Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Angela Beesley (7th nomination): Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 02:43, 6 December 2007

Angela Beesley

Nominating for courtesy deletion or redirect per a request from Angela Beesley. In the half year since the last time this article was nominated, consensus has moved toward deletion/redirect upon request for not-very-notable BLP subjects. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rand Fishkin, Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Seth_Finkelstein_(2nd), and Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Daniel_Brandt_(14th_nomination). If Angela Beesley had the same amount of notability for something that wasn't related to Wikipedia I doubt many of us would have heard about her. This isn't so much a biography as a catalog of her involvement at WMF and Wikia. As such it's basically a resume, unlikely to expand past a stub. Any meaningful content can be covered elsewhere. I ask that we respect the wishes of the person this page affects most and delete. Courtesy costs nothing. Durova^Charge! 18:24, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete re BLP and nominator. Thanks, SqueakBox 18:26, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Redirect to Wikia. RMHED 18:57, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - Sourced, asserts notability, consensus reached at other AFDs, if pushed, redirect to Wikia. — Rudget _{contributions} 18:59, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Satisfies WP:N and WP:V per provided references. Nobody of Consequence 19:16, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I don't see Angela requesting deletion. Bramlet Abercrombie 19:22, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The request is credible. I am in direct contact with her. Durova^Charge! 19:25, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - It is well known she wants the article deleted. Thanks, SqueakBox 21:27, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete based on precident; ~~Wouldn't it make more sense to redirect to User:Angela?~~--CastAStone|^(talk) 20:12, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirects from mainspace to userspace are generally disfavored. Joe 20:22, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, Thank you. Then a redirect to Wikia makes sense, as per RMHED.--CastAStone|^(talk) 20:51, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Angela has done a hell of a lot for this project, I think this is the least we can do to repay her, and the fact that consensus in other discussions is leaning towards this outcome. Qst 20:52, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There does seem to be some notability, but Angela does not seem to have been the subject of multiple independant articles or books so I lean towards respecting her wishes.TheRingess (talk) 20:53, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article has some citations, and I'm sure more can be found. As an aside: While I respect Ms. Beesley's wishes, I feel that by her requesting her own article be deleted, and the community responding to said request will only create a questionable precedent. What if other individuals request that their article be deleted completely if they do not agree with Wikipedia? PR aside, it would cause a great deal of havoc for Admins if this was an option. I'm uncomfortable with this request, and even though it is the 7th Nom, we should not heed it. We are an encyclopedia attempting the sum of all knowledge, let us not censored ourself from within. Zidel333 (talk) 22:21, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The community responded to a similar request more favorably I made it on behalf of Daniel Brandt. Three precedents already exist as cited above, and arguably Ms. Beesley has done more to deserve this courtesy than any of them. Durova^Charge! 23:30, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep We should not be setting a bad example and allowing "vanity deletions", especially by Wikia and Wikipedia employees. It is also bad to put Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Daniel_Brandt_(14th_nomination) and Wikipedia people in the same exemption category, as anti Wikipedia openness. Why does she have a blog with 10 times the personal information in it? Why isn't she, as a Wikipedia contributer herself, arguing here for deletion herself? Why doesn't she go directly to the Wikimedia Foundation and ask them to delete it? This just looks bad. Can I just cut and paste this into the 8th? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 22:23, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Such repetition seems vexatious. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:05, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Half a year has passed, outcomes at other articles have shifted. How is this vexatious? Durova^Charge! 23:30, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is disrespectful to all the editors that took the time to comment on the previous six nominations. It seems that Ms Beesley does not actually care much about this and the material in question is likely to be preserved by other sites regardless. So you are wasting our time with a personal obsession - a typical vexatious litigant. Colonel Warden (talk) 00:19, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is not direspectful it is standard practice; and nothing here is made in stone, ie it is no more disrespectful than changing someone else's edits by editing an article. And you seem not to have realisedt hat other sites will only produce a stable version and are unlikely to be as well visited as wikipedia where anyone being able to edit means the article is subject to both changes and vandalism. Thanks, SqueakBox 00:27, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please refactor the personal obsession comment. I didn't even participate in the previous deletion discussions. The tone of that comment is quite disrespectful. Durova^Charge! 00:34, 5 December 2007 (UTC) Slight refactor; I participated in one of the previous six discussions.[reply]

