Misplaced Pages

• Delete My arguments on this topic are well-known by now, and I incorporate them by reference :-) -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 23:55, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep with regret I feel very odd about this, this isn't the same as someone want to vanish from Misplaced Pages, and I know many people here have already disagreed with me on this, and wish to respect her wishes to have her article deleted, but I respect her too, I believe she is notable, asides from what is listed on her article, Ms Beesley is listed at notable name database they will add just any name, mention at a government site CNN Money twice has 31,700 Googe hits quote in Newsweek the Article Misplaced Pages:Wikipedia_on_TV_and_radio list these appearances"

1. June 22, 2006: Primetime Morning Show on Channel NewsAsia: Angela Beesley answered general questions about Misplaced Pages'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 Misplaced Pages in relation to Knowledge Management as part of the "Nice Work" show on BBC Radio 4.
4. November 17, 2004: Angela discusses Misplaced Pages on the You and Yours programme on BBC Radio 4. You can listen to it at but you might need some sort of plugins."

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

• Keep Her accomplishments would seem to make her sufficiently notable as to be included. Deletion because the subject requests it is never a good thing, since it will open a potential can of worms at least in terms of nominations, if not long-running deletion debates. I understand that there is a developing precedent for things of this nature, but mark me down as one of the troglodytes who will argue against its application given a chance. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 06:24, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
  • The can of worms was open a long time ago. Thanks, SqueakBox 06:26, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
    • • Regardless of when it was opened, there's nothing to say that it can't be closed or that people can't try to close it. It could be quite a task to put the worms back there... BigHaz - Schreit mich an 00:12, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
    • And its time that those who thought it was not a good idea speak up and say so--consensus can change, and when it extends to articles like this, it may make it evident that it was a poor idea from day 1. (It can amount to censorship by the subject--write the article the way I like it, or delete it--a drastic violation of NPOV. -- I do not mean that this is the case here -- neither AB nor Durova has done any such thing nor can i imagine that either of them ever would. But something so sussceptible to abuse should not be given a foothold.) DGG (talk) 06:37, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
      • Comment For the record I don't think it was deleting any bio articles that opened the can of worms, it was people objecting to having articles on themselves and people objecting to seeing these articles vandalised. Thanks, SqueakBox 06:42, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
• Comment and Question Is it customary to delete articles because the subject of those articles request it? Would we delete an article about Warren Buffett, Bob Dylan, or Bill Clinton if one of them requested it? I'm not voting because I'm not aware of the policy, but I lean toward thinking that we shouldn't delete articles just because the subject asks us to. I could be convinced otherwise possibly. Rray (talk) 15:29, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
  • The site has long done courtesy deletions for people at the very bottom end of the notability scale. Question is how far to take it. Last June when I nommed Daniel Brandt and Seth Finkelstein I proposed what I called the "dead trees standard". That is, we'll extend courtesy deletions up to the point where a person gets coverage in a paper and ink encyclopedia, including specialty encyclopedias. So world leaders, notorious killers, rock stars, etc. would stay in Misplaced Pages no matter what. For people who aren't famous or notorious enough for an entry in any printed encyclopedia, we might as well honor their wishes if they really want out of here. Durova 16:55, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
    • Thanks for answering my question. I appreciate the clarification. I think your dead trees proposal is interesting. Rray (talk) 17:58, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
    • Isn't one of the primary drives of Misplaced Pages the ability to be proactive, not reactive. I can see merit in the idea of this standard, but for it leading to always being behind the 8 ball. People who are "not yet" notable by print standards, and have an article, which they can opt to have deleted, until they become notable (by print standards), in which case the community has to both recreate work already lost, as well as try to rapidly catch up. Tis an idea you can work on, and propose, but is not policy by consensus, as a single glance at votes here (or indeed almost any AfD on a BLP) would show. I'm also personally vastly opposed to 'courtesy deletes' being 'offered'. Achromatic (talk) 20:34, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
      • In the half year since I began doing this I have made exactly five nominations on this basis. This is quite rare and has a negligible effect on the site's workload. Compare that to the two years of strife that occurred while we had a Daniel Brandt biography and he didn't want it. We earn goodwill this way, with virtually no downside. I have no objection to merging significant content elsewhere. Durova 21:51, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
• Smerge to Wikia or whatever. -R. fiend (talk) 16:18, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep See no reason not to, enough notability and citations, plus it survived six previous votes. This will set a bad precedent for those that want their article deleted.Heavytundra (talk) 16:52, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Note to closing admin: this account has only 22 edits. Durova 17:24, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
    • What does it matter how many edits I have? I've been around for a bit, and could easily have over a 100 or more edits if I setup a bot to do nothing but revert recent changes. But I have better things to do with my time. Heavytundra (talk) 17:59, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
      • I didn't understand the reasoning for pointing out the number of edits the user had either. Maybe Durova could explain what that meant for both of us? Thanks. Rray (talk) 18:52, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
        • Sometimes the closing admin discounts input from participants with very low edit counts. That's entirely at the that person's discretion. Durova 19:22, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
          • Thanks for your reply. I was unaware of that. Rray (talk) 20:06, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

