Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Angela Beesley

Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. Yes, she is notable. – ABCD 00:39, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Angela Beesley

  • Unfactual article about a non-notable person. Is this meant to be an
    April Fool's Day joke? Angela.
    09:06, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Highly notable, wonderful person, most deserving of her own article.--
    *
    09:20, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Vanity, fancruft, inaccurate, poorly written, and most likely a
    very, very bad joke. Mo0[talk
    ] 09:22, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Transwiki to PokemonWiki. Every day is
    April Fool's Day on VfD. Barno
    15:25, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: Hey, was that really Angela's cleavage in the Britannica takeover article? (Not in the "Queen Elizabeth II" picture.) I might donate for a good cause like that. Barno 16:02, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Userf... ah. Well if you are redlinked from
    Wikimedia what did you expect to happen eventually? Dangling redlinks in lists of names are perennial sources of biographies. Vote witheld until the chaos and silliness settles down. Uncle G
    17:37, 2005 Apr 1 (UTC)
  • Delete. Much is it pains me to say that Angela is a "non-notable person" I agree with her that the article doesn't belong. — Trilobite (Talk) 17:44, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - and improve; she's on the Wikiboard and that's impressive Brookie 19:57, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. The fact that we can't make up our minds whether we're serious or not isn't a good sign.
    speak up!
    05:29, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Angela, I can think of few people more deserving of an article than you. You've helped me along in this Wikiness more than I probably deserve and you have my undying gratitude. Personally, I'd like to vote keep. If you really want it gone, I understand. - Lucky 6.9 08:35, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and rewrite for factual accuracy. As a member of the Wikimedia executive, and as an internet entrepreneur who has been interviewed by major international newspapers (CNN, etc), I think calling you "non-notable" is an understatement at best. Besides, few have done more to make this encyclopedia what it is than you. No joke - I was thinking of writing an article about you myself, but was postponing it for your birthday:-) Please don't nuke this one! David Cannon 14:08, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. nn. --BM 01:10, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete; I'm inclined to honor Angela's request. If she changes her mind I'll change my vote. Antandrus 01:38, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep highly notable. Johann B Kerner 18:30, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and rewrite for factual accuracy. I echo David Cannon.
    (что??)
    01:01, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. silsor 01:25, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Neutralitytalk 01:25, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete if Angela wants it gone. — Dan | Talk 01:27, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not fair to keep it if she doesn't want it. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:30, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)
    • So you're saying that if, say,
      (что??)
      02:38, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. —Markaci 2005-04-4 T 01:46 Z
  • Comment. "If she changes her mind I'll change my vote", "if Angela wants it gone", "not fair to keep it if she doesn't want it". Not fair to Wikipedia to use that kind of argument. Article has steadily moved towards meeting our standards, incidentally. An argument on notability could be made, but I don't vote on those. I certainly wouldn't do anything solely on what Angela wanted, though; I hope you all mean "if Angela doesn't want it throw it away, because it's not notable enough to begin with", not "we delete personal articles of Foundation members if they want us to". That would be pretty bad. JRM 02:10, 2005 Apr 4 (UTC)
  • Keep Angela rocks :-) Samboy 03:07, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Marginal Keep - this is a real person with verifiable data. We are also now the largest encyclopedia in the world, not to mention all the other wikimedia projects. So being on the board of this is notable, but not hugely so. Burgundavia 04:07, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Whether Angela rocks, is nice, etc. is irrelevant. I rock. Did I write an article about myself? No. And no one else should. Feel free to tell me I rock, however. - Vague | Rant 04:08, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Angela wants it gone, and much as I like Angela, I'm not really sure she's encyclopedic anyhow. →Raul654 04:36, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, quite a useful article explaining some background on someone who is quite important in the Wikimedia universe. Dan100 10:40, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, useful article. agree with the rest of the keepers. --Dittaeva 12:24, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, notable wikipedians should be included. (and should refrain from editing their own articles :) Trödel|talk 20:52, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Sufficiently encyclopedic. JYolkowski 21:20, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Sorry Angela. Meets normal notability criteria for wikipedia (ie. several papers have written about her). There's no specific rule or precedent that says anything about being notable for wikipedia activity not counting, unfortunately for Angela. Kim Bruning 22:30, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC) (ps: insert :-) ;-) and :-P, where applicable)
