The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

Angela Beesley[edit]

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

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

  • 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]
  • '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]
  • 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]

Discussion Section 2[edit]

  • Comment - Where do these criteria spring from? - Tiswas(t) 16:52, 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]
  • Sorry if I wasn't clear. I don't agree that it's "common sense." Wikipedia is its own thing, a product of the community that exists in support of it, and of the guidelines and policies by which they've chosen to govern themselves. Those guidelines and policies may not be perfect, and they may be subject to change, but they're there for a reason. If we were to base coverage on what other sources follow, we would sharply curtail the potential of this resource. It could well be that A.B. is not included in any other encyclopedias because they are not as well-equipped as WP to properly assess her notability. Thus, this line of argument will not lead us to the proper place: a determination of her notability. I don't know what the answer is, but I'm pretty sure that this particular line of reasoning is not productive - and the fact that it is not based on any WP policy or guideline would seem to support my position. -Pete 08:36, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • To express this in my own words, there's been a poorly defined gray area and some controversy about what constitutes borderline notability. Some editors have complained that the precedent of courtesy deletions would lead to a slippery slope: either the site would be prone to censorship when people who've had negative press demand deletion of their articles, or that anyone and everyone up to George W. Bush would bow out - thus causing substantial harm to the database. The threshold I've proposed for courtesy deletions is paper-and-ink encyclopedias (including specialty encyclopedias). I understand that carves an exception to WP:NOT and WP:V, yet I consider the tradeoff worthwhile: Wikipedia's attempt to reformulate the concept of encyclopedic content shouldn't cause unwanted disruption to the lives of unwilling subjects. This site has a far larger problem with non-notable people trying to spam a presence here than with notable people asking us to let them out. The courtesy deletion standard I've proposed would earn considerable goodwill with minimal impact on our database (and non-permanent impact since nobody lives forever). DurovaCharge! 01:08, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the explanation, Durova. I appreciate the spirit of what you say, but I think the standard of "ink encyclopedia" is too broad a brush, and would affect different disciplines/cultures/societies in vastly different ways. Though this seems like an important discussion, my present view on this (as explained below) is that there's a reasonable case to be made that A.B. is not sufficiently notable, and that in combination with her request, that's plenty to justify deletion. I would like to continue the discussion of "what's the threshold," but I don't think this is a good place to do it, because I think it's only tangentially relevant to this case. -Pete 01:42, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:!VOTE and WP:AFD FrozenPurpleCube 04:06, 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]
If that's a response to my question above, it's mere speculation that she'll be more notable in future. - Ta bu shi da yu 08:59, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I found that in the third nomination, written by Angela, does make some attempt to spell out her position on whether the article should be deleted. Unfortunately, she did not make much effort to spell out her position - it's clear that she was frustrated by the situation, but not exactly why. I still don't feel like there's sufficient basis for making the right decision. Arguing from notability, she certainly seems notable enough for an article; I don't think notability should be the overriding issue, but it's the only one that's been presented with any clarity. -Pete 19:09, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, that's bc the "personal wishes" thing has had precedent in the deletion of at least one major debate (Daniel Brandt), but is not spelled out as part of policy or guideline anywhere expressly. There is no "WP:Personal" for BLPs like the very clear Notability definition. I personally have left a note on Jimbo's talk page (not that I think he'll do anything if it doesn't come from the admin IRC channel) that a ruling needs to be made on whether to make it policy or not. VanTucky 19:24, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The lack of a clear policy does not prevent Angela from articulating her reasons for requesting deletion more clearly. That's what I'd like to see. -Pete 20:14, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • True. We're not even sure if she still wants deletion, we're just assuming here as it wasn't her but another user who nominated it (per her wish to have it deleted though). However, she may not have nominated it again bc she decided to accept the consensus (or the lack of consensus) that resulted in keeping the article or possibly feels getting involved is a COI. Anyway, you're correct about needing to hear more from her. VanTucky 20:31, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've traded e-mails with her. This is a back burner item for her right now but I firmly believe my voice for deletion is a reflection of her wishes. DurovaCharge! 