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)

• • • • • I am extending exactly the same courtesy to Angela Beesley that I extended to Seth Finkelstein, Daniel Brandt, and Rand Fishkin. The community agreed on all three previous occasions. I have no wish to renew any dispute or grievance with Giano, or with any other editor. I ask only that this proposed deletion be weighed fairly on its own merits, and closed according to precedent, without reference to unrelated issues. Durova 19:46, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep "Beesley founded a for-profit Wiki hosting service with Jimmy Wales called Wikia. She sits on the advisory board of the media archive Ourmedia and is a co-author of the book Wikis: Tools for Information Work and Collaboration" this alone makes her notable. Deleting this page would be setting an unwise precedent. The project cannot be seen to favour its own in these matters, otherwise who next will want to be deleted? We already have articles on women who have achieved far less in their lives. Notability has its advantages, if some people feel one of the disadvantages is having a page here then so be it. The page though does need to be expanded. Giano (talk) 17:15, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

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 Misplaced Pages 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)

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 Misplaced Pages, 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 Misplaced Pages than want off of it. Yet I always offer these nominations according to the same criteria. Durova 00:47, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

• • Note to closing admin: Giano is involved in a high profile dispute with me and this is his only AFD vote in his last 500 edits. Durova 17:21, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

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 Misplaced Pages hierachy . I hope they bear you in good stead. Giano (talk) 17:33, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

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)

Thinking about it Durova, Angela seems very proud of her acheivements, why fon't you expand the page here is a start . Giano (talk) 19:33, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

• Yawn. <sarcasm>I believe this article has been nominated for deletion before.</sarcasm> I wonder what has changed? If this is a delete-by-attrition, it's way too early for that, we need at least wait until the 15th nomination, or whatever. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 18:21, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, per the nom. Cirt (talk) 18:26, 5 December 2007 (UTC).
• Keep, for reasons explicated above. What is this, "Keep AfDing until it finally gets through"? Achromatic (talk) 00:11, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
• comment Durova please WP:AGF. Giano is not so petty as to be here due to malice towards you and I suspect you are not so important to him as that. The issue is pretty much over is it not, having gone through Arbcom, also has he not stuck to discussing this AfD, rather than attacking you or anything like that, before you implied some other motive?Merkinsmum 19:43, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
  • I apologize if there is any appearance of bad faith in my comments. None has been intended. Durova 19:49, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Misplaced Pages seems to be incapable of writing neutral articles about these sorts of subjects. Let some other website handle it. Anthony (talk) 22:04, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
  • P.S. - note to closing admin - this is probably my only AFD vote in the last 500 edits. Anthony (talk) 22:04, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry what is not neutral here? Is there a disputed fact? Giano (talk) 22:21, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

• Keep The subject is clearly notable, and the article has survived several AfDs already.--Bedivere (talk) 23:03, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
  • P.S. - note to closing admin - I have voted in lots of AFDs.--Bedivere (talk) 23:03, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Per Sirex98. The notability is demonstrated. Unless notability standards change, I can't see why we would delete. Beasely is not borderline notable: A whole lot of sources can be found right here. Lawrence Cohen 23:20, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

• 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)

• Comment and question. Per WP:CBLANK, blanking is done for deletion discussions when they have the potentional to do harm. I see this as the criteria for deletion of this article as well. Could the subject (or the subjects proxy) explain how this article will potentially cause her harm? I actually see the article as quite positive to the subject. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 02:43, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
  • The reasons people want their biographies removed are often quite personal. It doesn't seem right to demand of them that they explain those reasons in public (and in a permanent record) to the satisfaction of strangers. The aim here is to recover some dignity and privacy, not to lose more of it. Durova 03:07, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
    • The use of the phrase 'dignity' here is an appeal to emotion, NPOV if you will. I fail to see anything "undignified" in her page, and one would hope, through the use of appropriate editorial discretion, that any content that made it to her, or indeed any, page, would be as dignified as warranted by its content. As for privacy, I'm not sure how a biography that details no more about her than do pages offering her bio of her own volition invades her privacy? Achromatic (talk) 20:44, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, although I respect her wishes, she's notable. Also, these follow up notes to the closing admin are getting tiresome. Yonatan 02:54, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete if she would like to have it deleted. SlimVirgin 03:06, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Keep Notable. It is most ]when the wiki methodology backfires on its promoters. --arkalochori 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)

