Jump to content

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

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion

This is the current revision of this page, as edited by Bruce1ee (talk | contribs) at 08:50, 7 October 2023 (fixed lint errors – stripped tags). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this version.

(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
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. Note that this discussion does not override any deletion via our Biography of living persons policy. I would strongly recommend looking at the application of the WP:BLP policy in granting the subjects request to delete the article.. Mercury 05:01, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Postscript: Since there was no consensus, I have taken into account BLP and the subject's wishes and the article has been deleted this morning. Mercury 15:42, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Angela Beesley

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Angela Beesley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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. DurovaCharge! 18:24, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Expanding on the above: this nomination reflects no favoritism. Half a year ago I proposed deletions for the biographies of two of Wikipedia's most prominent critics on the same basis as I offer this, and I will make the same nomination upon request for anyone who meets the same criteria. Namely, they're not famous enough to be profiled in any paper and ink encyclopedia, including specialty encyclopedias, and they request deletion. Think of a Rolling Stone encyclopedia of rock music: we wouldn't delete Sting, but if some bass player wanted out whose career highlight was to record two songs with Sting twenty years ago, we'd be courteous.
We ask biography subjects not to edit pages about themselves. Since the consequences of the page's existence affects these individuals far more than anyone else, it's only fair to extend one courtesy in return. They may not censor, vet, or spin the content. But if they don't make much difference to the overall completeness of Wikipedia and they want out, let's be gracious and give them that out. DurovaCharge! 16:07, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment

First, Durova, your implication is that she really wants out, which isn't entirely true from what she has stated publicly. Second, an encyclopedia of music would more than likely keep musicians that played on Stings albums, expecially if they played bass, since Sting is THE BASS player in his band. AMG lists all players under "credits." The players do not get to take their names off the list. They played, they are part of history. Third, if WP removes all articles of people that want them removed, then you have a case. Do you have a case for that? WP rarely allows people to vanish; especially not people with articles. Cheers, Nice (talk) 01:38, 7 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. DurovaCharge! 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]
  • 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. DurovaCharge! 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? DurovaCharge! 01:21, 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"
  1. June 22, 2006: Primetime Morning Show on Channel NewsAsia: Angela Beesley answered general questions about Wikipedia's growth and how vandalism is dealt with.
  2. June 21, 2006: Asia Squawk Box on CNBC Asia with Lisa Oake - Angela Beesley discussed semi-protection and other issues.
  3. 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]
  4. 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]
      • 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. DurovaCharge! 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]
      • Isn't one of the primary drives of Wikipedia the ability to be proactive, not reactive. I can see merit in the idea of this standard, but for it leading to always being behind the 8 ball. People who are "not yet" notable by print standards, and have an article, which they can opt to have deleted, until they become notable (by print standards), in which case the community has to both recreate work already lost, as well as try to rapidly catch up. Tis an idea you can work on, and propose, but is not policy by consensus, as a single glance at votes here (or indeed almost any AfD on a BLP) would show. I'm also personally vastly opposed to 'courtesy deletes' being 'offered'. Achromatic (talk) 20:34, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • In the half year since I began doing this I have made exactly five nominations on this basis. This is quite rare and has a negligible effect on the site's workload. Compare that to the two years of strife that occurred while we had a Daniel Brandt biography and he didn't want it. We earn goodwill this way, with virtually no downside. I have no objection to merging significant content elsewhere. DurovaCharge! 21:51, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • It is not clear to me that the "dead tree" standard provides a clear boundary. I consider the various Marquis Who's Who to be a series of specialized encyclopedia. Its entries tend to run about the same size as a small Wikipedia entry. What if Angela showed up in their "Who's Who of American Women"? Would that count as a dead tree? I also point out that, among the people listed in Category:Wikipedia people, Angela has been translated into several other languages. Only Jimbo, Larry and Anthere have been translated into more languages.--Laughitup2 (talk) 09:48, 8 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]