01:27, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: It makes perfect sense - recall what she said at the start of the last AfD - I'm sick of this article being trolled. It's full of lies and nonsense. . Trolls don't get to vandalize someone's own website. -- Seth Finkelstein 03:04, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, that standard is not policy or guideline anywhere Durova, and is not a concrete reason for deletion. What happened to remembering that Wikipedia is most definitely not a paper encyclopedia, and that different standards apply? Courtesy deletions are only the vaguest interpretation of an already vague "do no harm" admonishment. if you take the policy in context, it goes on to say that the point is to keep Wikipedia from becoming a tabloid. This bio is certainly in no way tabloid-like. This article is no way doing harm to Angela. zip. zero. If yo're so interested in adhereing to paper encyclopedia standards, then Britannica would never not include a notable bio that does no harm just out of courtesy to someone's personal dislike of being the subject of a biography. It's ludicrous, and it totally destroys any attempt at being patently comprehensive. What ever happened to "the sum of all human knowledge"? VanTucky 03:18, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's right, it's my own proposal based upon the recent policy change at WP:BLP, which has no clearly defined upper limit of notability. I agree this carves an exception to the WP:NOT not paper clause and I think it's a reasonable exception: Wikipedia's evolving standards of notability and encyclopedic content are extremely recent developments and most of the people alive today who might be notable made some significant decisions before those standards developed. That is, they chose a career path or made some disclosures in the paper-and-ink era (or at least the pre-Wikipedia's-a-prominent-website era) and just don't want to be on display. If they'd known Wikipedia would come into existence they might have chosen differently. It's not for me - or for anyone who hasn't received a specific assurance from a BLP subject - to presume how much harm a particular biography does or does not do to its subject. Some of the most compelling reasons could be things that the person would certainly not want dissected (and Google indexed) online. To offer one purely hypothetical example, suppose the subject of a BLP article were the target of a stalker. DurovaCharge! 05:54, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure what relevant point you're making with this hypothetical stalker nonsense, but the point I'm trying to make is that the Daniel Brandt article was deleted per "do no harm" and courtesy deletion bc it could never be comprehensive, his actions were more concretely notable than his person, and included what was most certainly tabloid-like content. Angela's stub will most definitely grow as more sourcing and information on her and her activities happens, she is a notable personality not just notable actions, the content is straight-forward and contains none of the tabloid rumors and criticisms of her that pop up on the net, and as such does not fall under the BLP policy. While her notability is certainly arguable, this seems to me to be an attempt to extend courtesy deletion to a subject that is patently not warranted by policy. The "do no harm" clause is in place for the admirable ethical reasons you advocate for Durova, but if no harm is being done, then the deletion (for that reason) is not grounded in policy. VanTucky 15:29, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The example illustrates one reason why it's inappropriate for us to suppose how much harm a BLP article does to its subject. This site's attempts to balance BLP concerns have often undervalued the human factor. As I expressed at the Daniel Brandt and Seth Finkelstein deletion nominations, it's always been my view that ethical decisions where good people disagree should rest in the hands of the individuals who live with the consequences. Angela Beesley lives with the consequences of the Angela Beesley article, not you or I. The policy acknowledges the wishes of a BLP subject as a legitimate factor but is silent about how far semi-notability extends. All I've done is defined a limit that keeps us off a slippery slope. It's a modest expansion of existing precedent, but unlikely to have much effect on our database or to be invoked in very many cases. DurovaCharge! 