Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Angela Beesley (3rd nomination)

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Xed (talk | contribs) at 23:43, 12 July 2006. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Angela Beesley

I'm sick of this article being trolled. It's full of lies and nonsense. My justification for making a third nomination is that my circumstances have changed significantly since the last AfDs - I have resigned from the Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation. Given that this was previously kept on the grounds I was on that Board, there is no longer any reason for this page to be kept. This has already been deleted on the French and German Wikipedias. Angela. 02:41, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I closed the AfD early, but have re-opened it per objections on my talk page, which nullifies the basis for early closure - that there are no dissenting opinions. Kimchi.sg 11:32, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. Who is this Angela person I keep hearing about? Mackensen (talk) 02:46, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn apparently ;) --Pilotguy (roger that) 02:48, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Alphachimp talk 02:56, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, dear, I'm worried about your resignation not being enough for the people that believe you're encyclopedic... Something like "she was member of the BoT, but later resigned" =(. Since I think you're not encyclopedic (sorry =)) and keeping this article do harm someone indeed (you), I would delete it. I think she's not notable, she agrees, and doesn't like the effects of being mentioned in WP ("Why are popular people popular? - Because they appear on TV. - Why do they appear on TV? - Because they are popular!"). WP couldn't have an article on me just because every wikipedian would like the idea. I'm not popular, and certainly wouldn't like to be mentioned here. So I understand Angela. We don't pretend to be a tabloid, but an encyclopedia, so let's keep on focus. People do have private lifes. --euyyn 02:57, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per my belief that in relatively borderline cases we should respect subjects' wishes if they don't want to have an article. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:58, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete within-wikipedia relevance isn't the same as real-life-relevance, the latter being the rule by wich we measure and discuss entries. So what's good for the goose should be for the gander. Just say no to self-referentially (think of wikicommunity vanity), specially that the subject of the article itself isn't particualrly excited abut having the entry. -- Drini 03:12, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. She does a marvellous job for the project but her notability is marginal and she has requested its deletion. Capitalistroadster 03:25, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Baseball,Baby! balls•strikes 03:27, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and protect against re-creation for a year. Better able to judge if there is anything encyclopedic FloNight talk 03:29, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for Angela. Blnguyen | rant-line 03:35, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 03:38, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and protect against re-creation for a while. Not really very notable (no offense intended). --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 04:12, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Lacks notability outside of mostly background self-referential wikipedia activities. Ansell 04:38, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. Very nice picture though. ~ trialsanderrors 04:56, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Per nom. Cnwb 05:23, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 06:51, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Generally speaking I'm wary of requests by biographical-article subjects to have their own pages removed, although in this case the notable bits could probably be moved elsewhere and the main article turned into a protected redirect. --Alan Au 07:16, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment on comment Content about Angela is already present in Wikipedia articles. I know because I've been doing anticipatory delinking of her name as I remove a banned user's edits from the same articles. FloNight talk 07:29, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Euthanize per nom. The only person who at Wikipedia is notable enough is Jimbo. --69.226.214.232 08:05, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Subjects of biographical articles don't get to have them removed simply because they are "sick of them". For the reasons that I gave in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Angela Beesley (2nd nomination), which explicitly are not based upon the argument that this person is on a board of a foundation, despite what Angela writes in the nomination above, and which are unaffected by Angela's change of circumstance, Keep. Uncle G 11:36, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Self-referential, non-notable. -- GWO
  • Keep. While I'm disheartened that she's being trolled based on the article or her status, we can't be having articles based on the desires of the subjects. It appears she'd meet basic WP:BIO requirements, and I believe that we have articles on the other founation members as well. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:06, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • There are only articles on three of the other Board members, but my point in the nomination is that I've resigned, so that's irrelevant. Angela. 12:30, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • What an argument! Do we delete articles about politicians once they're out of office? All that matters is that you attained this position once; whether you currently still hold it makes no difference to the notability of the article. Margana 20:36, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete self-referential, troll magnet. The Slough connection is a sure sign of non-notability, even if she has escaped Down Under ;-) Just zis Guy you know? 12:07, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - co-founder of a notable company, interviewed heavily for a major national newspaper, presenter at two conferences important in their fields, and thus meets WP:BIO. I understand the desire to respect another Wikipedian's privacy, but the fact that we like her and that she doesn't like being written about (for the second point, see Daniel Brandt) should have nothing to do with our judgment as to whether she is notable. Captainktainer * Talk 12:12, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per Uncle G and Captainktainer. With due respect to Ms. Beesley's desire for privacy, she is the co-founder and VP of a notable company and has had sufficient third-party media coverage. Powers 13:15, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's Wikipedia that's had media coverage, not me. I just happened to be talking about it. The same goes for the conferences I've spoken at - I was there because people want to know about Wikipedia, not because they especially want to listen to me. Angela. 13:39, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and merge - any useful (no offense!) info can be added to the currently very stubby Wikia article. I think we should respect anybody's wishes not to feature.Yomangani 13:56, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete selfreferential --Astrokey44 14:11, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: This is a tricky case, and could be an important precedent. I hope you don't mind if I break the flow of the AfD to respond in some more detail. Let's pretend for a moment that this project was completely unreleated to Wikipedia and Wikimedia, because I don't think that should have any influence one way or another.