• Keep per above. Interviews and founding of Wikia is what pushes it for me towards retaining this, if not for at least a possible future merger somewhere else. hbdragon88 (talk) 05:39, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per User:SlimVirgin and User:Durova. Ripberger (talk) 05:43, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete and redirect to Wikia. Or, she can do like the rest of the famous people and ask wikiholics on OTRS to delete her article, since she is a BLP. OTRS TICKET: #1239912092007 Miranda 07:07, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
  • For that ticket to exist it would have had to have been created in the year 1239 on the 91st day of the 20th month, at 92:07:7* and be in a non-existant queue :) Daniel 10:53, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Whatever, OTRS Cabal. Whatever. Miranda 13:36, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Merge and redirect to Wikia per nom per arguments below this one. No offense to Angela, but there's no notability per WP:BIO outside Wikia, so might as well either delete or merge the article to Wikia and leave a redirect. Giano and others' behavior here is disconcerting, as well. --Coredesat 08:01, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

• 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. 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)

• 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)

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 Misplaced Pages. Giano (talk) 09:18, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

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)

• Keep - simply is notable. Her wishful thinking or position doesn't make the fact otherwise. --Mcginnly | Natter 10:29, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

*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)

• Delete since she (a) wants it deleted (I think she opened a previous AfD) and (b) isn't so notable that the absence of her article would make us lose credibility as an encyclopaedia. ElinorD (talk) 11:02, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - If Angela wants it deleted herself, then we must uphold her request and delete or rather (#REDIRECT Wikia) it to Wikia....makes more sense...--Cometstyles 11:17, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 11:22, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per Cometstyles. --Roosa (talk) 11:47, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per ElinorD . She doesn't want this - we don't need this - so why be nasty.--Doc 12:22, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
  • May I ask, what if George W. Bush or Mariah Carey wanted their article deleted? Would you vote delete then, so as to not be nasty too? Thanks. Redrocketboy 12:27, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
    • If you can't differentiate between Beesley and Bush, I can't help you? (but see Reductio ad absurdum and Straw man)--Doc 12:47, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
      • Of course I can tell the diffference :) I just think that Beesley seems pretty notable, and the line we draw where we allow the subject of the article to decide their inclusion is very blurred. But I really am interested in how you'd vote in such a discussion. Cheers. Redrocketboy 12:51, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
        • In the case of bios and notability all lines are blurred and subjective. Notability is inherently subjective. Where would I draw the line? Well, somewhere beyond Beesley and before Bush - that's not a hard call.--Doc 12:55, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
          • I wouldn't have made any of the earlier nominations unless I had a firm dividing line for how far to take this. My proposal was the "dead trees standard", which means we'll extend courtesy deletions upon request to living people who aren't notable enough to be in any paper and ink encyclopedia, including specialty encyclopedias. Durova 15:58, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
• Strong delete non-notable person. How simple is that? So she works for Wikia. That does not make her notable. She wrote a book. That does not make her notable. That's it. Still not sure why we ever had this article in the first place. ⇒SWATJester 12:54, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Correction: she co-founded Wikia. Redrocketboy 12:56, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
    • Since you ask, it was created by User:Johann B Kerner, who created it on 1st April 2005, made four more edits and promptly disappeared... Redrocketboy 12:58, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete due to woeful lack of non-trivial indepednent sources primarily about this person. With every passing month, more and more publications completely fail to talk about her. Guy (Help!) 13:27, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. I had to think about this because a couple of months ago I used this article myself when handling a media request for someone to do a segment about Misplaced Pages for an Australian morning television program.I found the article handy but (no offense, Angela)I think Angela falls in the wishywashy land between truly notable and truly not notable and in such cases I prefer to defer to the subject's wishes as far as possible. So if Angela would prefer it deleted, then certainly I think we should abide by that and delete it. Sarah 13:39, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Absolutely notable enough. The fulfilling of a request is not a given, as you remain at the mercy of the cabal, so we determine whether someone are notable, not the person on the bio in question (otherwise, why are we voting here at the moment) And a suggestion: requests for removals of bios should not be a community decision, but fulfilled without discussion. -- Kim van der Linde 13:51, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - Angela Beesley is a co-founder and vice president for community relations of Wikia. Involved in Misplaced Pages since 2003, Beesley was elected to the Board of Trustees of the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation in 2004, and re-elected in 2005. During this time, she was active in editing content and setting policy, such as privacy policy, within the Foundation. She resigned from the board in July 2006. Beesley has contrasted her work with wikis to her earlier work with the Open Directory Project, which she found to be much more closed and hierarchical. Since February 21, 2006, she has been a member of the Communications Committee of the Wikimedia Foundation. She also chairs the Foundation's Advisory Board. In October 2004, Beesley founded a for-profit Wiki hosting service with Jimmy Wales called Wikia. She sits on the advisory board of the media archive Ourmedia and is a co-author of the book Wikis: Tools for Information Work and Collaboration.