16:35, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's more than safe to say that neutral information solely about her professional work that appears on her personal publicity site can do no harm. In fact, far more personal info is found on those sites. BLP privacy/ethics does not apply here. VanTucky 16:48, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • To the closing admin: I'd be equally satisfied with a complex merge per the Daniel Brandt closure (move the professional information to related articles, eliminate the personal stuff, and turn this bio into a protected redirect). DurovaCharge! 19:21, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Um, no. This cannot be speedied. The debate as it stands has not reached a sufficient majority consensus. VanTucky 21:50, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • According to the notability/deletion guidelines, the heads and founders of notable corporations (Wikia is a notable corp. It meets notability guidelines and has an extensive article) are considered notable by virtue of runnning/creating the company. Also, she is listed as a coauthor, not just a simple "contributor" (generally, someone who contributes to a major portion of a published work is called an author, as a matter of fact). The sources provided are not sufficient under the usual notability guideline, but they prove her key involvement in Wikia and other projects. VanTucky 21:56, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Having trouble finding the policy you reference, but the equation "company is notable enough to merit an article" = "company is notable enough for its principals to merit articles" does not make sense to me. Nobody is disputing that she is a Wikia founder; a few of the articles would be useful as citations, but they do nothing to help the current discussion - establishing notability, or assessing A.B.'s desires. -Pete 23:49, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see it as a bit more complex than that. One of the articles asserts that A.B. resigned her board membership in the hope that her article would be deleted. I'm not sure how accurate that assessment is, but that's what the article says. That's not mere desire to get the article deleted, that's taking a significant stand. More important, though, is the Sidney article, which predates the deletion kerfluffle. It introduced A.B. as an "educational researcher and expert on online collaborative authorship," and goes on to explore her perspectives on many things Wiki. Unlike the sources I looked at before, that one is centrally focused on her, not merely on her title within an organization. The list of media appearances seems significant to me as well; it looks like she was not merely promoting an organization, but exploring many aspects of online collaboration in those appearances. So, all of this makes her more notable than I previously understood. I'm still undecided on whether that makes her "notable enough" for a WP article. -Pete 21:32, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here's a little reminder of WP:Notability...""Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than trivial but less than exclusive." Which I take to mean that with all the many smaller mentions, key-note speaker appearances, and at least one definitively significant news mention, she has significant coverage. This is backed up by, "The number needed varies depending on the depth of coverage and quality of the sources. Multiple sources are generally preferred." Multiple sources, some of very strong coverage and a bunch of minor coverage. Seems pretty pat. VanTucky 22:11, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, I agree with you, VanTucky. Many of the arguments given for notability were poor, simply asserting it without evidence, which made it appear to me that the arguments resulted more from ideology than fact. However, I now believe A.B. is unquestionably notable, as the subject of one significant article in a mainstream publication (Sidney Morning Herald) and being prominently featured in several others. She is presented not merely as a representative of a company or organization, but as an expert in her field. I have a hard time imagining a person in any field, meeting these criteria, who would not be considered notable. Keep. -Pete 17:14, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • What's complex about it? Wouldn't just putting A.B.'s bio details in the Wikia article be sufficient? -Pete 23:49, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • If I understand correctly, that seems to be a request to follow the precedent at Daniel Brandt of merging non-personal content into other articles, discarding the personal life stuff, and turning the article page into a redirect. DurovaCharge! 01:24, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, that's what I meant - I was feeling a bit whimsical so that's how I put it :) Haukur 22:44, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, that's what I mean, and what I've seen work well in local cases like Joe Keating. I'm not familiar with the Brandt case, but thank you for summarizing the outcome of it. -Pete 01:42, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion section 3[edit]