    Angela is borderline notable like many people associated with Wikipedia. Take the people associated with the German chapter and the German Wikipedia, some of whom (e.g. Kurt Jansson) have toured national media, spoken at important conferences, or accepted important awards on behalf of the Foundation many times. Or take Danny Wool, Brion Vibber, Tim Starling, all of whom are doing critical work for the Foundation on a full-time salary (Brion in particular has also spoken about this work at many occasions, including a speech at Google which is available on Google Video). None of them has, or should have, an article. This is because Wikipedia is essentially a media magnet: it's such a buzzword that it's very easy to be interviewed, invited to conferences about it, etc. When does a person associated with Wikimedia become notable then? I would argue that the moment their personal role in the project becomes the center of media reports, and not just once, but on a regular basis, we need to re-evaluate our assessment.

    Wikimedia alone would make it a borderline case. Certainly, she's historically been a very important asset for the Foundation, and being on the Board is in some ways a highly distinguished position. However, the judgment of her significance is one that should be independently established. Wikia makes the situation somewhat more complicated. Angela is the co-founder, and the company has received $4 million venture capital. It would not exist without her, and already hosts several notable wikis, including Uncyclopedia and Memory Alpha (over 1,500 wikis overall). She is not the CEO of the company; however, she does play a critical management role. Angela has made the point in the past that it's not yet clear whether the company is successful. Financially speaking, that is certainly true.

    Looking at other articles in the same space, such as Wetpaint or PeanutButterWiki, we don't have articles about their CEO or key personnel, though arguably, Wikia is larger and already more successful. I would say that Wikia makes Angela notable enough that it's not a closed and shut case, i.e. her notability should at the very least be re-evaluated a year from now.