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 Misplaced Pages 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)

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. Durova 15:55, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

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)

• Keep because notable, not in the borderline notability bracket, who are the only ones who should have the ability to get their own article removed. There should also not be the appearance of favouritism/special treatment if someone knows or requests something of a clique on wikipedia.Merkinsmum 15:17, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
  • There is neither favoritism nor the appearance of it. As stated in the nomination, I proposed courtesy deletions for both Daniel Brandt and Seth Finkelstein on the same basis as this discussion. Both are prominent critics of Misplaced Pages. The WP:BLP policy had loosened a bit to allow room for that. On both instances I used a "dead trees standard", which means if someone isn't famous enough to be in any print encyclopedia then we'll extend this courtesy upon request. So politicians, rock stars, serial killers, etc. are probably all covered in specialty encyclopedias and don't get this courtesy. Anyone else does, and my nominations have been rigidly consistent with that principle. Durova 15:51, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

• 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)

• Strongest Possible Delete. Stubby unencyclopedic cruft like this is what is taking down Misplaced Pages's quality. I'm saying it again: just because there's references about someone does NOT make them inherently notable. If we are going to start writing stubs on every Wikimedian who's been in the news, then you might as well do me next. Here's some sources, am I notable? No. Neither is Angela. ^demon 16:30, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

• 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)

• Those are encyclopedic things? ^demon 20:00, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Not notable enough to warrant inclusion.--MONGO (talk) 17:35, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep I still consider the two examples Durova cites notable enough for inclusion, but they were deleted for reasons other than notability -- which I won't go into here. Sorry, Angela. -- llywrch (talk) 17:51, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, I just don't see a full, comprehensive biography ever taking shape here, not enough sourcing. If she's somewhat notable in conjunction with Wikia, easy enough—mention her briefly in the Wikia article, and that's that. Seraphimblade 20:16, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I wrote Keep with regret as I was lead to believe that this was something she knew about and wished to happen, due to this statement "Nominating for courtesy deletion or redirect per a request from Angela Beesley." by the nominator, this statement by Angela from her talk page since removed by her may suggest otherwise.▪◦▪≡ЅiREX≡ 20:29, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

• 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)

Here's the full sequence of events. I had been conversing with a student who's writing a thesis about Misplaced Pages 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. Durova 20:47, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks. I'm revising to delete. Lawrence Cohen 21:01, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

• As her agent for the deletion process, are you making her aware of the debate and what a bad image it is creating for her? She is coming across as being in the same ilk as Brandt. She now has the appearance of being an opponent of Misplaced Pages openness. As a contributor she should let he own voice be heard. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 21:37, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
  • I fail to see the value judgements you infer. This nomination is based upon an objective standard. Ms. Beesley is welcome to comment here if she wishes, and did inform me of her one misgiving. I would do this for anyone who met the same standard and confirmed with me that they wanted it. Durova 21:46, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
• It gives the appearance that she is using private communications to arrange for the deletion of her biography by others. This is the type of behavior that made Microsoft look bad, and it looks even worse when Wikia people are doing a similar thing. I am assuming that her not speaking up, is a tacit admission that she is arranging with others to use the AFD process to eliminate her own biography. Which is odd, since she has a blog with even more information in it. Or is this an elaborate prank, so that supporters of Brandt can point to the hypocrisy? I don't know, but either way it looks bad. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 22:27, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
  • I approached Ms. Beesley on both occasions, although the first one came by a proxy referral that originated with Daniel Brandt. Microsoft offered to pay a blogger to alter an article. I receive no compensation. Furthermore, this is one of five deletion noms that I have done on the same grounds and in the same manner. It would take a real stretch of the imagination to construe impropriety out of that. One can't guard completely against off-the-wall theories, so I'll just have to point to WP:AGF regarding my conduct and hers. Durova 22:45, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - The nominator appears to have been in error on this one: Angela herself (at ) states that she did not request this. Therefore, the principle which Durova suggests (courtesy deletion for a not-terribly-notable subject who requests it) does not apply. In addition, I think that Angela is notable. Therefore, I say keep: and have to point out that I wonder if the nominator deliberately mislead us. - Philippe | Talk 20:46, 6 December 2007 (UTC) - I struck through my previous comment because I'm convinced the nominator did not purposely mislead us. - Philippe | Talk 20:52, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Not sufficiently notable, as shown by the failure to establish additional grounds for notability after previous deletion debates. Sam Blacketer (talk) 20:55, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Her reasonable request for deletion should be respected. BCST2001 (talk) 23:01, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Angela is a long standing experienced wikipedian and she tells us that she does not believe she is notable enough for an article. I think she is right. In any event her notability is marginal so we should respect her wishes. --Bduke (talk) 23:10, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