  • Remember, this is not a vote. Please reply to specific points above re: notability. -Pete 00:29, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Notice. I have noticed a high number of administrators are voting to delete this article. I thought there was no cabal on Wikipedia. Hmmm. :) - Mr.Gurü (talk/contribs) 02:25, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just bc things don't seem to be going our way doesn't make a cabal. However, this courtesy deletion bullshit smacks of cabal, that's for sure. It certainly was never vetted comprehensively in the community. VanTucky 03:22, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Never knew I was a member of a cabal. What's the secret handshake? Do I get a bumpersticker? Seriously, I'm merely going by what WP:BLP says and by the new precedent of the Brandt merge. There seems to be a growing consensus that such material is not allowed here. In this case, the new consensus means this article should be deleted.--Alabamaboy 20:01, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
From WP:CABAL...Extreme Unction's first law: If enough people act independently towards the same goal, the end result is indistinguishable from a conspiracy. I would agree that the consensus seems to be delete, but as I say below, I want to have it recognized that the consensus is on notability grounds and not courtesy grounds. many of those in favor of deletion are adamantely opposed to courtesy deletion in this case. VanTucky 22:08, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just for the record, I'm the founder of Category:Eguor admins and a dedicated anti-cabalist. I had nothing to do with the policy change that was related to this and two related deletion nominations, nor did anyone tell me this article was going to go up for deletion also. The only off-wiki discussions I've had on this subject were with the article subjects themselves. DurovaCharge! 15:53, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, not sure what you took from my quotation, but what I meant was that just bc consensus seemed to be leaning away from Guru's opinion doesn't make a secret conspiracy out of those opposed to keep. VanTucky 17:20, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What are the real consensus/votes if you only count the regular editors and not the administrative cabal. Hmmm. :) - Mr.Gurü (talk/contribs) 23:45, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Let's quit with the cabal nonsense. You're welcome to have whatever opinion about administrator excess you please, but it doesn't further the discussion. VanTucky 23:47, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
All I am saying is that I find it odd a large number of administrators are voting here and are voting to delete this article. What is really happening here? Hmmm. :) - Mr.Gurü (talk/contribs) 23:53, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The guideline detailing
Does not say that multiple trivial sources are not sufficient, but that they may not be. Nor does it only mean that multiple sources are needed. It means that a very few sources with significant coverage are on par with many trivial sources. If multiple sources make a mention (or group interview), and all confirm that AB is notable for being involved in Wikimedia and Wikia, then multiple trivial sources establish her notability on those grounds. The passage exists to legitimize alternative pathways to establish notability, not to dismiss a large group of significant sources that make a trivial mention of the subject. The fact that they say the same thing about her strengthens the case for notability, because they all mention the same reason she is notable, the same reason they are mentioning her. Multiple sources make a small mention of Angela as being notable. Thus, it meets the guidline. VanTucky 15:34, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What? No. The fact that they all repeat the same two or three bare facts just makes for a remarkably content-free non-biography. This single sub-thread on this one AfD is already longer than the article is ever likely to be, unless and until Wikia hits the jackpot or some such thing makes her known outside our own inward-gazing circle of wikipedians. --Abu-Fool Danyal ibn Amir al-Makhiri 16:15, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The sources affect on the content of the bio is not under discussion. These sources prove notability, thus a bio is merited despite the stub status of the present article. Being a stub is not an acceptable argument for deletion. VanTucky 16:19, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Of course it's under discussion. In the same paragraph you reference, that essay says "consider whether the information in the ideal version of the article would be worthy of inclusion", and that is exactly what I was doing (above I say "is ever likely to be"): if all reliable sources just repeat the same couple of facts, then it is always a stub, and should be merged into relevant articles (if the info weren't already there). --Abu-Fool Danyal ibn Amir al-Makhiri 16:34, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
First off, talking about deletion bc you think an article is never going to be expanded beyond the present content is totally absurd and unverifiable. Second, the content of most of the sources is already included as content, which speaks to the strength of the argument that they prove notability. You haven't disproved that the multiple trivial sources, including those already included as encyclopedic content, do meet notability guidelines. Your arguments still can be summarized as "it's badly written". VanTucky 18:18, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Van T, I think you misunderstand the argument that Danyal and I are making. The reliable sources all repeat the same short list of details. Those details are already included in the A.B. article, which is very short. No reliable sources have been identified that have more information, so (at least with what's been shown) there's no reason to believe that more notable & verifiable information exists. (I'm discounting the interview for reasons given above.) So the article is likely to remain short.
Ultimately, I think it's important to consider these things in terms of "service to the reader." Either we could have the present article, or we could have a redirect from A.B. to Wikia, with all her relevant vitals at that article (and also in the WMF article.) How is the reader better served by the present situation? I don't understand why "merge and redirect" poses such a problem. -Pete 19:32, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Because I think that the article will be growing significantly in the future. But to be perfectly honest, a merge with Wikia and a redirect is something I would be okay with as long as we are clear that it is on Notability and lack of current content grounds, and not Courtesy Deletion. If the content about her does grow significantly enough to merit a re-creation of the article (like a couple signigicantly large news features on her alone), then it could just as easily be re-created when that occurs. In my view, the arguments for the usefullness of having the little info there is on her in Wikia or in her own is semantics, except for creating a false precedent for more borderline courtesy deletions. If we are clear that it is only the grounds I just mentioned, then I'd definitely support merge and redirect. VanTucky 20:34, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
VanTucky, I think you and I are in complete agreement then. Merge and redirect, with the possibility of recreation if the case for notability increases significantly. Sound about right? -Pete 20:41, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
sí. anyone else have concerns? (maybe we leave it for a few more hours to let those who aren't online catch up?) VanTucky 20:49, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, per WP:NOT we can't really base our decision now upon speculation about how much more notable or verifiable the article might become in the future. I'm fine with a merge. DurovaCharge! 00:37, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion section 4[edit]

