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 and as such, keep. I have now ducked, covered and turtled.  RasputinAXP  c 20:41, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Angela Beesley[edit]

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]

Just to clarify - my reason for deletion is not the trolling. The reason is that I've resgined from the Wikimedia Board, so there's no longer any reason to keep it. A lot of people are stating "vandalism isn't a reason for deletion" - well, no... but I never claimed it was. I do not meet WP:BIO. Other wiki hosting company founders do not have bios - Sam Odio (BluWiki), David Weekly (PeanutButterWiki), Adina Levin and Edward Vielmetti (Socialtext), Joe Kraus (JotSpot), Ludovic Dubost (XWiki) etc, so I do not see the existence of Wikia as justification for this to be kept. Angela. 06:21, 14 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]
  • Comment. Obviously NN, must fail WP:BIO. Alphachimp ^talk 02:56, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, she satisfies the WP:BIO criteria, as I pointed out in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Angela Beesley (2nd nomination). Uncle G 12:02, 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]
  • Amended to point out that there are zero news hits on Lexis-Nexis in major newspapers and 1 hit in world news (Encore magazine in OZ). Doesn't strike me as particularly notable outside of this asylum. ~ trialsanderrors 02:20, 13 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 or redirect to Wikia. The only person who at Wikipedia is notable enough is Jimbo, in my opinion. Other than creating Wikia, she hasn't done anything notable outside the Wikipedia community. --LBMixPro^{<Speak|on|it!>} 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]
  • Is being on the board of a non-profit foundation really enough notability for a Wikipedia article. Ansell 11:51, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Since, as I have said twice now, that is not the basis for the reasons that I gave at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Angela Beesley (2nd nomination), why are you asking? Uncle G 12:01, 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]
    • Apologies; I may have misunderstood Uncle G's comments in the previous discussion. Regardless, co-founding Wikia is sufficient notablilty. Powers 18:52, 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]
        • Correction: I don't want a *Wikipedia* article. That's NOT synonymous with "*encyclopia* article". And I believe the latter way of phrasing it frames my objection in an extremely misleading way. If at all possible, I'd rather opt-out of being a target of trolls, flamers, and vandals. This seems to me to be an eminently reasonable position. To describe it as a *general* not wanting "an encyclopedia article" makes me sound like some sort of Thomas Pynchon style recluse, which will strike many people as very unreasonable. Normal encyclopedias do not allow anyone in the world to use them as attack platforms. That matters. -- Seth Finkelstein 16:36, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Correction: Thomas Pynchon isn't a recluse, and it's rather misleading to say that he is! Stanfordandson 01:48, 14 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 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]
  • The pic's on Commons, never fear. :) Kimchi.sg 15:56, 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]
  • Evading your block, Dan? Powers 18:52, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes. Please retaliate by deleting my bio. 66.142.90.22 21:16, 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]

What would be the point in speedy deleting it anyway? Some fool would just undelete it. Adam Bishop 18:01, 14 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]
  • Correction: I think what WAS meant to say was "Not being human to our friends is more wrong." "Wronger" is a noun. Its definition is: "One who wrongs or injures another." -- 75.24.110.246 07:36, 13 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]
    • At the time of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Angela Beesley (2nd nomination), I did similar tests. I put my results into the article. ☺ Uncle G 15:40, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I saved a copy of the page at http://www.wikiknowledge.net/wiki/index.php?title=TransWiki:Angela_Beesley Just FYI Gerard Foley 23:25, 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]

I'm not using it, just saving a copy of it. I have this all explained at Help:TransWiki Parts of it might be usful later on.Gerard Foley 23:46, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: around 600 "Adult models" are more notable than co-founder of major company. That's Wikipedia for you. - Xed 23:43, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not notable outside the wikipedia community. Viridae^Talk 00:33, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. What Angela has done does not force herself into the public limelight. She is entitled to her privacy. If she wants it deleted, it should be deleted. This would not apply to say a politician who does force themselves into the public limelight. We are not writing a encyclopedia over night. If Angela is really notable enough for an article it can be written much later. For now it should be deleted. We should respect the privacy of people and not just use the notable criteria, unless people lose some of their privacy by moving into the public lime light. Angela has not done that. --Bduke 00:36, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I don't see why such an article violates BIO, and she certainly seems notable to me (as for the resignation, once a hero...). Quality complaints are just that; there is a long and hallowed history of cleaning up articles or tagging them, rather than wastefully deleting them. And as for the French and German wikipedias? My parents always said that just because someone else does something doesn't make it right for you to do. --maru (talk) contribs 00:51, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. While I respect Angela's desire to protect her reputation, there are better solutions than deletion. Get the facts right, keep it short and appropriate, and semi-protect it. If there really is no cabal, it's clear that she is notable for serving at Wikimedia, as a cofounder of Wikia, and merits an article. -- Fuzheado | Talk 00:59, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• keep please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Angela Beesley (2nd nomination) we should not discriminate against wikimedia notables past or present Yuckfoo 01:10, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep We have established a standard practice (Daniel Brandt, Seth Finkelstein, and others) that we should listen to the subjects arguments no more than we would if the argument was made in the mouth of another. If we wish to change that practice, we should do so in a general policy/guideline discussion, which might be a good idea - if someone is truly of encyclopedic importance, it will be possible to write a good article on them after they are dead, and we are never going to have articles on everything we intend to cover - but the change ought to be to tighten the standards for all living people, not just those who ask for their page to be deleted. Her argument is that the article attracts vandals - that was the exact same argument made by Seth at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Seth