and other issues. March 29, 2005: Appeared on the "Nice Work" show on BBC Radio 4 about Wikipedia in relation to Knowledge Management.[1] At conferences August 21, 2006: Spoke at WikiSym, about how and why Wikipedia works.[2][3] August 5, 2006: Spoke at Wikimania 2006 on cross-wiki policy and features.[4] June 21, 2006: Spoke at iX 2006 in Singapore about wikis for enterprise collaboration.[5] November 25, 2005: Spoke at X	”
—The Angela Beesley talk page

I think this, combined with the other articles, cements notability pretty well. VanTucky 17:18, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Unworkable means what it means, I've set out my argument in the talk age and previous AFD, agree or disagree as you wish, it'll fun to watch people try and insert the bio deletion stuff though, been there, given up with that. As for those refs, frankly I think that someone who appears on TV as the representative of a company, as part of their position in that company even, then they are not notable TV personalities. Again, agree or disagree as you wish but you may want to go search out every PR officer and spokesperson for every company and NGO in the world. --Coroebus 17:36, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

No one is asserting that AB is notable just bc she has been a highly notable spokeswoman. But that combined with the other facts about WF Board membership, founding Wikia, and being the Chair of the Wikimedia Advisory council all add up to certain notability. There is no other way to interpret that much variety of sourced notable activities. VanTucky 17:41, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Subject is of only very marginal notability and if she wants the article removed, that should be respected. Were she clearly a notable figure, censorship issues might apply. As it is, this is just wikinavel-gazing. Eusebeus 16:14, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
• Comment: Miss Mondegreen, I disagree with your self-referential argument. Just because the navel-gazing extends to another medium like blogs doesn't change its status as navel-gazing. I have looked at most of the sources linked above, and as I have argued above, they don't appear to establish notability. If we were to agree that the length of this debate establishes notability (which I don't), it still wouldn't justify a separate article on A.B.; the "notable" information would be about the inner workings of Wikipedia, and the subject they revolve around would be best relegated to a footnote in that discussion. I'd ask you to answer the question I posed to VanTucky above: how does the present situation serve the reader better than a merge-and-redirect would? -Pete 17:03, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Serving the reader...oh, I don't know: someone who wants to know who Angela Beesley is can find out? That seems like a good idea. I've answered more above. Shockingly enough, as someone who only edits here and doesn't have their world revolve around Wikipedia and as someone who reads papers, I heard about Angela Beesley from the big wide world of reality. I suspect that that's how most people who have heard of her heard of her--but since we only poll Wikipedians, we have a bit of a skewed response pool. Miss Mondegreen talk  23:06, June 21 2007 (UTC)

• Let's look at that scenario. Suppose Fred heard A.B's name, and wants to find out more. He goes to Wikipedia and types in "Angela Beesley." He is brought to a page called "Wikia." He's momentarily startled, but being genuinely interested in finding out more about her, thinks to himself, "Perhaps she has some association with this company." Or reads the first sentence of the article, which identifies A.B. as a founder of the company. So he either looks in the Table of Contents for a "founders" or "key people" section, or performs a search within the page for "Angela." Fred quickly finds all the information he might have reasonably expected to find at an article dedicated to her. In addition, the structure of the encyclopedia, in combination with the article's content, has correctly communicated to him that her notability flows from her leadersjip in Wikia and Wikipedia, rather than from her being a grandstanding, "larger than life" personality who grabs headlines independent of her role in those organizations. I believe Fred would be very well served by that setup. What problem do you see? -Pete 00:05, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

• That would be ok if she had no real notability--if she was only notable when discussing Wikia. That's really a scenario for people who aren't notable, but should be mentioned within a notable subject--for people who have multiple trivial mentions, but there's not enough for an article on them. Angela really doesn't fit that--her notability may come from her role in Wikia, but it is such that her trivial mentions in articles are through the roof, and she has well more than a handful on non-trivial mentions--which means that she more than passes the grounds for notability. She isn't a CEO who's only ever mentioned in the news as "the CEO of ___" or giving a quote about the company. Also, all information on her should be in one place, and the press that her Afds generated (examples in my comments above) doesn't belong in an article on Wikia--it has nothing to do with Wikia. The only thing that could go in the Wikia article would be a line or two of biographical info and info about her role in Wikia and Wikipedia. But that's not the only kind of press she gets. Incidently, I first read Angela's name in that Guardian article. I then went to Wikipedia and looked at her article. Had I come here and been redirected to an article on Wikia, it would not only not have served me as a reader, but I would have been thoroughly disgusted with Wikipedia. Miss Mondegreen talk  06:27, June 22 2007 (UTC)