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

Could you give examples of some of these newspaper and magazine articles? That might help. In any event, it seems problematic to me to justify having an article about someone because the discussion about that person's wishes made the person notable. JoshuaZ 13:57, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Didn't make the person notable--made the person more notable. The only reason Angela Beesley would have ever qualified for the deletion of her article would be her own requests. She is covered, significantly--(more than trivial but less than exclusive) in a lot of places. And yet, that coverage did pertain mostly to the role she played/plays here. Given that, and that she wanted deletion, she could have been deleted, although I'm basing that on our guidelines now--I believe that they're significantly changed and didn't say that then. Was she notable? Yes. Did the coverage focus on one area (similar to an event) making it a candidate for a merge? Probably? And she didn't want an article. But, coverage on her not wanting an article doesn't fit in other places--and while blogs can be brushed off, reliable sources that give her and her blog a significant amount of coverage can't:
There are more, I'll find them when I have the time. The fact that this information has been systematically cut out of the article bothers me, but that's not my point. If there's someone on the verge of notability who then goes and gets additional press coverage by doing something--releasing an album, drunk driving, dying, fasting for 30 days--whatever, that changes things. And as there is no room for this kind of material in any article that her current bio would be merged too, I'm strongly against deleting or merging this article. So her notability only has to do with Wikipedia. But I didn't hear about Angela Beesley because I'm a Wikipedia editor. I read about her in the big outside world in which she has received a lot of press coverage. Is some of it trivial? You bet. But a lot of it isn't.
One of the consequences of notability is that when you give interviews and blog and wiki, it has a tendency to stay around. I don't even have to read her blog or look through her contributions--others do and report what they think is newsworthy. How on earth does that make her not-notable? The news may have a celebrity dumpster-diving stalkerish feel, but when notable, people watch. At least people are only following her to her online trash. Miss Mondegreen talk  23:06, June 21 2007 (UTC)
  • Miss Mondegreen, I somehow missed these articles before, but now I've read them. I must concede that they make a much stronger case for A.B's notability than the articles I read previously - as does the Sidney Morning Herald article I missed before, as well. None of these articles, nor the subject matter they present, are currently present in the Angela Beesley article, which may be a big factor in the amount of current confusion and disagreement. At any rate, I'm now reconsidering my position…and also marveling that so many strident supporters of her notability didn't bother to point out these articles earlier in this discussion, or include them in the article in question. -Pete 16:05, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wow, yeah I can't believe I missed those somehow! These all feature Beesley prominently, which strengthens the case for notability. Actually, the funny thing about those articles is that, in addition to the Wikimedia and Wikia stuff, Beesley is famous for trying to get her bio deleted. Maybe we should include a note about that in the article?! VanTucky 16:52, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've always favoured deletion due to marginal notability, but when people have attempted to include those references in the past a large wikimob descends to protect their mate's article - giving rise to this AFD. This article is utterly unworkable. I disagree that those references make her notable, but they are some of the more notable references to her, yet they are excluded from the article (just look at the talk page, e.g. here). --Coroebus 16:58, 22 June 2007 (UTC