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. DurovaCharge! 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. DurovaCharge! 00:47, 6 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]
Sorry what is not neutral here? Is there a disputed fact? Giano (talk) 22:21, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Change to Delete and redirect per a below clarification from Durova. I still think Angela is notable, but offering living people the chance to opt out if they aren't bulletproof notable, and they ask, probably doesn't hurt. Lawrence Cohen 21:01, 6 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]
    • The reasons people want their biographies removed are often quite personal. It doesn't seem right to demand of them that they explain those reasons in public (and in a permanent record) to the satisfaction of strangers. The aim here is to recover some dignity and privacy, not to lose more of it. DurovaCharge! 03:07, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • The use of the phrase 'dignity' here is an appeal to emotion, NPOV if you will. I fail to see anything "undignified" in her page, and one would hope, through the use of appropriate editorial discretion, that any content that made it to her, or indeed any, page, would be as dignified as warranted by its content. As for privacy, I'm not sure how a biography that details no more about her than do pages offering her bio of her own volition invades her privacy? Achromatic (talk) 20:44, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, although I respect her wishes, she's notable. Also, these follow up notes to the closing admin are getting tiresome. Yonatan talk 02:54, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete if she would like to have it deleted. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 03:06, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable. It is most [[Ironic]]when the wiki methodology backfires on its promoters. --arkalochori |talk| 03:31, 6 December 2007 (UTC) This user has been blocked by a checkuser for abusing multiple accounts. Sarah 13:13, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever, OTRS Cabal. Whatever. Miranda 13:36, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Merge and redirect to Wikia per nom per arguments below this one. No offense to Angela, but there's no notability per WP:BIO outside Wikia, so might as well either delete or merge the article to Wikia and leave a redirect. Giano and others' behavior here is disconcerting, as well. --Coredesat 08:01, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't see why this is disconcerting, we are talking about a woman who feels she is sufficiently notable and of interest to the public to put up her own biographical details, complete with photographs on the internet. [15] [16] So we are not talking about someone wanting privacy or being fearful of others knowing what she looks like. Which I could understand. However, the difference between the biography here and the biographical details that Angela herself publishes is, in theory at least, she has less control over the content of the bio here. If a deletion here is permitted where will this precedent take us? Giano (talk) 08:26, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was referring to comments directed at the nominator. But moving past that, someone starting a personal website about themselves doesn't make them meet any notability guideline (otherwise we would be flooded with useless bios of every single person who owns a website); the website's not a reliable source by the definition given in policy and guidelines. It seems counter-intuitive, but that's pretty much what it says. --Coredesat 09:16, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Trust me on this one, I would prefer not to direct any comment ever to the nominator but one does have to answer her, as she seems everpresent in Wikipedia. Giano (talk) 09:18, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, at any rate I reread my last statement and it makes little sense, so I changed to merge (not delete). --Coredesat 09:19, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep, clearly passes notability criteria. Redrocketboy 10:57, 6 December 2007 (UTC)Delete, I'm convinced by arguments on here and my talk page. Redrocketboy 16:18, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete since she (a) wants it deleted (I think she opened a previous AfD) and (b) isn't so notable that the absence of her article would make us lose credibility as an encyclopaedia. ElinorD (talk) 11:02, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - If Angela wants it deleted herself, then we must uphold her request and delete or rather (#REDIRECT Wikia) it to Wikia....makes more sense...--Cometstyles 11:17, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 11:22, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Cometstyles. --Roosa (talk) 11:47, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per ElinorD . She doesn't want this - we don't need this - so why be nasty.