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

The result was No consensus. Note that this discussion does not override any deletion via our Biography of living persons policy. I would strongly recommend looking at the application of the WP:BLP policy in granting the subjects request to delete the article.. Mercury 05:01, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Angela Beesley[edit]

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

Nominating for courtesy deletion or redirect per a request from Angela Beesley. In the half year since the last time this article was nominated, consensus has moved toward deletion/redirect upon request for not-very-notable BLP subjects. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rand Fishkin, Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Seth_Finkelstein_(2nd), and Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Daniel_Brandt_(14th_nomination). If Angela Beesley had the same amount of notability for something that wasn't related to Wikipedia I doubt many of us would have heard about her. This isn't so much a biography as a catalog of her involvement at WMF and Wikia. As such it's basically a resume, unlikely to expand past a stub. Any meaningful content can be covered elsewhere. I ask that we respect the wishes of the person this page affects most and delete. Courtesy costs nothing. DurovaCharge! 18:24, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

First, Durova, your implication is that she really wants out, which isn't entirely true from what she has stated publicly. Second, an encyclopedia of music would more than likely keep musicians that played on Stings albums, expecially if they played bass, since Sting is THE BASS player in his band. AMG lists all players under "credits." The players do not get to take their names off the list. They played, they are part of history. Third, if WP removes all articles of people that want them removed, then you have a case. Do you have a case for that? WP rarely allows people to vanish; especially not people with articles. Cheers, Nice (talk) 01:38, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • It is disrespectful to all the editors that took the time to comment on the previous six nominations. It seems that Ms Beesley does not actually care much about this and the material in question is likely to be preserved by other sites regardless. So you are wasting our time with a personal obsession - a typical vexatious litigant. Colonel Warden (talk) 00:19, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is not direspectful it is standard practice; and nothing here is made in stone, ie it is no more disrespectful than changing someone else's edits by editing an article. And you seem not to have realisedt hat other sites will only produce a stable version and are unlikely to be as well visited as wikipedia where anyone being able to edit means the article is subject to both changes and vandalism. Thanks, SqueakBox 00:27, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please refactor the personal obsession comment. I didn't even participate in the previous deletion discussions. The tone of that comment is quite disrespectful. DurovaCharge! 00:34, 5 December 2007 (UTC) Slight refactor; I participated in one of the previous six discussions.[reply]
  • Looking back at these previous discussions, it seems that the original reason for wanting deletion was recurring vandalism. But in the last six months, there seems to have just one brief attempt at vandalism - around 16-17 June. Since then the article seems to have been fairly stable. Please explain why this matter is being raised again at this time. My impression is that it is not occasioned by a current problem but just a determination to settle an old score. Your personal history in this matter is perhaps irrelevant as you indicate that you are acting as a proxy for Ms Beesley. Colonel Warden (talk) 01:07, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The WP:BLP policy became a little more expansive and a handful of people at the lower end of the notability range have requested and received courtesy deletions. It doesn't have much effect on the database and it earns some goodwill. Any meaningful material on this bio could be moved elsewhere. So why not honor Ms. Beesley's wishes? DurovaCharge! 01:21, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see no evidence of editors changing their mind in that case. It just seemed to be wilful persistence until a deletion result was obtained - an obvious breach of the double jeopardy principle. Colonel Warden (talk) 01:36, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In both the last afds of Daniel Brandt and Don Murphy we saw a huge shift in consensus from the previous afd of these 2 bios, there is no question but that consensus does change. Thanks, SqueakBox 01:44, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  1. June 22, 2006: Primetime Morning Show on Channel NewsAsia: Angela Beesley answered general questions about Wikipedia's growth and how vandalism is dealt with.
  2. June 21, 2006: Asia Squawk Box on CNBC Asia with Lisa Oake - Angela Beesley discussed semi-protection and other issues.
  3. March 29, 2005: Angela Beesley spoke about Wikipedia in relation to Knowledge Management as part of the "Nice Work" show on BBC Radio 4. [23]
  4. November 17, 2004: Angela discusses Wikipedia on the You and Yours programme on BBC Radio 4. You can listen to it at [26] but you might need some sort of plugins."

