Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Angela Beesley (6th nomination)

Angela Beesley

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

- 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)[reply]

'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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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. Yechiel Man 13:54, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Going to Texas. Edison 14:22, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

Common Sense. Randolph Stetson 16:56, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Delete. Semi-notable, and subject has requested deletion. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:23, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per news, TV coverage. Notable. Cornea 21:27, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not a public figure and doesnt want the article on her, ie re the nominator, SqueakBox 23:49, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
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. Mister.Manticore 01:46, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

WP:!VOTE and WP:AFD Mister.Manticore 04:06, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. WP:NN EnabledDanger 03:03, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
  - 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
- What's preventing us from creating an article when Angela's notability increases? - Ta bu shi da yu 13:38, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]