--Docg 12:22, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete non-notable person. How simple is that? So she works for Wikia. That does not make her notable. She wrote a book. That does not make her notable. That's it. Still not sure why we ever had this article in the first place. ⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 12:54, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete due to woeful lack of non-trivial indepednent sources primarily about this person. With every passing month, more and more publications completely fail to talk about her. Guy (Help!) 13:27, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I had to think about this because a couple of months ago I used this article myself when handling a media request for someone to do a segment about Wikipedia for an Australian morning television program.I found the article handy but (no offense, Angela)I think Angela falls in the wishywashy land between truly notable and truly not notable and in such cases I prefer to defer to the subject's wishes as far as possible. So if Angela would prefer it deleted, then certainly I think we should abide by that and delete it. Sarah 13:39, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Absolutely notable enough. The fulfilling of a request is not a given, as you remain at the mercy of the cabal, so we determine whether someone are notable, not the person on the bio in question (otherwise, why are we voting here at the moment) And a suggestion: requests for removals of bios should not be a community decision, but fulfilled without discussion. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 13:51, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Angela Beesley is a co-founder and vice president for community relations of Wikia.[1] Involved in Wikipedia since 2003, Beesley was elected to the Board of Trustees of the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation in 2004, and re-elected in 2005. During this time, she was active in editing content and setting policy, such as privacy policy, within the Foundation.[2] She resigned from the board in July 2006.[3] Beesley has contrasted her work with wikis to her earlier work with the Open Directory Project, which she found to be much more closed and hierarchical.[4] Since February 21, 2006, she has been a member of the Communications Committee of the Wikimedia Foundation.[5] She also chairs the Foundation's Advisory Board.[6] In October 2004, 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.[7]
does not belong at Wikia and would have the appearance of Durova and others yet again trying to hide something. Do what is best for Wikipedia and don't add yet another incident for our critics to take to the newspapers. WAS 4.250 (talk) 15:09, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please set those considerations aside. I link to the nominations of Seth Finkelstein and Daniel Brandt that I proposed on the same basis. Mr. Finkelstein himself has come to this discussion to support the nomination. DurovaCharge! 15:55, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Funny how "our critics" never want to "take it to the newspaper" when we argue about biographies of fat kids who get made fun of on Youtube. It is rarely possible to write an encyclopedia-quality biographical article that respects NPOV and Undue Weight about people who are notable for a single event. Thatcher131 17:15, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


  • Keep because notable, not in the borderline notability bracket, who are the only ones who should have the ability to get their own article removed. There should also not be the appearance of favouritism/special treatment if someone knows or requests something of a clique on wikipedia.Merkinsmum 15:17, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is neither favoritism nor the appearance of it. As stated in the nomination, I proposed courtesy deletions for both Daniel Brandt and Seth Finkelstein on the same basis as this discussion. Both are prominent critics of Wikipedia. The WP:BLP policy had loosened a bit to allow room for that. On both instances I used a "dead trees standard", which means if someone isn't famous enough to be in any print encyclopedia then we'll extend this courtesy upon request. So politicians, rock stars, serial killers, etc. are probably all covered in specialty encyclopedias and don't get this courtesy. Anyone else does, and my nominations have been rigidly consistent with that principle. DurovaCharge! 15:51, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Durova, it is not your place to make and define policy. this is an encyclopedia not a trade directory that people choose to be in or out of. We are supposed to be building the most comprehensive encyclopedia ever, that cannot be achieved if people who are considered to be notable can elect to be in or out - do you imagine Howard Hughes would have chosen to be here? Angela is notable wether she likes it or not. She is not a recluse. She is not afraid of posting her own details and images to the internet. There are no grounds for deletion whatsoever. Giano (talk) 16:04, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongest Possible Delete. Stubby unencyclopedic cruft like this is what is taking down Wikipedia's quality. I'm saying it again: just because there's references about someone does NOT make them inherently notable. If we are going to start writing stubs on every Wikimedian who's been in the news, then you might as well do me next. Here's some sources, am I notable? No. Neither is Angela. ^demon[omg plz] 16:30, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Quoting Angela: "Thanks for pointing it out. I didn't know it was there, and it's incorrect for that page to claim the nom was "per my request". Angela. 