Looking back at these previous discussions, it seems that the original reason for wanting deletion was recurring vandalism. But in the last six months, there seems to have just one brief attempt at vandalism - around 16-17 June. Since then the article seems to have been fairly stable. Please explain why this matter is being raised again at this time. My impression is that it is not occasioned by a current problem but just a determination to settle an old score. Your personal history in this matter is perhaps irrelevant as you indicate that you are acting as a proxy for Ms Beesley. Colonel Warden (talk) 01:07, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The WP:BLP policy became a little more expansive and a handful of people at the lower end of the notability range have requested and received courtesy deletions. It doesn't have much effect on the database and it earns some goodwill. Any meaningful material on this bio could be moved elsewhere. So why not honor Ms. Beesley's wishes? Durova^Charge! 01:21, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes indeed consensus can change; Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeb Bush, Jr. (third nomination) is a case in point. RMHED (talk) 23:58, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see no evidence of editors changing their mind in that case. It just seemed to be wilful persistence until a deletion result was obtained - an obvious breach of the double jeopardy principle. Colonel Warden (talk) 01:36, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In both the last afds of Daniel Brandt and Don Murphy we saw a huge shift in consensus from the previous afd of these 2 bios, there is no question but that consensus does change. Thanks, SqueakBox 01:44, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete My arguments on this topic are well-known by now, and I incorporate them by reference :-) -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 23:55, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep with regret I feel very odd about this, this isn't the same as someone want to vanish from Wikipedia, and I know many people here have already disagreed with me on this, and wish to respect her wishes to have her article deleted, but I respect her too, I believe she is notable, asides from what is listed on her article, Ms Beesley is listed at notable name database [1] they will add just any name, mention at a government site [2] CNN Money twice [3] [4] has 31,700 Googe hits quote in Newsweek [5] the Article Wikipedia:Wikipedia_on_TV_and_radio list these appearances"
June 22, 2006: Primetime Morning Show on Channel NewsAsia: Angela Beesley answered general questions about Wikipedia's growth and how vandalism is dealt with.

June 21, 2006: Asia Squawk Box on CNBC Asia with Lisa Oake - Angela Beesley discussed semi-protection and other issues.

March 29, 2005: Angela Beesley spoke about Wikipedia in relation to Knowledge Management as part of the "Nice Work" show on BBC Radio 4. [23]

November 17, 2004: Angela discusses Wikipedia on the You and Yours programme on BBC Radio 4. You can listen to it at [26] but you might need some sort of plugins."
Plus like minds all over the WikiWorld seem to agree. [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] You can not un-ring a bell, I'm sorry Angela, no disrespect really, but like it or not, you're notable. ▪◦▪≡ЅiREX≡^Talk 05:51, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Her accomplishments would seem to make her sufficiently notable as to be included. Deletion because the subject requests it is never a good thing, since it will open a potential can of worms at least in terms of nominations, if not long-running deletion debates. I understand that there is a developing precedent for things of this nature, but mark me down as one of the troglodytes who will argue against its application given a chance. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 06:24, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The can of worms was open a long time ago. Thanks, SqueakBox 06:26, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless of when it was opened, there's nothing to say that it can't be closed or that people can't try to close it. It could be quite a task to put the worms back there... BigHaz - Schreit mich an 00:12, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And its time that those who thought it was not a good idea speak up and say so--consensus can change, and when it extends to articles like this, it may make it evident that it was a poor idea from day 1. (It can amount to censorship by the subject--write the article the way I like it, or delete it--a drastic violation of NPOV. -- I do not mean that this is the case here -- neither AB nor Durova has done any such thing nor can i imagine that either of them ever would. But something so sussceptible to abuse should not be given