  • Abstain, however, as long as I'm here, I'll just hijack the conversation by noting the Page History, I noted that she's asked the picture be removed. Do we, uh, allow the subjects of an article to specify stuff like that? More at Talk:Angela Beesley -Fennec (はさばくのきつね) 23:54, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete: article is suitable only as an object lesson revealing how essential it is to reveal nothing about yourself on Wikipedia, and as a means of discouraging the sharing of such information. Do we have a model release for the photograph, by the way? . - Nunh-huh 02:34, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    All images have associated description pages. This one clearly places it in the GFDL, and moreover, it was uploaded by Angela herself (she didn't object to an image per se, only to the one that was there, which was indeed not very suitable). I'd say all our bases are covered. JRM 02:42, 2005 Apr 5 (UTC)
That covers us for copyright. It's not at all the same as a model release. - Nunh-huh 02:44, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Vacilating Is Angela really that much less notable than say, Our Glorious (Co-)Founder? How wary do we need to be about a "Wikipedia on Wikipedia" bias? I'd noticed the Wikimedia redlink myself, and it didn't seem unreasonable on its face. Alai 04:24, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. More notable than the average blogger. jni 05:17, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, non-notable. Everyking 22:27, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • This has many signs of a prank. The article was originally created by a probable sockpuppet from the same IP as a known vandal. The subject is self-referential to Wikipedia. It was created on April Fool's Day. The article has since been cleaned up but we would not keep a random business person of the same stature from some other corporation. Angela has taught me a lot and been a wonderful influence. One of the things she taught me is that we have standards for a reason. Delete. Rossami (talk) 04:17, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. As written, the article is not encyclopedic, and despite Angela's many contributions to Wikipedia she thus far does not have the sort of public presence that would justify even a comprehensive and well-written article. Being a board member of a foundation with assets in the hundreds of thousands of dollars does not in and of itself rise to the level of public presence that would justify an article. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 16:51, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • (Comment): Angela HAS a public presence, having been interviewed at length by CNN, as well as having promoted Wikipedia on the BBC. David Cannon 22:25, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep/Comment I think this VFD brings up a larger question about wikipedia then just this article. Personally, I definatly (i can, for the life of me, not figure out how that word is spelled) think that Angela is notable enough (if
    CowboyNeal gets his own page, why not Angela). But how much should the fact that Angela herself wants it deleted account for? Ie. how much respect for an article subjects wishes should wikipedia have? Is there some policy on this? Anyway, i vote Keep! Gkhan
    17:49, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)
    • (Comments): [1] I think we need to establish consistent rules here. Have a look at the
      Sonja Elen Kisa. Who's she? If she's here, why not Angela? At least Angela has a public presence outside of Wikipedia (i.e., on CNN and the BBC). [2] I really like Angela as a person, and in normal circumstances would comply with her wishes. To do so this time, however, would create a precedent which would not, in my view, be helpful. If Angela can ask for her bio to be nuked, why not Queen Elizabeth, George W. Bush, or Osama bin Laden? (I'm not saying these individuals would make any such request, I'm just making a point). The credibility of Wikipedia would be seriously undermined if we had people asking for their biographies, or for information they do not want published, to be deleted. If we're going to take a stand against articles being deleted at the whim of their subject, let's not make any exception, not even for someone who considers herself "non-notable." (Please don't take this personally, Angela. This is only a matter of principle). David Cannon
      22:25, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Angela_Beesley&oldid=1051397714"