03:04, 5 December 2007 (UTC)" So did she in fact request this deletion, or did she not? Lawrence Cohen 20:32, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Here's the full sequence of events. I had been conversing with a student who's writing a thesis about Wikipedia when the subject of Angela Beesley's biography came up. So I sent a follow-up query to Angela. She and I had communicated briefly last June and back then she had expressed that she'd rather the biography come down than stay up, but had said no thanks to the idea of a deletion nomination. Someone else had nominated her biography for deletion not long after I discussed it with her. Since then nearly six months had passed and three biographies had all come down per nominations I had made. So I contacted Angela again and asked if she'd like me to try for this again. She gave the go-ahead, which I understood to be a request. Around the time she made that post she contacted me to clarify that I'd stated her wishes a little too strongly. I offered to refactor in any way she wanted, but she decided to let the nomination stand because she thought it would have a better chance of success this way. I apologized for the misunderstanding and abided by her decision. DurovaCharge! 20:47, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • As her agent for the deletion process, are you making her aware of the debate and what a bad image it is creating for her? She is coming across as being in the same ilk as Brandt. She now has the appearance of being an opponent of Wikipedia openness. As a contributor she should let he own voice be heard. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 21:37, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I fail to see the value judgements you infer. This nomination is based upon an objective standard. Ms. Beesley is welcome to comment here if she wishes, and did inform me of her one misgiving. I would do this for anyone who met the same standard and confirmed with me that they wanted it. DurovaCharge! 21:46, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It gives the appearance that she is using private communications to arrange for the deletion of her biography by others. This is the type of behavior that made Microsoft look bad, and it looks even worse when Wikia people are doing a similar thing. I am assuming that her not speaking up, is a tacit admission that she is arranging with others to use the AFD process to eliminate her own biography. Which is odd, since she has a blog with even more information in it. Or is this an elaborate prank, so that supporters of Brandt can point to the hypocrisy? I don't know, but either way it looks bad. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 22:27, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I approached Ms. Beesley on both occasions, although the first one came by a proxy referral that originated with Daniel Brandt. Microsoft offered to pay a blogger to alter an article. I receive no compensation. Furthermore, this is one of five deletion noms that I have done on the same grounds and in the same manner. It would take a real stretch of the imagination to construe impropriety out of that. One can't guard completely against off-the-wall theories, so I'll just have to point to WP:AGF regarding my conduct and hers. DurovaCharge! 22:45, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The nominator appears to have been in error on this one: Angela herself (at [17]) states that she did not request this. Therefore, the principle which Durova suggests (courtesy deletion for a not-terribly-notable subject who requests it) does not apply. In addition, I think that Angela is notable. Therefore, I say keep: and have to point out that I wonder if the nominator deliberately mislead us. - Philippe | Talk 20:46, 6 December 2007 (UTC) - I struck through my previous comment because I'm convinced the nominator did not purposely mislead us. - Philippe | Talk 20:52, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not sufficiently notable, as shown by the failure to establish additional grounds for notability after previous deletion debates. Sam Blacketer (talk) 20:55, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Her reasonable request for deletion should be respected. BCST2001 (talk) 23:01, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Angela is a long standing experienced wikipedian and she tells us that she does not believe she is notable enough for an article. I think she is right. In any event her notability is marginal so we should respect her wishes. --Bduke (talk) 23:10, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To respond to the above which I had an edit conflict with, Angela has consistently said she does want an article. Whether she knew about this AfD does not matter. --Bduke (talk) 23:14, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Surely you meant to write doesn't want an article? :) Redrocketboy 23:19, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I did. Thanks. There is so much edit conflict here, I did not read it before saving.