    Given that it's a borderline case where reasonable people can argue either way, I would say that the subject's opinion should be the decisive criterion. I believe we've already done this in a couple of recent cases. I've actually seen the same argument made for Daniel Brandt, but there I think the notability (NameBase founder, Google Watch founder, very prominent WP critic, activist) is much more clearly established. But, we need to be careful not to give Angela preferential treatment because she is a Wikimedian, and the "troll magnet" argument shouldn't weigh too strongly either. Whatever precedent we establish here needs to be applied consistently to other articles. As noted above, I vote for delete and re-evaluate in one year right now, with the rationale: "borderline case, subject requests it to be deleted." I might be convinced to change my vote to "keep", though.--Eloquence* 14:52, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Let's pretend for a moment that this project was completely unreleated to Wikipedia and Wikimedia, because I don't think that should have any influence one way or another. — I already did, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Angela Beesley (2nd nomination). As I pointed out there, without giving the Wikimedia Foundation any special consideration and applying our WP:BIO criteria just as one would apply them to anyone else Tim Shell does not satisfy the criteria (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tim Shell) and Angela Beesley does. I strongly suggest that we apply the "no special consideration" principle to your idea that "the subject's opinion should be the decisive criterion". Subjects should base their arguments on our policies and guidelines the same as all other editors. Uncle G 15:49, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • What I mean is that one of our policies should be: If the subject of a borderline biography does not want an article about themselves in Wikipedia, we should respect that. What is or isn't borderline is up to be interpreted by the community.--Eloquence* 15:54, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I think that it then hinges on the definition of "borderline" notability -- is Seth borderline? Is Angela? Is Brandt? I must admit that the Wikia argument weighs rather strongly in favor of keeping the bio, though it remains true that Wikia's financial viability is not yet proven.--Eloquence* 22:04, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I cannot for the life me see how Daniel Brandt is less borderline than Angela Beesley, and he doesn't want his article here either. Powers 18:52, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Seth Finkelstein (AfD discussion) doesn't want an encyclopaedia article about himself, either, for the same "sick of it" reasons as Angela gives. The same applies there as here. Subjects do not, and should not, have any special say-so over the existence of articles about them, either when they want them to exist or when they want them not to exist. Uncle G 19:09, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • But they should have the same rights as anybody else to nominate an article for deletion (whether it is about them or not) and, since they are the authority in the case of their own bio, their opinion has to carry some weight (unless we accuse them of WP:OR). Saying that, anybody nominating any other article for deletion on the grounds that they are sick of it probably wouldn't get as much support for a delete as Angela has here. Yomangani 23:36, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete as per nom. Dionyseus 15:06, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I was surprised when I saw the article in the first place that she met notability requirements to start with. That is the reason behind my vote, and not because it's been getting vandalised or because she's asked for it. -- Francs2000 File:Flag of Buckinghamshire.png 15:11, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom plus lack of Ghits and please protect against recreation. Please don't delete the picure though.--John Lake 15:44, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I'll even take her off of www.wikipedia-watch.org/hive2.html if you delete. Then I can hope that she will reciprocate by nominating my bio for deletion. The deletion of Angela's bio could be a significant precedent, and one that is important to the future of Wikipedia. If you don't delete, I don't think Wikipedia has a future. -Daniel Brandt 66.142.90.22 16:21, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Rebecca 16:33, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Any (current or former) member of the Wikimedia Board - the authority that controls one of the most-visited websites - is notable, and her role in Wikia just adds to that. "I'm sick of this article being trolled" is not a valid reason to delete and shows that Angela is just trying to delete this for personal reasons, not objective encyclopedic ones. But if such a veto is not granted to Daniel Brandt and everyone of similarly limited notability, it shouldn't be granted to Angela either. Margana 17:01, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. 1ne 17:07, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The inaccurate information and nonsense can and should be removed. Trolling can be dealt with as with any other article. Her role was significant and notable. Mexcellent 18:14, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - While "I'm sick of this article being trolled" isn't a valid reason, she fails WP:NN. She may be notable to wikipedia, but notability is determined based on the world at large, not WP. --PresN 18:22, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Special favors. - Xed 18:31, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete extremely NN! never heard of her! Is there anyone here rouge enough to just delete it already? - CrazyRussian talk/email 20:06, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just because you've never heard of her doesn't mean she isn't notable. Also, if you don't know who she is, you aren't paying enough attention... 1ne 20:15, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, for reasons better stated by Uncle G, badlydrawnjeff and Margana than me trying to restate the same. Agent 86 20:29, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Former board member of a major international organization and co-founder of a notable company. I agree that the article should be NPOV and contain only relevant and sourced information, which perhaps does not include much of what it currently contains, but I don't agree that it should be deleted entirely. --Delirium 21:44, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Uncle G now that it's been cleaned-up to Angela's apparent satisfaction (although I might have misinterpreted her reaction, so YMMV). HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 22:01, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I suppose I agree with Margana. Batmanand | Talk 22:31, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep because she meets WP:BIO. If any other subject of an article (think Daniel Brandt) came here asking for the deletion of his/her article, he or she would be met with scorn and insults and plenty of "we can write about whomever we want" statements and the article would be speedily kept. If the article is a troll magnet as has been proposed, clean it up, make it current, and lock it. As numerous people have said numerous times before, being a magnet for vandals and trolls is no reason to delete an article. There are really no grounds for the deletion of this article. Angela Beesley is more notable than Libby Hoeller, I suspect. Erik the Rude 22:40, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, passes the Wikitruth test. [1] If this thing is being trolled by some anonymous f***wits, then just semi-protect it ala the George W. Bush page. We should not be applying double standards on articles about living people. RFerreira 22:52, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is special. We should have an article on this person. What the article should say is a problem. I like the one year idea. What was noteable one year ago. Since then what exactly is so important it must be in the article? Anything in the last one year that is questionable should be eliminated as she is a marginal figure. Yes I know I am making up a rule of thumb. Deleting the article is wrong. Not being human to our friends is wronger. WAS 4.250 23:03, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 23:09, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, notable within the Wikipedia in-group, not notable outside it. I am about to make a test; I don't know how it will come out. I am about to do an online search of The New York Times from 2000-2006 courtesy of a database provided by my public library. I expect that there will be a mention of Jimbo Wales and that there will not be a mention of Angela Beesley. If I am wrong, I will withdraw my vote (if neither appears) or change it to "keep" (if both appear). Dpbsmith (talk) 23:15, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Results: "Jimbo Wales" ("Did you mean Jumbo Wales?): no hits. "Jimmy Wales": 11 hits, all relevant; Earliest: September 20, 2001, "Fact-Driven? Collegial? This Site Wants You," section "Circuits," p. 2. Latest: June 11, 2006, "Growing Wikipedia Revises Its 'Anyone Can Edit' Policy," \Business/Financial p. 1. "James Wales:" No hits. "Angela Beesley" ("Did you mean: Angela Beasley?): No hits. No hits on "Angela Beasley," either. No hits on "Angela and Wikipedia" and none on "Beesley and Wikipedia." My vote stands. Dpbsmith (talk) 23:22, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Gerard Foley, Angela says the article is not correct. Why do you want to use it? --FloNight talk 23:39, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Angela_Beesley_(3rd_nomination)&oldid=63503798"