Angela Beesley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD7)

Moved from Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 December 9

To avert a discussion on WP:AN from turning ugly, I'm listing this here. After closing this AFD as "no consensus", User:Mercury decided that "Since there was no consensus to do anything WP:BLP#BLP_deletion_standards grants me discretion to consider the subjects request. I have done so and deleted the article. We are doing the right thing here." User:Spartaz wonders "Please explain exactly how/why the article contravenes BLP. Specifically what unsourced questionable content was there?" Back-and-forth arguing on the admin board ensued (permalink).

Earlier AFD discussions resulted in keep, keep, no consensus, snowball, speedy keep for WP:POINT, and no consensus. Let me be clear on the point that I have no opinion either way on this myself, but just wish to avoid further drama. Abstain. >Radiant< 19:51, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: the editor who started the last AFD (User:Durova) claims to have done this at Angela's request; however, Angela denies having made this request. Confusing, no? >Radiant< 11:16, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Not confusing -- See the comment of Angela (talk · contribs) here. She makes clear that she wishes the article deleted. - Jehochman ^Talk 14:36, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Other Note: Where do you get a denial of a deletion request out of that? And why are you posting to the top of this discussion? Mercury 11:20, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think this was clarified during the AfD. Angela does wish it deleted and had consistently done so. Whether she explicitly asked for this AfD is neither here nor there.--Doc^g 11:21, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DRV early closure

Comment The DRV was closed twice early by the same person, and two seperate editors have now undone that as too soon/premature. Lawrence Cohen 04:42, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Discussion on DRV early closure is at User_talk:Jc37#DRV_2 Lawrence Cohen 05:03, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the text of the closure: [1]. - jc37 05:41, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I moved the closure discussion to this page's talk page. - jc37 23:57, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion. No consensus in AfD, and per WP:BLP#BLP_deletion_standards subject's request and admin's discretion override. Crum375 (talk) 20:04, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion. WP:BLP#BLP_deletion_standards was written for exactly this kind of case. WAS 4.250 (talk) 20:08, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Abstain myself but surprisingly leaning towards endorse As far as I can see the substantial discussion has already ended at ANI and I fear that having a DRV will only reignite the drama. I was initially very unhappy with the explanation for the delete and felt that some users might perceive Mercury as lacking independance in this case but he strongly disputes this. I have since discussed this with Mercury off-wiki and, mostly, my concerns have been assuaged. As such, I have let this drop. BLP as it is currently drafted seems to allow greater scope for the deletion of non-notable bios than previously and the deletion is therefore grounded in policy as long as the AFD stands as no consensus. Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:10, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse Deletion. People complained about the article being kept for the past 2 years. Fewer people complain about the article being deleted now. This is surely the correct decision, and the redirection to Wikia an entirely sensible one. Nick (talk) 20:13, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion - (ec) After initial concerns that I brought up at the AN thread, I believe that a deletion may have been in order, as per Crum375. — Rudget _speak.work 20:14, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn AFD was originally closed as no consensus; you don't get to come back and change your mind later. A "do-over" should have required a re-list. Furthermore, the deletion per WP:BLP#BLP_deletion_standards requires that the person's "notability is ambiguous" and yet a near super-majority of editors insisted the person met WP:N. Notability is rather obvious as the subject has articles transwiki'd in seven other languages (e.g. [2]). But if I have to learn Bahasa Indonesian to read about this person, gotta do what I gotta do. -- Kendrick7^talk 20:32, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody did a "do over". A quick look at the comments indicates ambiguity on the AFD. What other projects do, should not affect our project. Mercury 20:40, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's simply out of process to come back and change your mind 10 hours later. That's a dangerous precedent which would allow all sorts of pressure and backroom dealing to be brought against any closing admin in order to get them to change their minds, wouldn't you agree? What is done should be done. And while there may not have been consensus to delete, there was a practical consensus that notability was strongly met. -- Kendrick7^talk 20:48, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You post insinuates that I had changed my mind off site. I have not changed my mind, the AFD close is still no consensus. You know assume good faith is policy here. I have applied the BLP policy properly here. If there is any substance to your accusations, please post them. As far as the rest of your post, it indicates you are not familiar with the AFD or the WP:BLP policy. You should know about what you are commenting on. Regards, Mercury 20:53, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying that is the case here; I'm happy to believe you have misapplied the "marginal notability" guideline of your own free will. This guideline was intended for people like Brian Peppers, not for corporate board members. I'm simply saying the out of process deletion here would be a dangerous precedent to set. -- Kendrick7^talk 21:03, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The burdon of proof is on you then. Mercury 21:08, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That you effectively closed the AFD twice? Er, OK.[3] [4] I'll inquire at WP:BLP as to whether the "marginal notability" guideline was developed with corporate board members in mind, but I think a lot of editors do know the history here. -- Kendrick7^talk 21:15, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(od)No I closed the AFD once. Then I slept on it, and applied the policy properly. Is there a deadline that I don't know about? It was closed as no consensus, and still no consensus. Mercury 21:18, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You did not apply the policy properly. Editors at the AFD clearly endorsed the notability of the subject. -- Kendrick7^talk 21:23, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