--Bduke (talk) 23:35, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Clearly notable. Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 23:16, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable; to the extent that Jimmy Wales is notable. A courtesy for her would be to keep the article polite, accurate, and Nice (talk) 01:48, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Can we redirect to Irony? Either way Brandt and his followers get more fodder to criticize Wikipedia in the WikiTruth wiki. Maybe this was an elaborate trap to make Wikipedia look bad and to give Wikitruth more to write about. The same person nominated the Brandt deletion and this one, and each time Wikitruth gets more to write about. Can we close this debate and start on number 8? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 02:26, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further Comment to the comment above. What I see is basically a benign article that passes the notibility criteria and shows the subject in a positive light and for some reason that most of us don't know the subject wants it deleted. I've been reading through the deletion discussion of Daniel Brandt and Seth Finkelstein, and Mr Finkelstein mentioned that he wanted his article deleted because it was an attractive nuisance. Could this also be the reason why Ms. Beesley wants her article deleted? If this is the case then I think it looks bad for wikipedia because it looks like one of the high ups doesn't have faith in the wikipedia model (at least for BLP articles). To use an analogy, it looks like the CEO for McDonalds refusing to eat at there because it's unhealthy food. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 03:57, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Although I appreciate the concern, I don't think anything bad is likely to materialize. If Mr. Brandt objects I suppose we could do a reversal and restore his article also. That's called consistency. :) DurovaCharge! 04:30, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep First, she is notable, and remains in the public eye because of her public speaking. Speeches by and interviews with her show up in things like Harvard Business School case studies (here), publications of the Association for Computing Machinery (here), apologizing for vandalism to the press two weeks ago here. These are three recent examples, all more recent than the last time (AFD#3) I opined that she is notable. Because of her association with so many wikis, filtering out the reliable sources from the unreliable ones remains difficult. But she is clearly notable, and notability is permanant. Once notable, always notable. (Though the usual frictions of history - fires, invasions, record decay, etc... destroys the proof that we as an encyclopedia need over the span of centuries.) Second, the subject here did not request that the page be nominated for deletion; she explictly says that claim is incorrect. Third, it is in Wikipedia's best interest not to even be seen as deleting an article on one of its former leaders at the request of that leader. The potential reputational damage to Wikipedia is too big. If we could do it on the basis of non-notability that would be one thing - but we can't do so honestly. So keep is both the outcome that accords with policy and guidelines and is the one that is best for Wikipedia. GRBerry 04:44, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Don't believe it unless she requests it publicly. This is on it's 7th nomination, why persist? --Charitwo talk 05:26, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Consensus has moved toward deletion/redirect upon request for not-very-notable BLP subjects. How do you define consensus? A few Wikipedians with clout don't speak for everyone. The last Daniel Brandt AFD remains controversial. The last Finkelstein AFD had about 18 keep arguments. Fishkin was snowballed after five comments, none of which provided evidence that the participants looked for sources. There is no consensus for deletion by demand. Zagalejo^^^ 05:52, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I define consensus as the net result of three or four previous discussions in the past half year (depending on whether you include the Bush example). Those all ended in deletion or merge/redirects. I also define consensus in terms of the WP:BLP policy change, which was something where I had no involvement. BTW I believe the Rand Fishkin discussion ran the full five days and didn't get a snowball closure. It was simply a near-unanimous decision. DurovaCharge! 23:29, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'll take back what I said about the Fishkin discussion. It seemed like it was a snowball closure, because all the comments occurred within a short time span, but it was indeed open for five days. Sorry about that.
      • I still disagree that the Brandt and Finkelstein dicussions reached a true consensus, though. The Brandt decision, anyway, went to DRV, and at least one prominenent editor left because of it. And it's a bit bold to assume that the 14th Brandt AFD was the one we magically got right.