Finkelstein, where we didn't listen to him because he met WP:BIO. The only arguments for deletion above are this and being non-notable. She meets WP:BIO at least as strongly as Seth does. Because we can't filter out Wikipedia in searching for her, parsing search results is challenging, but there are enough results that show her as a public speaker that she is notable. Less notable than Jimbo? Yes, but still notable. The best solution under current policies is for a few people to watchlist her page for vigorous policing under WP:BLP. GRBerry 01:27, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Looking at the article cold, I'm not seeing a shred of notability outside of Wikipedia. Could someone explain to me exactly what aspects of WP:BIO she fulfills? --Calton | Talk 01:29, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Erik on wikien-l. Angela is more notable than a lot of other people who have articles. No free passes for (ex-) board members. --Gmaxwell 01:34, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Having articles on the current board members makes some degree of sense, but now she has resigned the exception ends and she is back in the not-meeting-WP:BIO category. --bainer (talk) 01:44, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Sorry if this is proving a troll magnet, but the appropriate action is to clean it up and protect or semi-protect it if necessary. Angela has certainly had a notable role in the creation of Wikipedia/Wikimedia/Wikia and merits an article, but above all, the reason for keeping this is that we would rightly be seen by the press and Wikipedia pundits as a bunch of hypocrites if we were observed to be according special privileges to seasoned Wikipedians in being able to have their articles deleted. "There is no cabal" indeed. -- Arwel (talk) 03:16, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Angela is an important person in the history of the Wikimedia foundation and deserves an article, if only for historical reasons. -- MasonM 04:15, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep; I think Angela is notable enough for an article, if only just barely. Everyking 04:24, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• FYI, at this point in voting the discussion, the tally is 31 delete, 20 keep. -- Fuzheado | Talk 04:25, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • AfD is a discussion not a vote. Yanksox 04:27, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Noted. -- Fuzheado | Talk 04:30, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Uncle G. bbx 04:32, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I disagree with the idea a resignation makes one less notable. Angela does easily meet WP:BIO's requirements for multiple reliable sources giving non-trivial coverage, so there's no "nn" arguement to be made here. But obviously we have failed with this biography, which I think is a shame. We're unable to protect from trolling junk. I think this deletion sets a sad, but unavoidable precedent. If this is deleted, we must now honor all similiar requests by the "notable but not famous". Also, if we make this permanently fully protected as deleted (or redirected), we certainly have no justification for denying at least permanent semi-protection to any other living biography with problems. To those who say we should just fix clean the article up, I say, we had our chance and we blew it. --Rob 04:49, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Rob, I'm really sad to hear you say this, it sounds almost as if you've given up on the whole concept of Wikipedia. Are you arguing that we semi-protect every biography of a living person that has ever been vandalized? Silensor 04:53, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep because she meets and exceeds the notability guidelines established by WP:BIO. The whole "0 hits in New York Times" thing up above is absurd, that is hardly a requirement for inclusion. Silensor 04:55, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I never suggested it is "a requirement for inclusion." I said it was the criterion I was personally using in deciding how to vote. I was performing due diligence to make sure I was not misjudging the degree of fame Angela has outside Wikipedia. Dpbsmith (talk) 20:29, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per GRBerry and consistent with the idea that one's resiging from a position does not lessen the notability that may entail from his/her having held the position, to which I subscribe for many reasons, most of which have been properly addressed supra. Joe 05:47, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. If James B. Howell gets an article based on the fact that he was a senator for Iowa from 1870 to 1871, this article doesn't seem all that unusual. Bryan 06:06, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete. Not notable enough. DarthVader 06:11, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep, I don't think notability is an issue, but requesting a page about yourself be deleted? Wikipedia doesn't work that way. Remember Ashida Kim? --Merovingian (T, C, @) 06:19, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. nn outside of wikipediaworld. --woggly 06:21, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Wikipediaworld" has become notable in its own right, so IMO things that are solely notable within Wikipediaworld can no longer be automatically dismissed as non-notable outside it. Bryan 07:34, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Following that logic, would a particularly destructive vandal/troll be notable sheerly for the amount of damage caused to Wikipedia? I certainly hope not. --woggly 08:51, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sure. Just wait 5-10 years after the dust from the first SDs settle, just to see if people remember them. That's what we do to Usenet trolls. I'm sure Willy gets his own article around, oh, January 19, 2038 =) --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 09:12, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep a lot of people who want bios in Wikipedia don't get them because they aren't notable, yet, some people who are notable don't seem to want their bios here either - what a big puzzle. Congratulations for showing some humility. =) Anyway, I think we have established by now that "I don't want an article" is not an excuse, "I've resigned from this high post" isn't either (Beethoven isn't making much music these days, is he?) and "troll magnet" is merely a contributing circumstance in the deletion case of a problematic entry. So, um, sorry, you've left a mark in the history. What's done is done. We can do little about it but record it. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 08:37, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I'd keep a scary proportion of relatively long-deceased people so long as their articles were very well-sourced (long-forgotten local bigwigs of no national importance and little lasting legacy are A-OK by me). I guess at least it's conceivable that a local history buff could find such articles worthwhile; and even if they are rarely edited that'd be fine since there'd be relatively little fresh source information to draw on anyway. Even if nobody looked at it for 5 years, it may turn out to be just the obscure person that the next reader was looking for, and to find a well-referenced article on the subject could be extremely useful to them. On the other hand, when faced with a modern person (and at the back of my mind the fact they don't want to be listed lingers) I set the bar far higher. The absurdly poor state of this article, the poor referencing etc. is, in theory, a matter for cleanup not AFD. But still part of me thinks: what's the point of cleaning this article up? What information, or useful way of seeing information, will be saved by doing so? Miss Beesley has played a part, if we wish to aggrandize ourselves, in shaping the history of the internet, but only as a cog in the bigger machine of the Foundation and the online communities she has interacted with. This article will never explain, nor should it attempt to, the way that cog turned, the gears it meshed with, the times things ran smoothly, and the times more oil should have been applied... that would all fall short of WP:V and WP:NOR (at least until some biographies get published, but heck, I doubt that'll happen any time soon, and no, a blog does not count as a "serial biography"). Without that, though, I'm afraid there's really nothing left to be said. That was precisely what her role in "notable" history has been. We can have her date of birth (ooh, is that a reference I can see for it? Ummm... no) and place of birth (aha, a reference! oops, my mistake) and even find out which university she went to (so long as you'll believe anything you'll see uncited in an encyclopedia that "anyone can edit"). Oh yes, and she has the sort of picture that drive anon IPs to leave unwholesome messages on her talk page; but so long as we don't go down the de: route and scrap fair use images entirely, they can always check out a certain J. Wales's former employees instead. In summary, what would be lost from leaving an unlinked "Angela Beesley", heck, even an "A. Beesley", in the articles where she's relevant? I can't see any "notable information loss". And deleting articles like this is a surefire way to boost our average factual accuracy. And indeed, to get back closer to the "anyone can edit" philosophy (which Angela would espouse, I am sure), so long as the back end of that was an "and also anyone can nominate non-notable living people biographies for deletion". TheGrappler 09:37, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Angela is a public figure who deserves an article. Firstly, "I'm sick of this article being trolled. It's full of lies and nonsense" is not a good enough reason to delete an article, it is reason to fix and watch an article. Secondly, I don't think the person whom the article is about should ever request AfD themselves, it is a request of special treatment. Under NPOV thinking we should never grant such requests to friends (and non-friends) of Wikipedia. --Oldak Quill 10:58, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • That wasn't the reason I gave for deleting it. My resignation from the Board is the reason to delete it. Angela. 11:09, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • An article should exist while you're on the board but should be deleted when you leave it? This isn't the way Wikipedia works. I understand the problem for you, not wanting to be exposed like this, but isn't this what you signed up to when you entered the board? You are also still involved with Wikia (I think?) which makes you a public figure. I'm sorry, but I don't think we should grant favours like this. --Oldak Quill 12:07, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hi, Angela. Do you feel that notability decays over time? I'd always assumed the opposite. If it decays, could you generalize this into a broader rule about when we should delete historical figures that have gone out of fashion? Thanks, William Pietri 02:06, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I can't see where Angela meets WP:BIO - all notability is tied to being associated with the foundation work. Robin Miller and Jeff Bates of Slashdot don't seem to rate articles so I can't see where the keep arguments are coming from. - Peripitus (Talk) 11:12, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete--Peta 11:44, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - for starters, article has 500 links into it, hence it must be notable! --mervyn 12:44, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment, this kind of misinformation [2], makes clear that the article is hyped. There are ~100 links, of which ~10 from main space (rest is user, talk, wikipedia namespaces). Of the main space links, several are lists and disambig pages. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 13:37, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, unintentional error by me, not meant as hype - but I am still a keep. --mervyn 09:00, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, although CONTRA nom. It is irrelevant whether someone herself wants the article to be deleted, stronger, that is more a reason to keep it, because articles should be judged on the merits, not preferences. HAving sai that, the merits are listed in WP:BIO, and she is clearly not notable enough in the real world to warrant an article at wikipedia. Being part or having been part of wikipedia by itself is NOT sufficient reason to have an article, they should be treated in the same way as we would do with other articles. My conclusion, delete as NN. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 13:37, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Google Books results:
  • 1850 pages on Wikipedia
  • 40 pages on "Jimmy Wales"
  • 25 pages on "Wikimedia Foundation"
  • 20 pages on "Larry Sanger"
  • 1 pages on "Magnus Manske"
  • "Angela Beesley" did not match any documents Haukur 13:41, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per UncleG and GRBerry. She gets interviewed and quoted by journalists, and ZDNet calls her a prominent personality. That somebody doesn't want an article isn't relevant, and article deletion is not an an appropriate response to vandalism. --William Pietri 13:55, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep with all due respect to Angela's wishes, the precedent is that no one can request their bios to be deleted (the Brandt rule), nor is vandalism of the article relevant to deletion. In my opinion she just barely passes WP:BIO. --eivind^t@c 15:27, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Ah, this is a tough one. Do I go with the Golden Rule ("Do unto others as you would have them do unto you") or the Brass Rule ("Do unto others as they do unto you")? My sense of humor inclines me to joke that WP:SENSE implies that all people even marginally involved in Wikipedia administration should have a personal biography page, in order to set an example to the world of how well the process works. But appealing as that is in theory, the cold reality is that privilege will always trump process. So that's a mug's game. We're all better off going with compassion here, the quality of mercy is not strain'd. So I vote "delete", in hopes of strengthening the principle of respect for the wishes of a living person. -- Seth Finkelstein 17:04, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per above. Stanfordandson 17:05, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This biography is about the co-founder of Wikia, Inc., notability here is not marginal. [[User:Yamaguchi�...��"�|Yamaguchi�...��"�]] 17:08, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: It is a very dangerous precedent to go blanking and truncating the history of Talk:Angela_Beesley. Kimchi.sg (who nominated him/herself on his/her own RfA) displayed very poor judgement in doing so and I think that corrective action should be taken.