a foothold.) DGG (talk) 06:37, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment For the record I don't think it was deleting any bio articles that opened the can of worms, it was people objecting to having articles on themselves and people objecting to seeing these articles vandalised. Thanks, SqueakBox 06:42, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment and Question Is it customary to delete articles because the subject of those articles request it? Would we delete an article about Warren Buffett, Bob Dylan, or Bill Clinton if one of them requested it? I'm not voting because I'm not aware of the policy, but I lean toward thinking that we shouldn't delete articles just because the subject asks us to. I could be convinced otherwise possibly. Rray (talk) 15:29, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The site has long done courtesy deletions for people at the very bottom end of the notability scale. Question is how far to take it. Last June when I nommed Daniel Brandt and Seth Finkelstein I proposed what I called the "dead trees standard". That is, we'll extend courtesy deletions up to the point where a person gets coverage in a paper and ink encyclopedia, including specialty encyclopedias. So world leaders, notorious killers, rock stars, etc. would stay in Wikipedia no matter what. For people who aren't famous or notorious enough for an entry in any printed encyclopedia, we might as well honor their wishes if they really want out of here. Durova^Charge! 16:55, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for answering my question. I appreciate the clarification. I think your dead trees proposal is interesting. Rray (talk) 17:58, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Smerge to Wikia or whatever. -R. fiend (talk) 16:18, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep See no reason not to, enough notability and citations, plus it survived six previous votes. This will set a bad precedent for those that want their article deleted.Heavytundra (talk) 16:52, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closing admin: this account has only 22 edits. Durova^Charge! 17:24, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What does it matter how many edits I have? I've been around for a bit, and could easily have over a 100 or more edits if I setup a bot to do nothing but revert recent changes. But I have better things to do with my time. Heavytundra (talk) 17:59, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't understand the reasoning for pointing out the number of edits the user had either. Maybe Durova could explain what that meant for both of us? Thanks. Rray (talk) 18:52, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sometimes the closing admin discounts input from participants with very low edit counts. That's entirely at the that person's discretion. Durova^Charge! 19:22, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your reply. I was unaware of that. Rray (talk) 20:06, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It matters not one jot how mant edits s/he has. We all have to start somewhere. This is the encyclopedia all are welcome to edit. No matter what Durova suspects or feels. Giano (talk) 19:27, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am extending exactly the same courtesy to Angela Beesley that I extended to Seth Finkelstein, Daniel Brandt, and Rand Fishkin. The community agreed on all three previous occasions. I have no wish to renew any dispute or grievance with Giano, or with any other editor. I ask only that this proposed deletion be weighed fairly on its own merits, and closed according to precedent, without reference to unrelated issues. Durova^Charge! 19:46, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep "Beesley founded a for-profit Wiki hosting service with Jimmy Wales called Wikia. She sits on the advisory board of the media archive Ourmedia and is a co-author of the book Wikis: Tools for Information Work and Collaboration" this alone makes her notable. Deleting this page would be setting an unwise precedent. The project cannot be seen to favour its own in these matters, otherwise who next will want to be deleted? We already have articles on women who have achieved far less in their lives. Notability has its advantages, if some people feel one of the disadvantages is having a page here then so be it. The page though does need to be expanded. Giano (talk) 17:15, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Giano, I went through a similar process of reasoning about the irony involved. I eventually decided that in terms of failure-modes, playing favoritism to Wikipedia insiders was a loser's game. I don't mean this as a reference to, err, recent events, but the, umm, unfortunate incident does show that problem. Here, requiring an insider to have a bio so that they feel the pain of everyone else is not going to work well, since they're always going to have the support so the pain is never more than minor. Sure, they may be irritated, but it's not going to hurt them like it will others. Jimmy Wales's unhappiness with not completely getting his way in his bio on the issue of denying "co-founder" status to Larry Sanger is a case in point. Jimbo didn't get absolutely everything he wanted, but I'd say he got WP:OWN there to an extent far, far, greater than would be granted to any outsider. So, on the balance, I'd say that a generous opt-out policy reduces pain to outsiders far more than it gives an undue advantage to insiders -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 00:29, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As a follow-up to Seth's comment (and with reference to what Giano infers below), there's no particular insider angle here. If it comes to my attention that someone wants their biography article deleted from Wikipedia, and that person doesn't seem notable enough to have been covered in any paper-and-ink encyclopedia, then I ask that person if they'd like me to nominate the page for deletion. These conversations are rare. Far more people want to get profiled on Wikipedia than want off of it. Yet I always offer these nominations according to the same criteria. Durova^Charge! 