      • I don't like to be confrontational, but it just bugs me when people suggest that the whole community is OK with courtesy deletions. No - only part of the community tolerates these decisions. Zagalejo^^^ 04:26, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep notable, well written, I don't see the downside to having it.Heathcliff (talk) 07:14, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per Sirex and 'co-founder and vice president for community relations of Wikia.' -Dureo (talk) 11:20, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oh and note to closer, this is probably my first AFD in a while, sorry inconsistant and all, though I think that SEO guy I voted for last time was pretty notable too. -Dureo (talk) 11:20, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • In my earlier comment I meant only to suggest that a particular individual's participation may have been influenced by an unrelated conflict he had with me. I have no grievance with you. Best regards. DurovaCharge! 21:53, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dekeep - I concur that the British woman in question is not notable, but neither are thousands of other topics of interest on this website. If these equally silly pages are removed, this one should go as well. If they stay, this stays. A general trend is that if a website is considered notable by Wikipedia's unpolls, spin-off articles are acceptable. At the end of the day there are just too many references to the Internet on this website. One might argue that this is acceptable, since the aforementioned self-proclaimed encyclopedia is located on the Internet, this however is a misnomer. Either take all the trash out or don't take it out at all: Don't pick through the recycling for the particular piece of rubbish you are fond of. --Henry W. Schmitt (talk) 12:20, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I disagree with deleting an article just because the subject of the article has asked that it be deleted. That seems to be a dangerous precedent to set and a slippery slope. A subject is either notable and warrants an article, or not, but the subject's preference for having an article or having an article deleted shouldn't play into it. Rray (talk) 12:26, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Another Elonkaesque vanity page. Mindraker (talk) 16:00, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Durova and BLP. Eusebeus (talk) 16:06, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, it's time for Wikipedia to grow up and get past the ridiculous point where it takes 14 nominations to finally get rid of an article about a person of questionable notability who doesn't particularly want an article. Brandt's article should have been deleted long before it actually was. Here is our chance to get it right with this individual in half the number of nominations.--Isotope23 talk 16:13, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Because no one is more deeply affected by the existence of a Wikipedia biography than its living subject. Also because - as the long Daniel Brandt debacle showed - it's a waste of everyone's time to stand on rigid principle in these borderline cases. Wikipedia and the public haven't lost much by making Seth Finkelstein a redlink, Seth's happier, and site volunteers have more time on their hands for other productive endeavors. I think the question should be, why should we not delete or merge/redirect if Ms. Beesley wants it? Any encyclopedic content could go into other articles. DurovaCharge! 21:50, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • We should not delete the article just because Ms. Beesley wants it unless we're willing to delete any article whose subject requests deletion. I gave your "dead trees" guideline idea some thought before expressing an opinion here. But I think it's too subjective, and it seems like a rationale for helping someone out with a preference, which IMO is a weak rationale. We would presumably refuse to delete the Warren Buffett or Stephen King articles if they requested it. So we shouldn't delete any article just because the subject requests it. The Wikipedia already has a lower standard of notability than a paper encyclopedia. I might favor an increase in the notability standard, but just deleting an article because the subject requests it just seems silly. And I don't see how having an article written about you is going to "deeply affect" you. Even if it does, what if it "deeply affects" Bill Clinton? The rationale should be applied to everyone if it's applied at all. Rray (talk) 23:30, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I put some very hard thought into the matter before deciding on the "dead trees standard" for precisely the reasons you articulate. It would be hard to write an encyclopedia of horror literature without an entry for Stephen King, for example. At some point of notability people are actual public figures who have press agents of their own to handle potential problems. Roughly that corresponds to where a specialty encyclopedia of XYZ starts to cover them. At any rate, it's the kind of standard that people could actually go to a library and check and cite to settle a debate. If you have a better idea then by all means present it. This was the best I could do. DurovaCharge! 23:38, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I know you did put hard thought into it, and I mean no disrespect by disagreeing with you. I think a better idea is if they meet our notability criteria, then we don't delete their article based on their request. If that's not acceptable, we should revise our notability criteria. Having two notability criteria so that we can justify deleting articles as a courtesy to their subject seems unfair to the people who meet the proposed dead trees criteria. Rray (talk) 23:51, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Would you rather restore Daniel Brandt's biography, with all the conflict that carried? If we follow your reasoning then we'd have to to the same thing for everybody, not just people with Foundation ties. DurovaCharge! 00:08, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not that familiar with the debate there, but I think he's certainly notable enough to warrant his own article here. Was there something different about his situation? (Besides him not being associated with the Foundation?) Rray (talk) 00:18, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I clicked on the link for Brandt's AfD discussion, but it looks like the actual discussion has been blanked. Based on the reasons cited, then yeah, I would say restore his article. Rray (talk) 00:23, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I reviewed the link, but I don't think the amount of drama caused by someone ought to be a criterion for deletion either. Someone's either notable enough for inclusion, or they're not. Having two standards just to do a favor for someone seems wrong to me, although I'm sure it's well-intentioned. But frankly, I think the Daniel Brandt article should have been kept too. Rray (talk) 03:10, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't mean any disrespect, and I'm sure we'll probably eventually just agree to disagree, but why would