• 10:27, 12 July 2006 Kimchi.sg (Talk | contribs) deleted "Talk:Angela Beesley" (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Angela Beesley (3rd nomination))
  • The early close was wrong, especially in retrospect, but don't get on Kimchi's case on it, they're one of the good ones - I approached him/her about it on the talk page and s/he reverted the close almost immediately. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:29, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Especially considering that s/he is hiding behind a fake wikibreak. And that afer attempting to close the AfD early! -- 67.121.144.77 17:31, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per PresN. - Mailer Diablo 18:14, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment some seem quite insistant on keeping unsourced information in this article. Even birth dates must be sourced to reliable sources (not blogs). In regards to this AFD the subject is quite borderline on the inclusion guidelines, and I usually defer to the wise judgement of dbpsmith et al.. RN 18:27, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • • The only thing that absolutely must be sourced is negative, potentially libelous information. Otherwise you could delete about 80% of Wikipedia's content. If some information is not negative or otherwise particularly dubious, you should first add a "citation needed" tag and wait at least a week; if no one provides sources then, you can remove it. Margana 18:49, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep...I concur with the likelihood of notability around Wikia, and believe a lot of notability remains from her association with Wikimedia. I disagree with the premise that resignation does not reduce one's notability. For a living person, part of one's notability is their potential for future action. Thus, being in an ongoing association with an organization ties you to that organization's notability. Removing that link causes you to evaluate their past actions (and possibly their impact on the future success of the organization) and determine notability on that basis. This is one of the reasons that many above feel Wikia is a basis for notability...it is notable in and of itself, and Angela is (at this point) intrinsically linked to its future success / failure.--MikeJ9919 18:35, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, with all due respect to Angela, while she has done great work, she's not so notable that we'd need to keep an article about her against her own wishes, especially if it's leading to trolling, vandalism, or harassment. We'd have to keep it, regardless of what she wanted, if she were J. K. Rowling or The Duchess of Cornwall; since she's just Angela Beesley — delete. AnnH ♫ 18:51, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Daresay Ms. Beesley's done more of note than Duchess Camilla has. =) Powers 19:42, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I have a comment both in the history of this AFD and the last AFD which basically state my point. Also as per User:Dpbsmith. RN 19:34, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• delete: In the case of reasonably borderline notability, the subject's opinion should be given greater weight, perhaps as the decisive criterion. Ombudsman 19:53, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Some of the "keeps" seem to be suggesting that since Wikipedia treated Brandt and Finkelstein like dirt, we have an obligation to be consistent and also treat Beesley like dirt. This is not very good logic. Talleyho 21:14, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  On the contrary, it is excellent logic. Why should we treat people differently depending on whether or not we like them? GreenReaper 19:31, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, again per my comments in previous AfDs of this article. If there are factual problems, fix them. Alternately, a redirect to Wikipedia or whatever would be okay too. JYolkowski // talk 22:08, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and Delete with User:Angela. Kitia 22:35, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Her notability outside the narrow circles of Wikipedia/Wikimedia is questionable, so deletion would make sense; on the other hand, given the antics of the likes of Daniel Brandt, it might not be good for us to set any sort of precedents regarding deletion of articles because the subject wants it. Certainly, if we did this on request of a Wiki[p|m]edia "insider" but refused for others, that could be seen as favoritism. Thus, I'm a bit conflicted here. *Dan T.* 22:53, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I'm sorry, but 'frequent trolling' isn't a good reason for deletion. --InShaneee 22:55, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. Naconkantari 23:16, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, board member or no, she does not meet my standards of notability. Getting some news mentions is much different than being notable enough for an encyclopedia article, which will be around indefinitely. I don't think she would have ever had an article if she had a similar level of notability but had not been involved with Wikipedia. -- Kjkolb 23:47, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above. Articles that are susceptible to vandalism should not necessarily be deleted. Soupysales 01:43, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep if susceptibility to vandalism is a criteria for deletion most content that is worth the most at WP must be deleted. Notability: Well, how about deleting this article? --roy<sac> ^Talk! .oOo. 02:30, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Significant in the history of Wikipedia and wikis; as above, potential vandalism is not grounds for deletion. cookiecaper (talk / contribs) 05:16, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. As a Vice President of the Wiki Foundation and an important historical figure related to Wikipedia, Angela is just as notable as any other Wikipedia entry. If you delete her entry, you might as well delete Jimmy Wales too, as well as everyone else associated with Wikipedia. And if important Wikipedia folks can decide to get their articles deleted, what is stopping anyone else? Next, you'll be hearing from actors and politicians who want THEIR articles deleted because of trolling (Mr. T's listing is constantly being vandalized but he hasn't asked thatit be removed), or because they "retired from acting/politics" and "aren't important anymore". I see no reason why she can't debate the factual assertions on her listing, but outright deletion is absurd. TheQuandry 07:38, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am not Vice President of the Wiki Foundation and never was (there's no such organsation, and if you meant Wikimedia I wasn't VP of that either), so if you're voting "keep" on that basis, you need to revise your vote. Angela. 12:49, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Abstain: I voted "Keep" on two previous occasions and have strongly anti-deletionist principles. In favour of the "Keep" position, I am concerned about the precedent of allowing an article to be deleted at the request of its subject - if someone who considers herself not to be "notable" can make such a request, what is there to prevent persons who are unquestionably notable from making similar requests? What about persons who were once well known, but have since faded from the limelight? Against that, I have to note that Angela is someone I personally like and respect, and I don't feel good about thwarting her repeated requests for the deletion of what is, after all, an infringement on her privacy. This is one of the few issues on which I can't decide where I should stand, so I'll abstain. David Cannon 09:14, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Notability does not have an expiration date, and frankly the WP:AFD process should be all the more scrupulous when the subject of an article requests deletion. I can appreciate Angela's stated concerns, but she was notable when the article was written, and remains notable now. -- Adrian~enwiki (talk) 13:27, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Why is this in the list of Australia-related deletions. As far as I can see she is british? Ted BJ 13:51, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Because she currently lives in Australia. -- Francs2000 13:53, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per nomination. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 15:46, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom (and for anyone else of comparable and normal obscurity, that would speedy per A7). Angus McLellan (Talk) 16:21, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: 100 years from now, people would like to know more about her as one of the poineers of wiki-movement. The page requires a lot of fresh inputs. --Bhadani 17:56, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Adam Bishop 17:58, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete appears notable because of her "closeness" to Wikipedia(ns). In perspective, she is not. (Liberatore, 2006). 19:58, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, notable IMO. —Nightstallion (?) 21:26, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment As I understand it, Angela is unhappy with "lies and nonsense" which she says have been inserted into (previous versions of?) her wikibio. OTH, since she appears to have been a leading Wikipedian for many years who was involved in various key decisions (or non-decisions), it seems that many users agree that there is a legitimate need to keep some basic factual information about her available somewhere in this website. :As I understand it, Angela's motivation for the AfD nom is that reverting bad edits to this article has grown too wearisome for the Wikipedia community--- yet permanently protecting it in a minimalist state which provides only the most basic factual information would be seen as an admission that the traditional description of Wikipedia as an "on-line encyclopedia which anyone can edit" cannot be sustained.