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)

Surely you meant to write doesn't want an article? :) Redrocketboy 23:19, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

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)

• Keep Clearly notable. Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 23:16, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Notable; to the extent that Jimmy Wales is notable. A courtesy for her would be to keep the article polite, accurate, and Nice (talk) 01:48, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Blocked as sock This is a Secret 02:55, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Can we redirect to Irony? Either way Brandt and his followers get more fodder to criticize Misplaced Pages in the WikiTruth wiki. Maybe this was an elaborate trap to make Misplaced Pages look bad and to give Wikitruth more to write about. The same person nominated the Brandt deletion and this one, and each time Wikitruth gets more to write about. Can we close this debate and start on number 8? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 02:26, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Those sites don't determine our editorial decisions. Durova 03:07, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
• Further Comment to the comment above. What I see is basically a benign article that passes the notibility criteria and shows the subject in a positive light and for some reason that most of us don't know the subject wants it deleted. I've been reading through the deletion discussion of Daniel Brandt and Seth Finkelstein, and Mr Finkelstein mentioned that he wanted his article deleted because it was an attractive nuisance. Could this also be the reason why Ms. Beesley wants her article deleted? If this is the case then I think it looks bad for wikipedia because it looks like one of the high ups doesn't have faith in the wikipedia model (at least for BLP articles). To use an analogy, it looks like the CEO for McDonalds refusing to eat at there because it's unhealthy food. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 03:57, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Although I appreciate the concern, I don't think anything bad is likely to materialize. If Mr. Brandt objects I suppose we could do a reversal and restore his article also. That's called consistency. :) Durova 04:30, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep First, she is notable, and remains in the public eye because of her public speaking. Speeches by and interviews with her show up in things like Harvard Business School case studies (here), publications of the Association for Computing Machinery (here), apologizing for vandalism to the press two weeks ago here. These are three recent examples, all more recent than the last time (AFD#3) I opined that she is notable. Because of her association with so many wikis, filtering out the reliable sources from the unreliable ones remains difficult. But she is clearly notable, and notability is permanant. Once notable, always notable. (Though the usual frictions of history - fires, invasions, record decay, etc... destroys the proof that we as an encyclopedia need over the span of centuries.) Second, the subject here did not request that the page be nominated for deletion; she explictly says that claim is incorrect. Third, it is in Misplaced Pages's best interest not to even be seen as deleting an article on one of its former leaders at the request of that leader. The potential reputational damage to Misplaced Pages is too big. If we could do it on the basis of non-notability that would be one thing - but we can't do so honestly. So keep is both the outcome that accords with policy and guidelines and is the one that is best for Misplaced Pages. GRBerry 04:44, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep: Don't believe it unless she requests it publicly. This is on it's 7th nomination, why persist? --Charitwo 05:26, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
  • I have requested it publicly. See the previous nominations. Angela. 10:37, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Consensus has moved toward deletion/redirect upon request for not-very-notable BLP subjects. How do you define consensus? A few Wikipedians with clout don't speak for everyone. The last Daniel Brandt AFD remains controversial. The last Finkelstein AFD had about 18 keep arguments. Fishkin was snowballed after five comments, none of which provided evidence that the participants looked for sources. There is no consensus for deletion by demand. Zagalejo^^^ 05:52, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep notable, well written, I don't see the downside to having it.Heathcliff (talk) 07:14, 7 December 2007 (UTC)