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

Unworkable means what it means, I've set out my argument in the talk age and previous AFD, agree or disagree as you wish, it'll fun to watch people try and insert the bio deletion stuff though, been there, given up with that. As for those refs, frankly I think that someone who appears on TV as the representative of a company, as part of their position in that company even, then they are not notable TV personalities. Again, agree or disagree as you wish but you may want to go search out every PR officer and spokesperson for every company and NGO in the world. --Coroebus 17:36, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No one is asserting that AB is notable just bc she has been a highly notable spokeswoman. But that combined with the other facts about WF Board membership, founding Wikia, and being the Chair of the Wikimedia Advisory council all add up to certain notability. There is no other way to interpret that much variety of sourced notable activities. VanTucky 17:41, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Let's look at that scenario. Suppose Fred heard A.B's name, and wants to find out more. He goes to Wikipedia and types in "Angela Beesley." He is brought to a page called "Wikia." He's momentarily startled, but being genuinely interested in finding out more about her, thinks to himself, "Perhaps she has some association with this company." Or reads the first sentence of the article, which identifies A.B. as a founder of the company. So he either looks in the Table of Contents for a "founders" or "key people" section, or performs a search within the page for "Angela." Fred quickly finds all the information he might have reasonably expected to find at an article dedicated to her. In addition, the structure of the encyclopedia, in combination with the article's content, has correctly communicated to him that her notability flows from her leadersjip in Wikia and Wikipedia, rather than from her being a grandstanding, "larger than life" personality who grabs headlines independent of her role in those organizations. I believe Fred would be very well served by that setup. What problem do you see? -Pete 00:05, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • That would be ok if she had no real notability--if she was only notable when discussing Wikia. That's really a scenario for people who aren't notable, but should be mentioned within a notable subject--for people who have multiple trivial mentions, but there's not enough for an article on them. Angela really doesn't fit that--her notability may come from her role in Wikia, but it is such that her trivial mentions in articles are through the roof, and she has well more than a handful on non-trivial mentions--which means that she more than passes the grounds for notability. She isn't a CEO who's only ever mentioned in the news as "the CEO of ___" or giving a quote about the company. Also, all information on her should be in one place, and the press that her Afds generated (examples in my comments above) doesn't belong in an article on Wikia--it has nothing to do with Wikia. The only thing that could go in the Wikia article would be a line or two of biographical info and info about her role in Wikia and Wikipedia. But that's not the only kind of press she gets. Incidently, I first read Angela's name in that Guardian article. I then went to Wikipedia and looked at her article. Had I come here and been redirected to an article on Wikia, it would not only not have served me as a reader, but I would have been thoroughly disgusted with Wikipedia. Miss Mondegreen talk  06:27, June 22 2007 (UTC)
Sure, if the article were extensive, you might worry about what you'd lose. But, really. "A line or two of biographical info" and "info about her role in Wikia and Wikipedia" is basically the entire text. Time to let this one go. --Abu-Fool Danyal ibn Amir al-Makhiri 14:13, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The last non-speedied AFD was "no consensus". --Coroebus 18:06, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • If the consensus to keep the article from all of the other previous AfDs is not respected, why should anyone respect the result of this AfD if it does end in delete? The existence of this AfD (or if you insist, the previous AfD) after multiple previous AfDs ending with a consensus of keep is inherently disruptive to the process of creating an encyclopedia. If AfDs are allowed at all after a previous AfD ended as a keep, there must be a far greater burden on the nominator to overturn the established precedent that the article has established in the previous attempt (or attempts) to delete the article. Notability was established before and is established now. Alansohn 18:19, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, I agree that the previous AFDs established notability. But in participating in Wikipedia you have to be able to accept that consensus on the application of policy can change at any moment. In this AFD, I have to honestly say that the sources provided do not firmly establish notability to extent required to silence those in favor of deletion. If you have other sources that are significant, please please please share them. Otherwise, if you have no evidence of notability the dissent carries little weight, unfortunately. VanTucky 18:32, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alansohn, the thing that would make this consensus lasting is our transparent diligence in making a determination. I would submit that the discussion among Durova, VanTucky, Abu-Fool Danyal, and myself at the end of section 3 goes a long way toward that goal. All four entered the discussion with differing opinions, but we found consensus. If you feel that A.B.'s notability was established in the past, exactly what established it? If there are articles or arguments that we've missed, please bring them forward - I'm happy to modify my position if proven wrong, but not simply because of some unidentified past conclusion. -Pete 23:16, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please bear in mind that a relevant policy did change since the previous nominations. So it's appropriate to hold a full discussion here and seek consensus about whether it's applicable at this page. DurovaCharge! 06:06, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • If there's an important precedent there, perhaps you could say which of the 3 AfD's is worth looking at, and what kind of issues were dealt with/precedents were set? Also, what does your point of view on the subject's dignity have to do with the matter at hand? -Pete 19:39, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[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.
More