I happen to believe that the WP community must indeed muster the courage to publically admit that indeed, which anyone can edit is inconsistent with the goal of building a reliable encyclopedia, and that this policy needs to be rescinded. Be this as it may, I see a third alternative:

• create a new namespace for write protected pages offering essential items like a mission statement, privacy statement, basic information about the principals of WikiMedia and the operation of Wikipedia
• put a page giving essential information about Angela and her service on the Board in this new namespace,
• delete the unprotected wikibio

By the way: I realize that Angela is not leaving WP, just resigning from the Board, but I'd like to see a policy or even a guideline on "graceful exits". That is, it seems that sooner or later, most contributors, even formerly very active contributors, do decide to leave WP. In such cases, there is reason to keep their user pages around for a year or more, but it might be well to protect their user page(s) on request in a designated area, for example in a case where the former contributor has left as the result of some acrimonious dispute with vandals. Or create a WikiProject whose members agree to let a bot add to their watchlist the user pages of departed Wikipedians and these users would then monitor for and revert any vandalism (former users could request the bot to sign them up for this service). No doubt there are other possibilities. ---CH 21:59, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Angela's participation within the Foundation is already recorded, on the Foundation's wiki. foundation:meetings gives a record of board meetings (several include transcripts) so her contribution is recorded, and foundation:resolutions preserves her voting record. She also has her user pages, User:Angela, m:User:Angela and so forth. There are plenty of sources of information for people interested in her contribution to Wikimedia, the question is whether she belongs in the encyclopaedia aswell as in the project space, and I think that she doesn't. --bainer (talk) 02:22, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please read my clarification at the top of this page. I think it should be deleted because I don't meet WP:BIO since resigning from the Board, not because of the vandalism. Angela. 06:17, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I did see your comment above and I did take note. Perhaps I should have added that I certainly would not support keeping around any lies or misinformation about you! If the article is deleted, perhaps it can be replaced by a simple redirect to a wikimedia.org page describing your former role on the board? I never did find the pages mentioned by Thebainer on my own so IMHO a redirect might be a good compromise which would also help future searchers.---CH 03:55, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep One of the real notable articles on WP. The WF can't roll over anytime someone whines about something. Some bravery is needed to avoid be a joke --MishaMisha 00:43, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I'm confused at the suggestion that deleting the article will set a precedent for the deletion of articles based upon the subject's wishes. First, Articles for Deletion is not precedent based. A precedent that I'm actually concerned about is people resigning or declining leadership positions in Wikipedia and the Foundation because they have had, or are worried about, their privacy being invaded. Also, while human decency, in my opinion, requires us to consider an article's impact on the subject, another very good reason for deleting the article has been given, lack of notability. Finally, having an encyclopedia article on a person, when he or she never would have had one if he or she had not been involved with Wikipedia and Wikimedia is more damaging to Wikipedia's credibility than deleting an article for humanitarian reasons, which we do not even have to resort to in this case because of the lack of notability. Far too much weight is placed on certain subjects on Wikipedia, like Pokemon, Star Wars, the free software movement and Wikipedia itself. -- Kjkolb 03:55, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I completely agree with you that precedent does not apply; however, you'd never know that from the numerous school AfDs. People will cite and rely on precedent even though it is inapplicable. Agent 86 16:52, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Extra Super Duper Anderson Cooper Strong Keep Never surrender to irony! --Perceive 05:09, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per Angela's nom -- Tawker 05:15, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep - part of WP history, even if she has resigned. Resigning from other places wouldn't make your biography insignificant, so this shouldn't apply here either. (JROBBO 12:54, 15 July 2006 (UTC))[reply]
• Resignation from office[3], the subject saying "I'm not notable"[4], trolling by Andrew Morrow [5], etc... NONE of these are valid reasons for outright deletion of an article. I've seen biographies of people registering less than 50 hits on get kept... people who, despite not becoming household names, had accomplished something important in their respective lifetimes (unlike the rest of us with our mind-numbing 9-to-5 McJobs). If we can keep stubs about, for example, former death row inmates (famous for getting the chair, no sources available for the crime committed)... but I digress. Keep, or merge failing that. -- Jul. 15, '06 [14:03] <freak|talk>
• Delete per nom. utcursch | talk 16:46, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Person doesnt want a bio here, respect her wishes. Matthew Fenton (contribs) 16:54, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Seriously, she's notable. Wikia is notable. Please stop this renomination madness already, it just sets a bad precedent. The article survived two VFDs, isn't it enough? (Wait, didn't realize that Angela herself nominated it, but still, my vote stands.) - Sikon 17:05, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I explained above, I thought the resignation would change the outcome of the vote. Obviously, renominating when nothing has changed is a bad idea, but in the previous listings, my Board position was practically the only reason given for keeping, and even then there was no consensus that it should be kept. Angela. 17:22, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't really see how your resignation changes anything; Wikipedia isn't just for articles about people, places, and things that are currently notable, but also for those of historical interest because of past notability. If you were notable last year (I'm not sure if you actually were, to the extent that is required for a main-space WP article) you're still notable now by WP standards regardless of subsequent changes of status. *Dan T.