we do something for a "trickle" of people if we wouldn't do it for one person? Please understand my intention is not to mock; I'm honestly curious about why you think that. Rray (talk) 14:36, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree. There's no sense in having a guideline we won't consistently apply. If courtesy deletions become a trend, we might as well delete everything that doesn't meet the dead trees standard - including several FAs. Better to be consistent than to purposely introduce random gaps in our coverage. Zagalejo^^^ 04:39, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • We're dealing with the intersection of the WP:V policy and the WP:BLP policy. No encyclopedia has ever been so large before that it's really gotten into this question. Used to be, encyclopedias didn't cover living people at all. Then the constraints of print publishing and paid writing kept their coverage at a level where only very famous people were included. We're embarking on new territory with these discussions. And I'm not sure merge/redirect would introduce random gaps in coverage, if you think deletion goes too far. DurovaCharge! 18:06, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • One might say the former limits were paper-based whereas the current limits are more BLP based, there is an argument that we should lower notability threshold but allow people to opt-out when they do not meet a far higher level of notability (to which Angela isn't even close), ie its people's desire not to be included that is the new limit, or at least ought to be. Thanks, SqueakBox 19:11, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete passes the criteria of WP:BIO but there are degrees of notability and this doesn't rank very highly. If the subject wants it deleted then their wishes should be expected. A redirect to Wikia would also be a good idea. Hut 8.5 16:54, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and Redirect to Wikia. I was sitting on the fence waiting for Angela to directly make a statement in this nomination and she just did. Kevs (talk) 21:37, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per User:Isotope23. She's barely notable anyway.--kingboyk (talk) 01:27, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, marginally notable. Everyking (talk) 02:41, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - If we were to be looking at this AfD without the overlay of Angela being someone who is very well known and respected in this community, would people's opinions be different? If we were to take "just the facts" and leave the person behind, we would find: A female entrepreneur and philanthropist whose name pulls up 45K+ google-hits (only 5% of the first 500 were about another woman with the same name). A woman who has lectured around the world on wikis, Wikipedia (Alexa rating #8) and new social networking software and systems. Her own Wikia Inc has an Alexa rating of 564. There were at least 40 links to articles from widely varying sources in which she was the primary subject or interviewee. She has an article on at least 7 other language Wikipedias, and at least a dozen more on the Crawl.com series of online encyclopedias. If I was to look a random person up and find these facts, I would probably conclude that the random person was notable enough for a Wikipedia article. I am not going to say either keep or delete - this isn't my battlefield - but I will note that the "bright line" at which the community is saying a person isn't notable has shifted an awful lot in the last year. Risker (talk) 04:08, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Wikia. Capitalistroadster (talk) 04:24, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Article satisfies WP:V and WP:BIO; in my opinion, subject is notable as a co-founder of Wikia. Also, multiple AFDs are silly. --Goobergunch|? 04:50, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per previous. Calling corruption "courtesy" doesn't make it smell right. Cleduc (talk) 07:59, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - not notable of-wiki. Maser (Talk!) 08:03, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Wikia —Moondyne 08:40, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable, especially in relation to Wikipedia, and the explanations of Angela's support for this AFD don't really hold water. Discombobulator (talk) 10:30, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I think that Daniel Brandt is right when he says that if a subject of a BLP wants his or her article deleted that that should carry a lot of weight in the deletion consideration. Ironically, I think this is the first time I've ever seen some of my distinguished colleagues above taking a position that agrees with Brandt's position on something. Cla68 (talk) 13:12, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This whole thread is becoming ridiculous. Angela's role regarding Wikipedia etc. has made her notable. Angela has been more than happy to promote herself on her own websites. Wikipedia is the most comprehensive encyclopedia ever. If Wikipedia starts to delete its own on the "I don't like it! - I don't want it - give me a sweetie" spoilt child basis then we may all just as well shut up shop now and go to the pub; because we will be justly ridiculed. Lets lead by example in matters such as this. Now for heaven's sake close this thread now for the good of the encyclopedia. Giano (talk) 19:42, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please avoid personal attacks and assume good faith. I don't happen to think that a nomination by this person at this time is particularly wise. However, consensus can change - it took 15 attempts to get rid of Brandt, so this will not be the last debate on this particular article. Everyone needs to calm down here.--Docg 21:55, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I think that she is notable and the article should remain here. Man, we need some sort of double jeopardy rule... Icestorm815 (talk) 22:01, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete without reference to the subject's wishes. Her notability claim is as co-founder of Wikia -- that's it. (I assume the book chapter doesn't count toward that.) That level of notability falls below article requirements (see WP:BIO), and the fact that she's mentioned in the Wikia article should suffice. Biruitorul (talk) 22:26, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Minor Note to AFD participants people have been under the impression that this is the 7th AFD for this subject but it actually is the 13th AFD. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 00:53, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually it can't be the 13th: the naming isn't consistent so there's been at least one duplicate page created by accident (mine). You might want to check the others to see whether some of those other pages were also false starts. Apologies for the confusion; it was unintentional. DurovaCharge! 01:38, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Navel gazing and love of the drama aside: change the name, location, company name and try to place such a page on WP. It will be labeled NN, vanity and I don't know what and will be vaporized in no time.