::So you go to the blp talk page and ask support? Mercury 21:38, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't I just say above I was going to inquire there? If nothing else, this policy should be clarified going forward. "Marginality" shouldn't just become another cloak of ambiguity administrators can wrap their decisions in. -- Kendrick7^talk 21:45, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion. Correct application of WP:BLP policy to delete biographies of marginal notability if the subject requests. Sam Blacketer (talk) 20:57, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion - if the BLP has explicitly said that she doesn't want a biography on Wikipedia (due to real life issues or other), we should respect her wishes. I know that Angela is not the suing type, but if she did decide to take that route, this could have legal implications for the WKM foundation. Miranda 21:01, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion there's no consensus that we need this article - in such cases taking the subject's wishes into account is both a reasonable and humane application of WP:BLP. She's only notable for Wikia - and we have a redirect to that.--Doc^g 21:02, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion. Common sense suggests that the biographical information now at Wikia is adequate and an independent biography page is not needed. Send the wikilawyers away and let's end this. --JWSchmidt (talk) 21:16, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion When someone is borderline notable and they don't want an article then it should be deleted as per WP:BLP. If at some future date Angela becomes a lot more notable then this argument wouldn't hold. RMHED (talk) 21:18, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• I am not voting but simply stating that it would be wise to let everyone know that this is happening. Kind of looks like a behind the scenes clandestine affair. Just food for thought. 70.242.179.148 (talk) 21:32, 9 December 2007 (UTC) — 70.242.179.148 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at UTC timestamp [optional] (UTC)..[reply]
• Endorse deletion - A valid close based on the administrator's discretionary zone. No issues here. Sean William @ 21:40, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion But can of course be recreated at any time as notability grows. As she still shows up in the news over time, she will eventually be completely notable and not eligible for borderline removal eventually. Lawrence Cohen 21:42, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Change to overturn in hindsight. I voted to delete, after changing from speaking with Durova. In hindsight I think it was a mistake. Unless Beesley stops doing notable things, what is the point here? We just will be forced to remake the article in 6-12-18 months, and waste time. Why do I say that? Has Beesley stopped speaking about Wikia, a company she co-founded? Or Wikipedia? Is she still talking to news media? Her name and profile will still rise in such ways, unless she becomes a private person. We have x number of sources today, we'll have y more in 6-12-18 months unless she announces she's done with any public corporate roles. Lawrence Cohen 04:33, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• 'overturn as not requested by subject' change to 'do not restore' (new opinion below) (I will not say "endorse", this was mishandled) unless the BLP policy is clarified in a way that means she is not "marginally notable". [5]; no prejudice towards another AFD if it is requested. —Random832 21:45, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Did you read the AFD? I'll assume you did and missed this gem. Yes she did. Mercury 21:47, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  I hadn't seen that. Since she was apparently not in any contact with Durova, though, Durova's behavior needs to be examined separate from this.—Random832 21:54, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  I never said I was not in any contact with Durova. Please stop linking to some comment I wrongly made and instantly reverted. Angela. 15:24, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be fair, Durova may not respond here. Any questions about her might should be brought to her talk page. Mercury 22:13, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This may also be some clarification. But ask on the talk page. Mercury 22:44, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Correct, that this forum is not for discussion on the nominator. As an aside, I discounted references to off wiki communication. Mercury 21:58, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion. No more drama. Let it flop. 68.193.198.41 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 22:06, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion. I thought this was deleted ages ago. --Tony Sidaway 22:08, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse Deletion Redirect to Wikia works fine. ~ priyanath talk 22:16, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion. Proper close, per WP:BLP policy for barely notable individuals who express a clear preference, particularly where Wikipedia appears to be the only biographical source available. Guy (Help!) 22:59, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn - this is ridiculous. Angela was a board member at Wikimedia foundation, you know, the organization that maintains the largest reference work in the world, and she founded a multi-million company. There are no privacy concerns - she's a public person, appears in media and whatnot. If Angela has any specific concerns with this article, I'm sure that can be handled without deleting it. Zocky | picture popups 23:00, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm... I thought we were discussing the deletion per BLP, but I also have to agree with the editors who point out that it was also a breach of the regular deletion process, the article having just passed through a non-consensus AFD. Wikilawyering and venue shopping until you get your way is unseemly behaviour. Zocky | picture popups 12:30, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion per Crum375. --A. B. ^(talk) 23:06, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn Closing admin invoked but did not explain discretion used in the close except possibly that she asked for it. If a (semi-notable) subjects request for deletion by itself is all that's needed I think that's new ground and needs a little more discussion. RxS (talk) 23:37, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Whatever happens, can we please have some kind of notice in the protection log linking to either this deletion review or the specific AFD? The deleting admin's summary of "BLP" is not enough in a case with such a long history. User:Krator (t c) 23:40, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn. This is ridiculous of course she is notable, she even promotes her own achievements complete with pictures on the internet [6], even going so far as to call herself Wiki-Angela. The was no consensus to delete this page what so ever. Wikipedia is not some sort of trade directory one opts to be in or out of, it is supposed to be a comprehensive encyclopedia. Giano (talk) 23:41, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - maybe this was mentioned at the AfD, but I'm looking at the other two people mentioned in the Wikia article: Jimmy Wales and Gil Penchina. I know that arguments based on other articles are weak, but if Gil Penchina can't be expanded beyond a stub due to a lack of independent biographical information, then it probably needs to go as well. For what it is worth, I think some people (known mainly for their work) aren't generally covered in biographical terms in independent sources, but we should still have something about them in the relevant articles. In this case, some of the material previously at Angela Beesley should be incorporated into a history section of Wikia, covering the founding of the company. Carcharoth (talk) 23:48, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion per Crum375 and others. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 00:07, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion - a good use of BLP for a barely notable biographical article. Ryan Postlethwaite 00:59, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion. Taking the subject's wishes into account in cases where the notability is borderline and there's no clear consensus seems well within admin discretion, and a good use of BLP. ElinorD (talk) 01:03, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn Notable enough; and won't the resulting shitstorm harm her reputation more than the article ever did? Zagalejo^^^ 01:08, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• overturn I'd rather not have this DRV now but if we're going to have it now overturn. I continue to maintain my position that courtesy deletion for people who are willing public figures is uncalled for and almost ridiculous. I understand cases like Brian Peppers where the person in question has become notable in a completely unwilling fashion, but people who are notable precisely because they have injected themselves into public sphere simply do not have the same rights. Furthermore, in such cases we as a whole owe our readers to have articles about them. I find this particular disturbing in a case where the subject of the article has a website devoted to promoting herself. JoshuaZ (talk) 01:21, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion. As umpteen people have said already, this seems like a correct application of WP:BLP#BLP deletion standards. Angus McLellan (Talk) 01:35, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn. I did not "vote" in the original AfD, although I did comment. But DRV is about the process of deletion, not the deletion itself. There is a huge difference between "no consensus, so it stays" and "no consensus, but it is a BLP and subject request for deletion, so I guess I'll delete". These are two very different closes. The fact that the closing admin made one type of close and then ten hours later actually changed the type of closing decision is a process issue. We cannot permit AfD closers to go around changing their minds or modifying their decisions. That is what DRV is for - reviewing those decisions. Risker (talk) 02:34, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh but I did not change my mind. It was a decision I needed to sleep on. Was there a deadline I was not aware of? Do we need to be making these decisions hastily? Whats going on?

The close was first no consensus, and is still no consensus. I only applied the BLP ten hours later. Mercury 02:37, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mercury, if you needed to sleep on it, then you should not have closed the discussion. It is really that simple. You made two separate and different "close" decisions, one resulting in deletion and the other one not resulting in deletion. You don't get to change your mind after your nap. That is abuse of process. If you are not sure of what decision is best, then your responsibility is NOT to make a decision, to leave it to any one of the other admins who close contentious AfDs. Risker (talk) 02:42, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, it has always been a no consensus close. Mercury 02:43, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No consensus (therefore delete) and No consensus (therefore keep) are two different results. The different results came 10 hours apart. Closers should only get one kick at the can in determining AfD results. Risker (talk) 02:51, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion was a result of a BLP interpretation. Not the result of the AFD. Mercury 02:55, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps someone besides yourself, that was uninvolved, should have done it. You do have a stake in this, as you closed the AfD, which was also started by Durova, who nominated you for adminship. You were also one of the single most vocal defenders of her after she harassed User:!!. Based on your possible conflict of interest and personal stake, perhaps you should self-reverse as an involved party. Lawrence Cohen 03:03, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how relate my RFA or !!'s block to the AFD or DRV. They are unrelated. I have no personal stake. User:Mercury/OpenLetter. Mercury 03:05, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn Cripes, why bother doing AfD at all if everything is subject to fiat? Cleduc (talk) 02:58, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn BLP paranoia. -- Ned Scott 04:34, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion A generous opt-out policy is the right thing in my view. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 04:40, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't think this falls into the area where we should consider opting out. Considering there really isn't anything negative about the article, and it's very unlikely the attention it would bring her would be negative, reenforces that. The entire concept of considering opting out from the subject has always been poorly defined. It is not something to use for controversial deletions. -- Ned Scott 04:43, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Unless her public work stops in the next year or more, her notability will only grow. What then? Lawrence Cohen 04:45, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn, for two reasons. First, closing as a no consensus delete is ridiculous, particularly given that the decision to delete from the closure was made over 10 hours after the closure. If it's no consensus, it defaults to keep. If you're going to delete it, close it as such and make a rational explanation, not "no consensus". Second, many of those endorsing the closure are arguing for a change in policy. If policy is to be changed, we need to decide as a community to do so. This is not a radical change in policy, but is significant enough that it shouldn't be brought about by one administrator. Honestly, I have no problem with the article being deleted, and would vote to delete it in an AFD, but I can't in good conscience support the way this was brought about. Ral315 (talk) 05:43, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn let's not play wikipolitics with the encyclopedia. The BLP reasoning seems invalid given this claim - [7]. Catchpole (talk) 06:00, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll assume you read the whole AFD and missed it. seems valid given this claim. Mercury 11:12, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok so Angela was confused. You're still reliant on a sub-clause to the BLP policy that did not exist when the policy gained acceptance and which explicitly states there is no consensus on how it should be applied. Catchpole (talk) 12:34, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion. This is precisely the spirit of WP:BLP. Shell ^babelfish 06:49, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• overturn This decision, by which one single admin can enforce his own view over consensus, must be reversed. Even BLP respects consensus about what it is. And our policy on permitting users to decide whether or not they are to have an article also needs overturning. It amounts to saying that AB can have what article she pleases, because if not she will ask it be deleted. This is the antithesis of NPOV. As i see it, NPOV requires we may our decisions in total ignorance of the wishes of the subject of the article--no responsible organization can do otherwise and have any claim to reliability. The absurdity of this deletion indicates how low we have fallen--especially as regards WP people. they have the right to be judged as anyone else., they do not have the right to any greater consideration. NPOV is absolute and without it we lose credibility. When we fail to apply it to ourselves, we particularly degenerate into a joke--and WR and its kind can have a chance to say that we includes the failings of everyone except our friends. this is perhaps the strongest example yet. This is a notable web site, like it or not, and the major figures running it are notable. DGG (talk) 06:56, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strongly endorse deletion per WP:BLP. --Coredesat 07:28, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• overturn Unilaterally deleting an article when there is no consensus in the community after 13 AfDs is frankly a flagrant abuse of administrative privileges. I strongly encourage other uninvolved admins to restore the article until a more satisfying compromise can be reached. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Certified.Gangsta (talk • contribs) 07:29, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  There weren't 13 AFDs. The AFDs in italics are redirects. --Coredesat 08:09, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn and close as no consensus. I can't see a justification to delete, I'm afraid, and people don't get to decide whether they're notable or not. Please stop early-closing this. Stifle (talk) 09:12, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn - notable person. She doesn't want the article? Too bad. --Jack Merridew 09:25, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  nb: if there are BLP issues w/article, fix'em, but don't delete entire article. --Jack Merridew 09:32, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn - no consensus to delete. Why do most of the poor kneejerk decisions taken on Wikipedia these days quote "BLP" as the reason? There was no slander of uncited allegations about a living person here, so BLP doesn't apply. The standard passive-aggressive denial routine of 1) citing WP:BLP and 2) enforcing WP:Early closing every avenue of discussion on specious reasoning until people give up and go away is in motion - will it work? Probably. Neil ☎ 10:25, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Just counted my way through the AFD to find that some 80 people contributed to that discussion. What makes Mercury so super-smart that his own personal judgement overrides that of the 80 contributors to the AFD? There were good, solid reasons on both sides, and there was a roughly 50-50 split between "delete" and "keeps" - this is a classic "no consensus, default to keep". Mercury manages to realise this, and then promptly deletes the article anyway with some waffling about WP:BLP. Terrible, terrible decision. I think alleging he closed the AFD that way because Durova was the nominator is rubbish, though. Neil ☎ 10:32, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLP#BLP_deletion_standards is just some "waffling about" *waves hands as if to imitate*. That is policy I'm afraid. I don't think anyone early closed the AFD. It closed on time. Mercury 10:46, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That section starts with "closing an AfD about living persons whose notability is ambiguous". The notability is pretty obvious - that section is really talking about non-public figures (q.v. Brian Peppers). That section's also still being discussed as it's a fairly new addition to the policy (see WT:BLP, particularly here and here), and basing such a high-profile deletion on it is perhaps not a great idea. The section is certainly not carte blanche to start closing every "no consensus" AFD about a biographical article as "delete" from now on, and I fear people will take this poor decision and start using it as justification for many more crappy deletions - it is a poor precedent to set. Neil ☎ 11:02, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

After reviewing the comments regarding notability, and seeing the article myself, I made a judgment after the close, of marginal notability and questionable sourcing (per the comments). At that point, the BLP permits my discretion. She may be notable with these circles, but outside the circles, no. And she requested it. This satisfies all conditions required for BLP deletion. This was a good decision. Mercury 11:09, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If we ignore the result of the discussion and apply our own determination, what is the point of the discussion taking place? It's not your judgement to make, it's the community's, and while the community could not come to a consensus on keeping the article, it was pretty much in agreeement the notability asserted was not ambiguous - the word "marginal" does not appear anywhere in the section, and the two do not mean the same thing (see ambiguous and marginal. (PS, you can shorten your signature by 27 characters, see your talk). Neil ☎ 11:21, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn - people already considered BLP issues in the AfD, and there was no consensus to delete, thus no consensus BLP applied. Deleting it anyway is just the usual admin abuse. Of course, if they ignore the result of the AfD, they will ignore that of the DRV as well, so this won't achieve anything. Bramlet Abercrombie (talk) 11:25, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think any of that helped. The BLP requires no consensus. If you suspect admin abuse, I'm open to recall. Request it on my talk page and I'll tell you the requirements. Mercury 11:28, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"The BLP requires no consensus"? Can anyone just do anything then by saying "BLP!" and it can't be reversed? I don't think so. Of course the determination whether BLP applies to any specific case is a matter of consensus as much as any other decision. In theory, that is. In practice, of course, that applies only to things normal users do, while admins get away with anything. I know better ways to waste my time than with a recall for which the admin himself sets the rules. Admins should be term-limited to begin with or at least be subject to a standard recall procedure. Bramlet Abercrombie (talk) 12:18, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn Had this been deleted due to BLP concerns to begin with, I would be in favor of keeping Beesley's article deleted. However, after reviewing a contentious AfD and considering that the primary concern was notability rather than any potential for harm, I can't see the deleting admin's point of closing it as "no consensus" only to overturn the decision the next day. There's not a single controversial statement in this biography and Beesley's business accomplishments warrant fair coverage. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 11:46, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing was overturned. It is still a no consensus close. Requirements were met that enabled me to use proper discretion. Mercury 13:49, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A discretion you should have, quite frankly, excused yourself from exercising following the initial closure. You correctly interpreted that community input failed to yield to a clear consensus on the two issues behind the nomination, those of notability and Beesley's desire to have the article deleted as a courtesy. You then went above and beyond a simple closure by including a plea for others to examine "the application of the WP:BLP policy in granting the subjects request to delete the article", even though this exact issue was mentioned numerous times in the course of the deletion discussion. As the addendum was a measured editorial comment, I think it was perfectly acceptable. Yet the next day you went on to satisfy your own rhetorical plea by deleting the article, thus taking a stand which conflicted with your closure and the community's input. Had another admin followed your overt suggestion to delete the article on grounds of BLP policy this deletion review might not have taken place. By committing to the awkward maneuver of unilaterally revising your decision not to delete the article you have fostered an impression of impropriety and disregard for process and community input.

The arguments for notability outweighing accommodation have merit, as do the concerns for Beesley's privacy and Wikipedia's ethical responsibility. These are interesting editorial dilemmas, but the course and aftermath of your closure have resulted in a complete mess. "No consensus" is a good starting point for now, hopefully discussions of the relevant policies and a clear assessment of notability standards will help us come to a clear consensus in the near future. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 14:42, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn- a result of no consensus in an AfD means an article is kept in my experience, there shouldn't be different rules in this case so that it goes the way Mercury and/or some others want the outcome to be. There was no consensus to delete.Merkinsmum 12:18, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLP#BLP_deletion_standards gives the administrator the ability to exert discretion if certain requirements are met in a no consensus close. Mercury 13:47, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To be very clear, those requirements ("ambiguous claims of notability") were not met - you yourself had to misquote the policy to get around this by saying "marginal notability" - "marginal" and "ambiguous" don't mean the same thing. The claims of notability were unambiguous - they existed, and were very clear, therefore they were not ambiguous. Whether they were marginal or not is a different judgement (based upon their degree rather than their existence) and not a factor BLP currently mentions. Neıl ☎ 16:05, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse - is this an encyclopedia or a soap opera? I forget. --B (talk) 14:15, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn deletion and delete BLP. Any policy which could be construed as justifying this privileged form of vandalism ought to be re-written from scratch. — CharlotteWebb 14:40, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse- BLP trumps. EOF. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 15:11, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn Per reasoning in the AFD, notability, and no consensus to delete, deletion. Dureo (talk) 16:02, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• overturn and relist - the lack of consensus at the AFD was as to whether Angela qualifies as "only marginally notable", not whether such articles can generally be deleted. I don't think the discretion rule applies in such cases.—Random832 16:14, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn. Note that I did not comment at the AFD, since her opinion does make a difference for me, even if not the difference. However, the community took the opinion into account, and did not decide to delete. That's the point of having an AFD in the first place, that the community gets to decide these things, not a random admin. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 16:21, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and relist - to seek further comments. Acknowledging the subject has the right to request that they not have an article, and that the subject's inherent notability is dubious/marginal. However, the former is very much mitigated by the fact that that party has an extant admittedly minimal biography of her own seeming control elsewhere. It might be acceptable to stub the article, or limit some of the content to similar material there, though. But there do seem to have been perhaps a few nonstandard considerations involved here. John Carter (talk) 17:57, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn per many of the arguments above especially by Nick, Ral315 and DGG. Also noting that the deletion discussion was closed early before the full five days had taken place preventing some users from contributing to the discussion providing another reason for overturning the closure. Davewild (talk) 21:01, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse closure. Someone had the balls to do what is right instead of tediously following guidelines like they were immutable rules. Kudos to User:Mercury.--Isotope23 ^talk 21:10, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse closure. Subject requested deletion? Check. Borderline notability? Check. Delete? Check. This is essentially what's happening with the Daniel Brandt debate above. The community is so in love with itself that it *must* have articles on all things of dubious notability (but supported by news sources!!!) simply because of their relation to the project, in complete disregard to any true sense of the word notable or encyclopedic. If you took out "Wikimedia Foundation" and replaced it with "Some charity no one has ever heard of" and took out "Wikia" and said "Some web startup" we wouldn't be having this conversation. She was on the board of a nonprofit and she was a founder of a web start-up company, period. Pretending she's more simply due to her association with the community is ludicrous. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 21:41, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Quite right, if she were on the board of "some charity no one has ever heard of", she would not be notable. She happens to have been on the board of some charity that runs the #8 most popular web site in the world, and she founded a strongly connected web start up that has gotten a fair amount of press. That said, DRV is not supposed to be AFD round 2. Deletion review is supposed to be to see whether process was followed. "Let's close the debate as no consensus, then delete the article anyway" is not supposed to be how it works. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 21:48, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Being on the Foundation board is notable? Being a part of a startup is notable? Ask your average person who "Angela Beesley" is and I doubt they'll know (or care!). Ask anyone outside of those who follow the WMF/wiki communities who she is and I doubt they'll know (or care!). The issue is simply a problem of a lack of notability outside her field. Unless something happens which has not happened so far (at which point she'd become notable), 50 years from now no one will have heard of her and I have a feeling you will have forgotten her as well. That's not notable. This blind inclusionism of all things borderline notable that happen to have a few news sources must stop. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 17:00, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • The "average person" couldn't identify (at least) half of Britannica's biographical entries either, and indeed few people ever achieve significant notice outside their chosen fields. Encyclopedias would be sparse and futile things indeed if they only contained information we already knew. There's a nobel-prize winning chemist on my campus, and to be honest I can't even recall his name. In any case, the notability question are beside the point at this stage, as AnonE points out. The purpose of AfD is to answer precisely this questions, and if closers are going to be empowered to do whatever they like anyhow, then there's really no need for the pretense of AfD any longer. After all, the sprawling AfD archives represent far more "cruft" than any non-notable articles ever could hope to match. All this gunk clogs up the tubes of the internets, don't you know.;P 75.36.36.13 (talk) 11:40, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion. Marginal notability and she clearly (a) does not think she is notable enough, and (b) has requested deletion. --Bduke (talk) 21:53, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep deleted, adjust AFD closure notes, and award closer a trout for not managing to record the close accurately. The relevant section of WP:BLP is Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#BLP deletion standards. (The other BLP deletion rule, which is a minor variant on the long standing WP:CSD#G10, clearly does not apply.)) This section begins "When closing an AfD about living persons whose notability is ambiguous..." In other words, it applies when closing the AFD, not after the fact. The deleting administrator thus needs a trout because he did not understand the policy he was attempting to apply. Wikipedia, and deletion review in particular, strongly encourage administrators to review there actions and change them where appropriate. It is thus completely acceptable for a closing administrator to go update their close. So what I take Mercury as having really done (because this would be legitimate, and what was said to have been done is clearly not) is to have reclosed the AFD as deleting under that paragraph of WP:BLP. I accept that Angela, while notable, is currently only of marginal notability, and thus that the provision applies right now. Thus Mercury eventually got to an answer within administrative discretion, but by not understanding the policy blundered in both closing the AFD and in the later deletion summary, leading to confusion, upset, and discussion that could have been avoided had the actions exhibited more clue and been better explained. GRBerry 22:11, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. May have have my trout now. :) Best regards, Mercury 22:25, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, this summary actually works. I probably should have reclosed the AFD. Mercury 22:27, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GRBerry, "ambiguous" and "marginal" do not mean the same thing. I don't know why I keep having to write that recently. Ambiguous would mean it is unclear if any assertion of notability exists. Marginal would mean the assertions of notability exist, but their extent is questionable. Angela Beesley is of marginal notability in the greater scheme of things. That notability is not, however, ambiguous. The BLP section he misused didn't apply. Neıl ☎ 13:16, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn. If she did not wish her name to be public, it might be reasonable to delete this article. But the issue is clearly not that she doesn't wish notability, only that she doesn't wish to have a Wikipedia article. And that's not a valid reason to do anything. -Amarkov moo! 23:52, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn Re-list if need be. The original closure of "no consensus - keep" was correct. To change that to a BLP delete 10 hours later is fatally flawed. Sufficiently strong argument was made by the keep !voters about the notability of the subject, enough to trump any claimed BLP policy discretion for the closing admin. Read the policy: When closing an AfD about living persons whose notability is ambiguous, the closing administrator should take into account whether the subject of the article being deleted has asked that it be deleted. There was sufficient argument to counter any notion that notability was ambiguous in this case. --Cactus.man ✍ 00:17, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse Deletion per WP:BLP and subject's request. Ripberger (talk) 01:05, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn. Although I originally endorsed deletion, I feel that the deletion wasn't executed correctly. Mercury shouldn't have been the closing admin, because of his relationship with Durova, and the initial conclusion of "no consensus" appeared to be the correct call. Cla68 (talk) 01:20, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, no consensus is correct and you endorse deletion, but overturn because you fantasize a relationship between Durova and I? Not clear here. Mercury 01:23, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Let's compromise. Let's move all the info from the Angela Beesley article to the wikia article and leave the former deleted with redirect. This will include the photo. The Wikipedia article has photos of Jimbo and Larry Sanger. I didn't vote in the AFD if that means anything. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 03:07, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Big sigh. This particular deletion is of little consequence to the encyclopedia. I have no strong opinion on whether it should stay deleted. However I do not want this case to set a precedent for other cases in which the subjects of articles want us to stop having articles about them. Our definition of "ambiguous" notability is not well-defined, and in the absence of definition it is liable to creep. Durova's "dead trees standard" is to me way too high; Wikipedia is uniquely positioned to provide neutral information on controversial figures and we would be seriously abdicating our responsibilities if we started getting rid of them. I strongly share the concern raised by others about a deletion-by-request policy leading to articles being written in a way that avoids angering the subject. Such a policy must eventually be as corrosive to our neutrality as on-site advertising would be. I would like to say that I endorse the deletion as long as it doesn't set a precedent, however because this deletion was requested by a Wikipedia insider, the reality is that it would be difficult for us to refuse subsequent ones from outsiders. So, reluctantly, overturn. Kla’quot (talk | contribs) 04:48, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn Per Anetode, and...this is an encyclopedia. To hell with BLP. There was really no negative information in this article and no consensus to delete it. Tim Q. Wells (talk) 05:24, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry... to hell with BLP? Mercury 05:44, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for the blasphemy. Tim Q. Wells (talk) 06:10, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe this can be read as "to hell with the deletion-by-request portion of BLP"? -- Ned Scott 06:12, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Just saying "forget about BLP. That should not be an issue here." Tim Q. Wells (talk) 06:17, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn, there were no real BLP issues and this AfD ended just like all the AfDs before in a no consensus. No consensus defaults to keep, not to "lets look for another policy by which we can delete this article". --Reinoutr (talk) 08:06, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn. Per many above, "No consensus" means we did not decide to delete, not "available for deletion at admin's whim" Achromatic (talk) 08:35, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn, "No consensus" means "keep", and "BLP" is a bogus reason. Discombobulator (talk) 09:51, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn - No consensus have always meant the status quo, meaning keep. We make it perfectly clear we do not delete articles of subject just because they request it. Stop making an exception/going against normal community practice because we know/like this person. KTC (talk) 14:04, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn Per Reinoutr Rray (talk) 14:39, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse application of BLP to subject of negligible notability. MLA (talk) 16:59, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Not voting, but I must say, this is almost impossible to find. Further, How many bites of the apple do people like Crum375 get to take? I see more than one vote for that editor? 83.45.232.107 (talk) 22:00, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • One per person. :-) The others are different people, they're just saying that Crum375 had a convincing argument that they also endorse. Aye, they be puir wee misguided innocents ... :-) --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 22:09, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn per Cleduc &c. This deletion reflects poorly on Wikipedia and should not be allowed to stand.—Chowbok ☠ 23:01, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion -- I agree with the reasoning put forth by Mercury (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 05:20, 12 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
• Overturn Not only was this a poor use of BLP "discretion", but this should have been left up to a more neutral closer. DEVS EX MACINA _pray 06:40, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion - Angela is not that famous that an article on her is a must-have and hence it should be deleted if she requests this. The community has no contrary view, as per no consensus in the VfD. Str1977 ^(talk) 08:38, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn per Neil. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:50, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn Don't flip-flop. - Mailer Diablo 18:38, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• overturn per Cleduc, Chowbock, Neil and so many others. No community consensus to delete is no consensus to delete. Gothnic (talk) 18:51, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn per Neil. - Merzbow (talk) 19:13, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and relist if necessary per various above. As "no consensus", should have been keep. If there was no unsourced negative info, BLP shouldn't have come into play at all.--uɐɔlnʌɟoʞǝɹɐs 19:43, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion if Angela wants it deleted and there is no consensus to keep it then it should be deleted Nil Einne (talk) 20:12, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What if there is no consensus to delete it, and at what point of notability do people lose the ability to opt out? Angela Beesley notable? Ray Nagin notable? Joseph Ratzinger notable? Lawrence Cohen 20:16, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if these comparisons are exactly scalable, and WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS isn't a good staring point either. Maybe other people with their own category on Wikinews would make for a better WP:N argument? -- Kendrick7^talk 20:39, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I guess it would be more of a what is right or wrong question, since we can toss out scalable names all day to compare and make pretty notability graphs. I suppose it just boils down to the straight question first: "Can someone reach a point of notability that they shouldn't be able to opt out of Wikipedia?" Yes, no, to start, and build from that once that question in and of itself is sorted out. The level can be figured out later. Can that condition exist, though, where someone is just too notable? Lawrence Cohen 20:59, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia, as a comprehensive encyclopedia, shouldn't let WikiAngela's (yes, she calls herself that) personal wishes get in the way of building a "comprehensive encyclopedia". I've seen less notable people with their own articles.