* 17:25, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • To have the article deleted *was* a reason for resignation? --MishaMisha 02:00, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • No... the other way round. :) Angela. 06:46, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, subject is notable as a co-founder of one of the highest traffic and most famous sites on the Internet and is therefore of encyclopedic interest. Her current "resigned" status with a particular facet of the organisation doesn't affect her notability at all. Wyss 19:04, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Co-founder of what? I didn't start Wikipedia if that's what you're thinking. Angela. 06:46, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The bickering over what a "founder of Wikipedia" means has been well documented. Angela you have been a driving, active and highly visible force in the development of Wikipedia and you'll long be remembered and cited for it. Wyss 22:21, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not arguing over what "founder" means. I am stating quite honestly that I am not a founder of Wikipedia. I hadn't even heard of Wikipedia until 2003. Since it was founded in 2001, you really need to check your facts before commenting on this AfD. Angela. 06:12, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It does sound to me as though you're arguing what founder means but whether or not you agree with the tag founder has no sway on the documented historical fact of your significant public and managerial role in the development of Wikipedia during its early years. Moreover, I must again point out that there is a well-described pre-existing public debate about who might be a "founder" of Wikipedia. Lastly, I would also appreciate it if you would please try to avoid sarcasm and personal attacks here, thanks. Wyss 14:11, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep. Wikipedia is not an encyclopedia of things that are just important now. In a hundred years, people are going to wonder about this "wiki" thing and want to know the key players behind it. As this interview notes:

I've been a volunteer editor at the English Wikipedia since February 2003. I was made an 'administrator' on the English Wikipedia in June 2003 and a 'bureaucrat' when that role was first invented in February 2004. I was amongst the first people to be made a 'steward', in April 2004. In June 2004, I was elected to the board of the Wikimedia Foundation by the community. I was re-elected, for a two year term, in July 2005.

That seems to me to be sufficient evidence that Angela has played a key part in the foundation and direction of what is now the biggest encyclopedia in the world, even discounting her Wikia work (which may prove to be even more significant over time - we'll see). GreenReaper 19:39, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep, seams to satisfy WP:BIO, as 'The person made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in their specific field'. Robmods 21:58, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Wikipedia has systemic bias. It is our job to counter this bias.--Jiang 00:21, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. — Instantnood 00:36, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The subject does not meet WP:BIO (not in a senior enough position nor responsible for technical innovations). Editing content on Wikimedia servers is not enough. Obiter dicta: Although I support deletion, I reject some of the arguments advanced. I do not agree that resigning from the Wikimedia boards makes a difference: if current board members are notable then ex-members are just as notable. Nor do I agree that the subject's opinions on whether they should have an article is relevant. When I nominated my own article for deletion, I was careful to say that it was because I thought I did not meet notability guidelines, rather than that I was offended by its presence. David | Talk 00:47, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - We should get permission from people before we write articles on them! Just kidding, but seriously, she really isn't notable outside of wikisociety. Jimmy Wales, for example, was on Time 100, interviewed on NPR and CNN, and is generally famous as hell. Angela has none of that. There's also precedence here: Brian Peppers is only known within internet humor sites, and virtually nowhere else, so his article was deleted. (Not that I'm comparing Angela to Brian Peppers.) (Yes, I'm aware of the e-mail from Peppers's family, too.) Likewise, Angela Beesley only affects Wiki, which makes her notability questionable. -- this is messedrocker (talk) 01:15, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Barely notable, but notable FancyPants 03:05, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Agree that Angela is notable by WP:BIO standards, though not overwhelmingly so. The article is now semi-protected, brief and factual. There is nothing about the current article to justify deletion. I appreciate Angela's concerns, but any article on this encyclopedia is subject to vandalism and incorrect edits. By that argument we could delete every article. All we can do is keep articles as factual and vandalism-free as possible. Casey Abell 04:01, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would probably agree with anyone who complains that far too many bios of not truly notable persons are kept following AfD discussions. I would even agree that those who say that Angela is notable mostly only at Wikipedia (but she is very notable for users of this website!--- which just happens to be one of the most used websites in the world). And I think those who fear an invasion of privacy of major Wikipedia figures who might prefer more anonymity have a point. Certainly I would not support a gratitious invasion of privacy at this or any other website. But I sense that many of the voters for deletion in this particular AfD would vote differently if it were anyone but Angela who was asking, and setting a precedent for some kind of double standard seems like a bad idea. Above I tried to suggest some compromises between outright deletion and keeping the article as an unprotected wikibio. One of my simplest suggestions would be to replace the bio with a redirect to a wikimedia.org page describing Angela's service on the Board and simply permanently protecting this redirect. Wouldn't a permament redirect be less obtrusive than a permanent notice warning against attempts to recreate an article called Angela Beesley? ---CH 04:06, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: so she's notable because she co-founded some web page (Wikia) and because of her involvement in WP and its derived foundation. Well, IMO that doesn't give notability for anyone in the real world, where