00:47, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Note to closing admin: Giano is involved in a high profile dispute with me and this is his only AFD vote in his last 500 edits. Durova^Charge! 17:21, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]~~
Thank you Durova. This just goes to show then how important I regard this matter. I was rather under the impression the dispute was over. Never the less, I am surprised you are still mentioning your obviously private connections with the Wikipedia hierachy [13]. I hope they bear you in good stead. Giano (talk) 17:33, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
PS: I would imagine most of my last 500 edits have been in dealing with your lamentable behaviour. Giano (talk) 17:34, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thinking about it Durova, Angela seems very proud of her acheivements, why fon't you expand the page here is a start [14]. Giano (talk) 19:33, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yawn. <sarcasm>I believe this article has been nominated for deletion before.</sarcasm> I wonder what has changed? If this is a delete-by-attrition, it's way too early for that, we need at least wait until the 15th nomination, or whatever. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 18:21, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per the nom. Cirt (talk) 18:26, 5 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Keep, for reasons explicated above. What is this, "Keep AfDing until it finally gets through"? Achromatic (talk) 00:11, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment Durova please WP:AGF. Giano is not so petty as to be here due to malice towards you and I suspect you are not so important to him as that. The issue is pretty much over is it not, having gone through Arbcom, also has he not stuck to discussing this AfD, rather than attacking you or anything like that, before you implied some other motive?Merkinsmum 19:43, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize if there is any appearance of bad faith in my comments. None has been intended. Durova^Charge! 19:49, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wikipedia seems to be incapable of writing neutral articles about these sorts of subjects. Let some other website handle it. Anthony (talk) 22:04, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. - note to closing admin - this is probably my only AFD vote in the last 500 edits. Anthony (talk) 22:04, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Sorry what is not neutral here? Is there a disputed fact? Giano (talk) 22:21, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]~~
Keep The subject is clearly notable, and the article has survived several AfDs already.--Bedivere (talk) 23:03, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. - note to closing admin - I have voted in lots of AFDs.--Bedivere (talk) 23:03, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per Sirex98. The notability is demonstrated. Unless notability standards change, I can't see why we would delete. Beasely is not borderline notable: A whole lot of sources can be found right here. Lawrence Cohen 23:20, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment and question. Per WP:CBLANK, blanking is done for deletion discussions when they have the potentional to do harm. I see this as the criteria for deletion of this article as well. Could the subject (or the subjects proxy) explain how this article will potentially cause her harm? I actually see the article as quite positive to the subject. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 02:43, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 79: / Line 79: @@
 ** P.S. - note to closing admin - I have voted in lots of AFDs.--[[User:Bedivere|Bedivere]] ([[User talk:Bedivere|talk]]) 23:03, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * '''Keep''' Per Sirex98. The notability is demonstrated. Unless notability standards change, I can't see why we would delete. Beasely is not borderline notable: [http://news.google.com/archivesearch?q=%22Angela+Beesley%22+wiki&btnG=Search+Archives&ie=UTF-8&oe=utf-8&um=1 A whole lot of sources can be found right here]. <span style="font-variant:small-caps"><font color="#800080">[[User:Lawrence Cohen|Lawrence Cohen]]</font></span> 23:20, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
+*'''Comment and question'''. Per [[WP:CBLANK]], blanking is done for deletion discussions when they have the potentional to do harm. I see this as the criteria for deletion of this article as well. Could the subject (or the subjects proxy) explain how this article will potentially cause her harm? I actually see the article as quite positive to the subject. [[User:Pocopocopocopoco|Pocopocopocopoco]] ([[User talk:Pocopocopocopoco|talk]]) 02:43, 6 December 2007 (UTC)