--Certified.Gangsta (talk) 02:20, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Simple, when there is consensus that she's noteable enough for a bio entry (i.e. there is consensus to keep like I said there was none in my original message). Besides that, note that I'm not presupposing we shouldn't have any info on her, just not a bio since there is no consensus that she is notable enough for a bio. BTW in response to your question about her increasing noteable the simple response is that there is no difference from any other article deleted because of being not noteable. The fact that something is not noteable at the moment DOES NOT presume it cannot be noteable in the future. If something has increasing noteable then yes it will probably be noteable enough in the future but we should not be making decisions on what may or may not happen in the future (WP:NOTACRYSTALBALL anyone?). There are many possibilities yours may be the most likely but it is not the only one (perhaps she will have a heart attack and die tomorrow, unfortunate but not outside the realm of possibilities). The normal practice as far as I'm aware does not require a DRV. Instead when things have changed enough, someone will recreate an article. If not everyone agrees, there will be another deletion discussion which will either result in the article's deletion or it being kept. The main thing that has changed here is that rather then an article being kept when there is no consensus the article was deleted, per admin's discretion per the fact that she wanted it deleted and there was no consensus to keep it. (The fact that the noteable of things can increase over time has not changed) Even then, it's not guaranteed that it will be deleted, if there is an overwhelming support to keep it even if there's no consensus I suspect the vast majority of admins will keep it. Yes this is hardly ideal but then nor is the alternative. Also, I've always felt that the primary problem currently is we require someone to request their article be deleted which is unfair. However again it's the best solution we have at the moment. Nil Einne (talk) 06:26, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn. BLP seems like kind of a red herring in this case, in that none of the material in the article was particularly contentious or sensationalistic. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 23:11, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BLP is not just about material that is contentious or sensationalistic. It's also about respecting people's right to privacy amongst other things. Have you actually read BLP recently BTW? Nil Einne (talk) 06:28, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Angela is by no reasonable standard a private person. When you start promoting yourself, you lose quite a bit of your right to privacy. -Amarkov moo! 06:50, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was simply pointing out that BLP is about much mere then avoiding contentious or sensationalistic material and suggesting anyone not aware of that might want to read the policy Nil Einne (talk) 07:04, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I re-read the policy about 5 minutes before posting, thanks very much. I didn't bother to mention that bit because it seems even less relevant than the bit that I did mention. If you'd like to debate that point on the merits, though, sure, that's fine with me. The material in the article is all material that was made public and widely available, much of it by the subject herself, and as such there's no reasonable expectation of privacy in this case. I sympathize, but in this case all that's appropriate for us to do is to make sure that the material she made public is presented in a fair and unbiased way. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 14:47, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse proper exercise of admin discretion per WP:BLP deletion standards. —Whig (talk) 00:52, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn because nobody has convincingly explained how her notability is ambigious. hbdragon88 (talk) 01:51, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse - She clearly falls in the gray area where an article could be justified but is not mandatory, and its non-existence will not leave much of a dent in the complete history of humanity (whatever that means). BLP means that we respect her wishes until she becomes more notable or dies (kind of morbid, I know). Merging the relevant content to Wikia seems to resolve most of the overturn rationales as well. Its pretty hard to think of a reason why she was notable outside of Wikia. Savidan 04:09, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed I highly doubt we would even have an article on her were not not for the fact that she was once part of the WMF and wikipedians are unduly fascinated by the WMF and wikia Nil Einne (talk) 06:55, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse but mainly per Guy's argument that she is barely if at all notable if you disregard sources that are nothing more than self-references. Calling this a courtesy deletion and invoking BLP has generated more heat than light. Even without BLP there is an utter lack of notability outside of Wikimedia and Wikia. The close wasn't perfect as Mercury seems to understand but ultimately he did the right thing. EconomicsGuy (talk) 05:56, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and undelete per Neil, AnonEMouse, and SarekOfVulcan. There are no BLP issues to speak of, the article was complimentary and documented a public figure using reliable sources. bbx (talk) 06:39, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn. Deletion was basically unexplained, which exactly BLP problems are. Deletion per wish is very bad precedent for wikipedia integrity. The policyt says personds wishes "should be taken into account", not "followed" `'Míkka>t 07:20, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn No consensus defaults to keep. Her notability is not ambiguous, so I think any request to remove her article does not apply unfortunately. --Pixelface (talk) 07:22, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn. The BLP argumaent as a means for deletion does not hold water, nor was there anywhere near consensus to delete. RFerreira (talk) 08:36, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn per Ral315, DGG, Neil, AnonEMouse, and SarekOfVulcan. This is completely irregular and wrong and brings into question the validity of AfD. Nobody of Consequence (talk) 15:58, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse Deletion I am not to sure how a feel about the "BLP deletion standards", however it does seem that it is policy and that it was followed. 1 != 2 17:16, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn agree with Hit Bull Win Steak... BLP claim here seems quite irrelevant as content was not contentious. Angela's dislike of having an article is unfortunately not a valid reason to delete it per BLP. Else we wouldn't have an article on Don Murphy either. Angela is a public figure now, if she didn't want the side effects of a public role in Wikia or the Wikimedia Board, she should have considered that before taking those jobs.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 20:35, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• I cannot vote but it sure looks like Angela is back. 75.47.126.40 (talk) 00:50, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn. That's what "no consensus" means. Marc Shepherd (talk) 02:09, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn. "No consensus" should not be interpreted as consensus to leave things entirely to the closer's discretion. While I can understand Mercury's actions, and have no doubt that he did what he thought was best, I do not believe it was the right way to go. A personal interpretation of the applicability of a contentious section of WP:BLP to a particular situation should not override general community consensus, or the lack thereof. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 05:27, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse Deletion per WP:BLP. Garion96 (talk) 13:30, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]