people still watch news on TV instead of in Wikinews. But OK, some people believe she's notable, she's awesome, etc., so let's have an article about her. I don't care about having the article. But, what can we put in that article? I doubt there can ever be a non-stub article about her. Her birthdate, nationality, birthplace, living place, her boyfriend, or even her photo have nothing to do with what (suposedly) makes her notable: they're tabloid info, not encyclopedic info. And still with that info, the article isn't but a stub. I don't mind having an article about her. It's just we have not an article, and I cannot think of a way for it to become an article. That's what happens with non-notable people, IMO. That's why I consider she isn't notable enough. And the fact our wannabe-article acts like a tabloid, not only being non-encyclopedic, but doing damage, is why I decided to participate in this debate. I could add that Angela's opinion doesn't move me anymore than any other's opinion about their own article, since I know about her only because of her WP article. (I've already voted delete) --euyyn 04:54, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom.. -- ADNghiem501 05:02, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep previous AfD arguments have me satisfied that she does indeed satisfy BIO criteria. The trolling is a non-issue from a notability standpoint. We don't delete, say, Pat Robertson due to the incessant trolling it recieves. --tjstrf 08:02, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I believe distinctions should be made between major public figures and people who are of minor notability. A head of a broadcasting network is not in a comparable situation to an ordinary person. -- Seth Finkelstein 19:25, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reply. A distinction is already made between notable and non-notable individuals. That distinction is whether or not they get articles at all. "Minorly notable" is still notable. Vandalism occurence is not a determining factor in deletion arguments, unless the page itself was created solely as a vandalism/trolling page. This isn't.

Angela's argument is also based on the idea that a subject ceases to deserve an article once they stop holding the office that made them notable. Wouldn't this also apply to former United States Congressmen? For example, Robert D. Carey, Republican representative from the state of Wyoming in the early 1920's, no longer holds office, and his only claim to notability was that office. Further, he's dead, meaning his current influence is effectively null. Yes, I recognize there is a difference in the notability holding a governorship gives you vs. being on a board at a company, but if formerly held offices don't count as notability criteria, then Angela is actually more notable than Robert Carey at this point in time. If we are to be a timeless repository of knowledge, then formerly held offices should be weighed on the same scale as currently held offices. --tjstrf 20:18, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Per Jorge Luis Borges "These ambiguities, redundancies and deficiencies remind us of those which doctor Franz Kuhn attributes to a certain Chinese encyclopaedia entitled 'Celestial Empire of benevolent Knowledge'. In its remote pages it is written that the animals are divided into: (a) belonging to the emperor, (b) embalmed, (c) tame, (d) sucking pigs, (e) sirens, (f) fabulous, (g) stray dogs, (h) included in the present classification, (i) frenzied, (j)innumerable, (k) drawn with a very fine camelhair brush, (l) et cetera, (m) having just broken the water pitcher, (n) that from a long way off look like flies.". So if people can be divided into notable and non-notable, they can also be divided into majorly notable and minorly notable, as well as living and dead, with the living minor notable respected in a wish to opt-out. There should be a balance between being a timeless repository of knowledge, and a present repository of trollery -- Seth Finkelstein 20:54, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is almost starting to become some sort of inverse vanity page argument. And in my opinion, the conclusions are the same: the wishes of the subject of an article as to its existance or nonexistance do not over-rule the policy and notability criteria. If I want to have an article about myself, but I am not notable, no amount of me protesting will get it included. If I don't want to have an article about me, but am notable, the same thing applies. The trolling is regretable, but until we develop the software to read the minds of editors and determine whether they are acting in good faith or not, it is a necessary evil for the continued existance of the Wikipedia project as a whole. Perhaps our most relevant rule here, however, is WP:OWN. Which is an official policy, I might add. You don't own articles which are about you any more than you do those you wrote. An opt-out system would violate this rule. Also, I think we have a slight conflict of interests here. --tjstrf 21:54, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Forgive me, I've lost track of what's being disputed factually, versus what's being recommended as a wise course of action. Are we agreed or disagreed that a reasonable categorization distinction can be made involving degrees of notability, and interests of living people? That is, are you arguing this material cannot be taken into account for some significant reason? Or that even though it's possible, it should not matter - which can't be justified self-referentially, because that's exactly the point of dispute here? Remember, Wikipedia:No_binding_decisions is also official policy. A reasonable opt-out is merely a recognition that sometimes "do no harm" is the best policy. By the way, there's something deeply scary if not wanting to be trolled disqualifies me from participating in a policy-related discussion as to whether or not people should have to endure being trolled. -- Seth Finkelstein 22:59, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An argument could be made that there is a difference between those who are majorly notable vs. those who are minorly notable or notable only within a small field. You can obviously group people into whether they like the idea of having a WP article about them or not as well. The disagreement is over whether it matters, or more precisely, whether in a project such as Wikipedia the subject of an article has (or should have) any more say than any other editor as to what happens with that article. In my mind, I look at this AfD, and I read the reasons why it is being proposed for deletion. Judging from the reasons given, I come to the conclusion that the nominator and deletion voters do not provide enough support for deletion, given the passing of two previous AfD noms, meeting the notability criteria, etc.