Plus like minds all over the WikiWorld seem to agree. [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] You can not un-ring a bell, I'm sorry Angela, no disrespect really, but like it or not, you're notable. ▪◦▪≡ЅiREX≡Talk 05:51, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It matters not one jot how mant edits s/he has. We all have to start somewhere. This is the encyclopedia all are welcome to edit. No matter what Durova suspects or feels. Giano (talk) 19:27, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Giano, I went through a similar process of reasoning about the irony involved. I eventually decided that in terms of failure-modes, playing favoritism to Wikipedia insiders was a loser's game. I don't mean this as a reference to, err, recent events, but the, umm, unfortunate incident does show that problem. Here, requiring an insider to have a bio so that they feel the pain of everyone else is not going to work well, since they're always going to have the support so the pain is never more than minor. Sure, they may be irritated, but it's not going to hurt them like it will others. Jimmy Wales's unhappiness with not completely getting his way in his bio on the issue of denying "co-founder" status to Larry Sanger is a case in point. Jimbo didn't get absolutely everything he wanted, but I'd say he got WP:OWN there to an extent far, far, greater than would be granted to any outsider. So, on the balance, I'd say that a generous opt-out policy reduces pain to outsiders far more than it gives an undue advantage to insiders -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 00:29, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As a follow-up to Seth's comment (and with reference to what Giano infers below), there's no particular insider angle here. If it comes to my attention that someone wants their biography article deleted from Wikipedia, and that person doesn't seem notable enough to have been covered in any paper-and-ink encyclopedia, then I ask that person if they'd like me to nominate the page for deletion. These conversations are rare. Far more people want to get profiled on Wikipedia than want off of it. Yet I always offer these nominations according to the same criteria. DurovaCharge! 00:47, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Durova. This just goes to show then how important I regard this matter. I was rather under the impression the dispute was over. Never the less, I am surprised you are still mentioning your obviously private connections with the Wikipedia hierachy [13]. I hope they bear you in good stead. Giano (talk) 17:33, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
PS: I would imagine most of my last 500 edits have been in dealing with your lamentable behaviour. Giano (talk) 17:34, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thinking about it Durova, Angela seems very proud of her acheivements, why fon't you expand the page here is a start [14]. Giano (talk) 19:33, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry what is not neutral here? Is there a disputed fact? Giano (talk) 22:21, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Change to Delete and redirect per a below clarification from Durova. I still think Angela is notable, but offering living people the chance to opt out if they aren't bulletproof notable, and they ask, probably doesn't hurt. Lawrence Cohen 21:01, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable. It is most [[Ironic]]when the wiki methodology backfires on its promoters. --arkalochori |talk| 03:31, 6 December 2007 (UTC) This user has been blocked by a checkuser for abusing multiple accounts. Sarah 13:13, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever, OTRS Cabal. Whatever. Miranda 13:36, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't see why this is disconcerting, we are talking about a woman who feels she is sufficiently notable and of interest to the public to put up her own biographical details, complete with photographs on the internet. [15] [16] So we are not talking about someone wanting privacy or being fearful of others knowing what she looks like. Which I could understand. However, the difference between the biography here and the biographical details that Angela herself publishes is, in theory at least, she has less control over the content of the bio here. If a deletion here is permitted where will this precedent take us? Giano (talk) 08:26, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was referring to comments directed at the nominator. But moving past that, someone starting a personal website about themselves doesn't make them meet any notability guideline (otherwise we would be flooded with useless bios of every single person who owns a website); the website's not a reliable source by the definition given in policy and guidelines. It seems counter-intuitive, but that's pretty much what it says. --Coredesat 09:16, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Trust me on this one, I would prefer not to direct any comment ever to the nominator but one does have to answer her, as she seems everpresent in Wikipedia. Giano (talk) 09:18, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, at any rate I reread my last statement and it makes little sense, so I changed to merge (not delete). --Coredesat 09:19, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

does not belong at Wikia and would have the appearance of Durova and others yet again trying to hide something. Do what is best for Wikipedia and don't add yet another incident for our critics to take to the newspapers. WAS 4.250 (talk) 15:09, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please set those considerations aside. I link to the nominations of Seth Finkelstein and Daniel Brandt that I proposed on the same basis. Mr. Finkelstein himself has come to this discussion to support the nomination. DurovaCharge! 15:55, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Funny how "our critics" never want to "take it to the newspaper" when we argue about biographies of fat kids who get made fun of on Youtube. It is rarely possible to write an encyclopedia-quality biographical article that respects NPOV and Undue Weight about people who are notable for a single event. Thatcher131 17:15, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