Sure, if the article were extensive, you might worry about what you'd lose. But, really. "A line or two of biographical info" and "info about her role in Wikia and Wikipedia" is basically the entire text. Time to let this one go. --Abu-Fool Danyal ibn Amir al-Makhiri 14:13, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Keep Notability has been demonstrated over, and over, and over again. Why do we tolerate or allow these continued efforts at undermining established consensus. Alansohn 17:47, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

The last non-speedied AFD was "no consensus". --Coroebus 18:06, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

• If the consensus to keep the article from all of the other previous AfDs is not respected, why should anyone respect the result of this AfD if it does end in delete? The existence of this AfD (or if you insist, the previous AfD) after multiple previous AfDs ending with a consensus of keep is inherently disruptive to the process of creating an encyclopedia. If AfDs are allowed at all after a previous AfD ended as a keep, there must be a far greater burden on the nominator to overturn the established precedent that the article has established in the previous attempt (or attempts) to delete the article. Notability was established before and is established now. Alansohn 18:19, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

• Well, I agree that the previous AFDs established notability. But in participating in Wikipedia you have to be able to accept that consensus on the application of policy can change at any moment. In this AFD, I have to honestly say that the sources provided do not firmly establish notability to extent required to silence those in favor of deletion. If you have other sources that are significant, please please please share them. Otherwise, if you have no evidence of notability the dissent carries little weight, unfortunately. VanTucky 18:32, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
• Alansohn, the thing that would make this consensus lasting is our transparent diligence in making a determination. I would submit that the discussion among Durova, VanTucky, Abu-Fool Danyal, and myself at the end of section 3 goes a long way toward that goal. All four entered the discussion with differing opinions, but we found consensus. If you feel that A.B.'s notability was established in the past, exactly what established it? If there are articles or arguments that we've missed, please bring them forward - I'm happy to modify my position if proven wrong, but not simply because of some unidentified past conclusion. -Pete 23:16, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

• Please bear in mind that a relevant policy did change since the previous nominations. So it's appropriate to hold a full discussion here and seek consensus about whether it's applicable at this page. Durova^Charge! 06:06, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. If Angela's or Daniel Brandt's notability is "marginal" please delete every article I've created for also failing to meet this exorbitant standard. —freak(talk) 23:28, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

• Weak Keep. Just wanted to note that from a (2006) source in the article, Angela Beesley is quoted as saying "The policies on the English Wikipedia err towards keeping an article, so a strong reason or high level of community support are needed for something to be deleted." (italics mine) Interesting how times have changed. R. Baley 00:42, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete borderline notability here. Subject has wanted the article deleted. Given the borderline notability, I have no problem with deleting it. --Aude (talk) 11:58, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
  • If this is "borderline notability" I really would like to know where you would draw the line. I thought Air Force Amy was the new gold standard. —freak(talk) 17:49, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
    • I'm not familiar with Air Force Amy... did she request the article be removed from Wikipedia? --Aude (talk) 18:27, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
      • She is, among other things, a pornographic actress. As such, there is a whole detailed standard of notability that applies only to porn performers, so I am not really sure that her precedent applies in Angela's case... VanTucky 19:10, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
    • I suggest that anyone participating with BLP-related deletions first familiarize themselves with the nadir of human dignity to which I alluded. —freak(talk) 19:34, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

• If there's an important precedent there, perhaps you could say which of the 3 AfD's is worth looking at, and what kind of issues were dealt with/precedents were set? Also, what does your point of view on the subject's dignity have to do with the matter at hand? -Pete 19:39, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Not notable enough for an article here.--MONGO 11:25, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
  • comment I don't think given how many sources have been given above that one can reasonably argue at this point that she isn't notable enough for an article. The issue is whether she is sufficiently borderline such that her desire to not have an article should overule. JoshuaZ 13:19, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
    • comment: According to the new addition to the biography of living persons policy, it is the closing admin and not the community at large that is empowered to consider the person's desire. So if you're correct in your assessment that notability has been established (and I tend to agree), then I think we've run out of things to talk about. -Pete 17:19, 23 June 2007 (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.