Personal opinion: this kind of high drama AfD's cannot be reasonably solved by counting votes. The decision should be made by some cabal or a committee. Even wrong decision is better than the never ending stream of vague opinions and and equally vague counteropinions. Pavel Vozenilek (talk) 00:57, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rather than relying on some cabal or going through the drama of repeated AFDs why not just raise the bar across the board for notability of BLP articles? It sounds to me like the cost benefit ratio for the less notable BLP articles is not that great. Lets just blow them all away. This will mean that some FA's and GA's might get deleted. So be it. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 01:15, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Personal opinion: this kind of high drama AfD's cannot be reasonably solved by counting votes. The decision should be made by some cabal or a committee. Even wrong decision is better than the never ending stream of vague opinions and and equally vague counteropinions. Pavel Vozenilek (talk) 00:57, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I am in general against Deleting articles for technical reasons (the bandwidth consumed in the discussion is far greater harm to the project than the existence of the article) with the exception of articles that are plainly bullshit (and non-topics or nonsensical ones) and the exception of articles on BLP. The fact is, BLPs of non-notables are inherently subject to abuse, slander, and bringing the project into disrepute, if not legal action. The questions here are (1) is this person notable, and (2) why bother deleting it if it is (rational != motivation)? The latter has been answered clearly. As to my motivation to vote, it is because the rationales offered to show (1), that she is notable, are very, very weak. As a counter-example, I offer my real-life persona: (1) made public speeches, (2) been the President of a for-profit corporation, (3) owned a domain, (4) sold products and services to the public, (5) taught at a university, (6) quoted in a major media source, (7) hosted notable persons such as Richard Stallman. Despite this, I doubt anyone would find me notable. That fact is, unless an in-print article specifically pertains to her, she is not notable. And please remember, that [shit exists] does not justify more of it. --Otheus (talk) 01:18, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Any borderline notable subject should have the right to request permanent deletion of their article. ~ priyanath talk 01:23, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. chocolateboy (talk) 02:01, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I think this article could easily qualify for delete without the subject asking for it. Given that she has asked for it to be deleted, I think it's best for WP to do so. IronDuke 02:18, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, due to Wikipedia's growing popularity and presence, if this article is deleted now, it will be necessary to recreate it in the future. silsor (talk) 01:24, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The article is referenced and asserts notability. Comparison with Brandt is invalid. The latter is only notable through Wikipedia-related matters, particularly the intra-wikipedia matters. Comparing a stalker with a successful enterprener who receives a wide coverage in press is laughable. The article is not only non-libelous but highly (and deservingly) positive towards its subject. The article needs to be closely watched for trollish attacks but we have enough admins who police rather than write, so this should not be a problem. Wikipedia owes it to its readers to give information on the notable people of this caliber and there is no valid reason to delete. --Irpen 03:22, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Angela_Beesley_(7th_nomination)&oldid=1179012735"