I would re-evaluate my vote in light of a policy or guideline change, but at this time, I do not believe that the name of the nominator for an article's deletion has any bearing on whether it should be deleted, as that would violate WP:OWN as well as the common sense principle of impartiality. Unless your name is Jimbo the human supermajority (and I say that with no animosity towards him, as I recognize the need for "divine intervention" occasionally), you have the same vote and obligation to go along with consensus as everyone else does. "Do no harm" is not violated by the existance of this article, just by the trolls, which can be easily rectified. In fact, given the current semi-protection and the multiple people (including myself) who have doubtless watchlisted the page as a result of this debate, your concerns about vandalism will probably no longer be an issue no matter what the decision of this debate is.

On the conflict of interests, I did not intend to imply you shouldn't participate, clearly you are just as entitled to do so as I. I was merely suggesting caution, and that you might wish to objectively think over what your answer would be to this AfD if it weren't for your own article. No offense intended, and I realize I may have been slightly hypocritical to point this out, for which I apologize. --tjstrf 23:44, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Apology accepted, and similar apology tendered for any harshness on my part. If you read above where I made my actual vote, I outlined my ethical reasoning. My position is of course affected by my experiences, but the outcome is logically self-consistent - all living people of minor notability who want to opt-out should have their wishes respected. If it takes finally affecting someone "inside" the circles of power, to spark enough debate which results in some positive change, well, it wouldn't be the first time that a problem had to hit an insider before it was addressed, whereas outsiders were blown-off. Of course, *only* addressing it for the insider would be the worst of all worlds. But I'd rather this all lead to some rethinking of what I view as a bad policy, rather than having that bad policy continue on.

There's a difference between wanting to micromanage one's biography, and not wanting to have to patrol and clean up after mudslinging. Wikipedia:Interpret_all_rules should support a distinction between these two types of objections. Telling people not to be control-freaks is worlds apart from telling them they have been chosen to be part of a grand experiment in having trolling, defamation, libel, lying, smears, and vandalism, directed at them, but it's settled policy that they can't decline. -- Seth Finkelstein 03:47, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest what you should do is write a policy proposal in which you outline all of your arguments. If your policy passed, it would solve this entire issue in one fell swoop, while even if it were turned down, so long as it had a decent minority who supported it, it could be left as an essay. Essays may not be policy but the popular ones do carry a good bit of weight, especially on the less by-the-book processes such as deletion review. Also, you may be able to find an ally in the form of User:Herostratus's WP:NOT EVIL proposal/essay. This is an issue that needs to be decisively addressed eventually, and now would be as good a time as any. It would be much better to have this addressed by consensus rather than Divine intervention--tjstrf 04:27, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. I hate to say it and this is not Angela's doing (I would hope and do assume) but lots of these delete votes smack to me of folks, aware of it or not, who are mushing up to a member of Wikia who has a perceived, pervasive influence (true or not, resigned from WP or not). People are afraid to say so openly is all, for fear of falling out of favour, getting banned or whatever. Anyway Wikipedia is one of the highest traffic sites on the Internet and she's part of the story, which is already historic (one way or another) and that's encyclopedic. Wyss 22:12, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't say it's out of any sort of fear so much as respect. Rather ironically, the fact that she is a notable individual (especially one involved with wikis), the very reason she should be included in the first place, results in people respecting her. This respect makes people give credence to her opinions, which in turn makes them vote with her in her claim to not be notable. It's almost a paradox, a situation in which your accomplishments allow you to claim that those accomplishments are unimportant. However, what I was refering to by conflict of interests is the fact that, according to the mailing list, User:Seth Finkelstein also has an article, Seth Finkelstein, which he wants removed due to trolling. --tjstrf 22:39, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In other words, where there there is one conflict of interest, there might be two, or three or... Wyss 22:56, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I call it "experience" :-), see above -- Seth Finkelstein 22:59, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I believe she passes WP:BIO, based on various interviews (multiple independent published sources), and I don't think notability is a concern anyway: info about the subject is potentially verifiable, and some is verified, that's good enough for me. And notability can only increase with time, as far as I'm concerned, never decrease, even if I did care about it: the number of new media references to her, for instance, will decrease, but the number of old ones will never fall. Sorry, Angela. -- Simetrical (talk • contribs) 21:47, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, I missed the earlier nominations, but she is just not notable. BrokenSegue 00:25, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Uncle G, Captainktainer and Powers. You dont have a "right" to delete youself on wikipedia. Patcat88 04:57, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: the best next thing would be Angela taking an important decision based on this article not being deleted, so the article could say it, and doing so, self-reference not merely WP, but itself! "blablabla because of this article not being deleted from Wikipedia." References could be added pointing to the AfD discussions. At least, that would be encyclopedic, being related to the cause of her "notability": WP. That is, it wouldn't be trivia. BTW, anybody knows what's the name of her pet? And anybody heard about WP:NOR? If in some years she becomes notable enough for someone to do a research about her (for, say, writing her bio), he would find the same info we've found about her, in the same places we've found it. And then, we could make a serious encyclopedic, third source, article about her. Don't fear for that info to be lost because of deleting our article. WP is not a log. --euyyn 07:46, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not notable outside the wikipedia community. Feedyourfeet 11:34, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Wikia. Also agree with Starblind on borderline cases. GChriss 15:05, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Feedyourfeet. -- Hoary 15:18, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. WP:BIO seems to be satisfied. --Myles Long 17:23, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, totally unnotable to anyone who is not involved in Wiki. This is a Wikicruft article ;). NoSeptember 19:42, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, redirect to wikia. +sj + 20:25, 17 July 2006 (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.