  • Durova, it is not your place to make and define policy. this is an encyclopedia not a trade directory that people choose to be in or out of. We are supposed to be building the most comprehensive encyclopedia ever, that cannot be achieved if people who are considered to be notable can elect to be in or out - do you imagine Howard Hughes would have chosen to be here? Angela is notable wether she likes it or not. She is not a recluse. She is not afraid of posting her own details and images to the internet. There are no grounds for deletion whatsoever. Giano (talk) 16:04, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Have you been on the Wikimedia Board? Have you co-founded Wikia? No. But Angela has. Bramlet Abercrombie (talk) 17:32, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Quoting Angela: "Thanks for pointing it out. I didn't know it was there, and it's incorrect for that page to claim the nom was "per my request". Angela. 03:04, 5 December 2007 (UTC)" So did she in fact request this deletion, or did she not? Lawrence Cohen 20:32, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Here's the full sequence of events. I had been conversing with a student who's writing a thesis about Wikipedia when the subject of Angela Beesley's biography came up. So I sent a follow-up query to Angela. She and I had communicated briefly last June and back then she had expressed that she'd rather the biography come down than stay up, but had said no thanks to the idea of a deletion nomination. Someone else had nominated her biography for deletion not long after I discussed it with her. Since then nearly six months had passed and three biographies had all come down per nominations I had made. So I contacted Angela again and asked if she'd like me to try for this again. She gave the go-ahead, which I understood to be a request. Around the time she made that post she contacted me to clarify that I'd stated her wishes a little too strongly. I offered to refactor in any way she wanted, but she decided to let the nomination stand because she thought it would have a better chance of success this way. I apologized for the misunderstanding and abided by her decision. DurovaCharge! 20:47, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To respond to the above which I had an edit conflict with, Angela has consistently said she does want an article. Whether she knew about this AfD does not matter. --Bduke (talk) 23:14, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Surely you meant to write doesn't want an article? :) Redrocketboy 23:19, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I did. Thanks. There is so much edit conflict here, I did not read it before saving.--Bduke (talk) 23:35, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Questionable notability might be an issue, but why should whether or not the person wants an article play into it at all? Rray (talk) 21:35, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Because no one is more deeply affected by the existence of a Wikipedia biography than its living subject. Also because - as the long Daniel Brandt debacle showed - it's a waste of everyone's time to stand on rigid principle in these borderline cases. Wikipedia and the public haven't lost much by making Seth Finkelstein a redlink, Seth's happier, and site volunteers have more time on their hands for other productive endeavors. I think the question should be, why should we not delete or merge/redirect if Ms. Beesley wants it? Any encyclopedic content could go into other articles. DurovaCharge! 21:50, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • We should not delete the article just because Ms. Beesley wants it unless we're willing to delete any article whose subject requests deletion. I gave your "dead trees" guideline idea some thought before expressing an opinion here. But I think it's too subjective, and it seems like a rationale for helping someone out with a preference, which IMO is a weak rationale. We would presumably refuse to delete the Warren Buffett or Stephen King articles if they requested it. So we shouldn't delete any article just because the subject requests it. The Wikipedia already has a lower standard of notability than a paper encyclopedia. I might favor an increase in the notability standard, but just deleting an article because the subject requests it just seems silly. And I don't see how having an article written about you is going to "deeply affect" you. Even if it does, what if it "deeply affects" Bill Clinton? The rationale should be applied to everyone if it's applied at all. Rray (talk) 23:30, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I put some very hard thought into the matter before deciding on the "dead trees standard" for precisely the reasons you articulate. It would be hard to write an encyclopedia of horror literature without an entry for Stephen King, for example. At some point of notability people are actual public figures who have press agents of their own to handle potential problems. Roughly that corresponds to where a specialty encyclopedia of XYZ starts to cover them. At any rate, it's the kind of standard that people could actually go to a library and check and cite to settle a debate. If you have a better idea then by all means present it. This was the best I could do. DurovaCharge! 23:38, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I know you did put hard thought into it, and I mean no disrespect by disagreeing with you. I think a better idea is if they meet our notability criteria, then we don't delete their article based on their request. If that's not acceptable, we should revise our notability criteria. Having two notability criteria so that we can justify deleting articles as a courtesy to their subject seems unfair to the people who meet the proposed dead trees criteria. Rray (talk) 23:51, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Would you rather restore Daniel Brandt's biography, with all the conflict that carried? If we follow your reasoning then we'd have to to the same thing for everybody, not just people with Foundation ties. DurovaCharge! 00:08, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not that familiar with the debate there, but I think he's certainly notable enough to warrant his own article here. Was there something different about his situation? (Besides him not being associated with the Foundation?) Rray (talk) 00:18, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I clicked on the link for Brandt's AfD discussion, but it looks like the actual discussion has been blanked. Based on the reasons cited, then yeah, I would say restore his article. Rray (talk) 00:23, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I reviewed the link, but I don't think the amount of drama caused by someone ought to be a criterion for deletion either. Someone's either notable enough for inclusion, or they're not. Having two standards just to do a favor for someone seems wrong to me, although I'm sure it's well-intentioned. But frankly, I think the Daniel Brandt article should have been kept too. Rray (talk) 03:10, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • If it had been just for one person I wouldn't do this. Actually there's been a small but steady trickle. I respect your disagreement, though. Cheers. DurovaCharge! 04:20, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't mean any disrespect, and I'm sure we'll probably eventually just agree to disagree, but why would we do something for a "trickle" of people if we wouldn't do it for one person? Please understand my intention is not to mock; I'm honestly curious about why you think that. Rray (talk) 14:36, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree. There's no sense in having a guideline we won't consistently apply. If courtesy deletions become a trend, we might as well delete everything that doesn't meet the dead trees standard - including several FAs. Better to be consistent than to purposely introduce random gaps in our coverage. Zagalejo^^^ 04:39, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • We're dealing with the intersection of the WP:V policy and the WP:BLP policy. No encyclopedia has ever been so large before that it's really gotten into this question. Used to be, encyclopedias didn't cover living people at all. Then the constraints of print publishing and paid writing kept their coverage at a level where only very famous people were included. We're embarking on new territory with these discussions. And I'm not sure merge/redirect would introduce random gaps in coverage, if you think deletion goes too far. DurovaCharge! 18:06, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • One might say the former limits were paper-based whereas the current limits are more BLP based, there is an argument that we should lower notability threshold but allow people to opt-out when they do not meet a far higher level of notability (to which Angela isn't even close), ie its people's desire not to be included that is the new limit, or at least ought to be. Thanks, SqueakBox 19:11, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This whole thread is becoming ridiculous. Angela's role regarding Wikipedia etc. has made her notable. Angela has been more than happy to promote herself on her own websites. Wikipedia is the most comprehensive encyclopedia ever. If Wikipedia starts to delete its own on the "I don't like it! - I don't want it - give me a sweetie" spoilt child basis then we may all just as well shut up shop now and go to the pub; because we will be justly ridiculed. Lets lead by example in matters such as this. Now for heaven's sake close this thread now for the good of the encyclopedia. Giano (talk) 19:42, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • To add to what I said above, this article has been nominated for AfD 7 times. The result is always speedy keep or no consensus. Repeatedly filing frivolous AfD is itself an act of disruption and trolling.--Certified.Gangsta (talk) 21:23, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please avoid personal attacks and assume good faith. I don't happen to think that a nomination by this person at this time is particularly wise. However, consensus can change - it took 15 attempts to get rid of Brandt, so this will not be the last debate on this particular article. Everyone needs to calm down here.--Docg 21:55, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Personal opinion: this kind of high drama AfD's cannot be reasonably solved by counting votes. The decision should be made by some cabal or a committee. Even wrong decision is better than the never ending stream of vague opinions and and equally vague counteropinions. Pavel Vozenilek (talk) 00:57, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rather than relying on some cabal or going through the drama of repeated AFDs why not just raise the bar across the board for notability of BLP articles? It sounds to me like the cost benefit ratio for the less notable BLP articles is not that great. Lets just blow them all away. This will mean that some FA's and GA's might get deleted. So be it. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 01:15, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Personal opinion: this kind of high drama AfD's cannot be reasonably solved by counting votes. The decision should be made by some cabal or a committee. Even wrong decision is better than the never ending stream of vague opinions and and equally vague counteropinions. Pavel Vozenilek (talk) 00:57, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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