Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Angela Beesley (5th nomination)


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

The result was Speedy keep - afd is not a forum for content disputes; nomination possibly WP:POINT-making. Thryduulf 17:19, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Angela Beesley
Previous AfDs: Angela Beesley is not a notable individual, especially since she left the Foundation. On its own this would not be enough to justify renomination for deletion (as it has failed several other listings under this reasoning}, but the double standard inherent in creating a bio of a non-notable person has allowed very close patrolling of this article to prevent addition of material perceived as negative (for Angela Beesley or Wikipedia) using the argument that it is not notable, while maintaining wikicruft (e.g. here). This has made editing the article unworkable and it would be best to just accept the non-notability of Angela Beesley and delete it. Coroebus 11:16, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, AFD 1 April 2005.
 * Keep, AFD 13 October 2005.
 * No Consensus, AFD 12 July 2006.
 * Speedy keep, AFD 15 August 2006.


 * Keep Too many people editing the article is not a valid reason for deletion. If this is a problem that the article could be protected. Catchpole 14:26, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
 * The argument is that the double standards in having an article for someone who isn't really notable makes maintaining the page impossible - no reasoned arguments can be had as to what aspects of the individuals biography are worth including (notable) because the subject isn't notable in the first place. --Coroebus 14:32, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
 * This deletion nomination is spillover from a content dispute between, , and others over whether content sourced from a web log, an opinion piece, and from Andrew Orlowski belongs in the article.  For the full discussion, see Talk:Angela Beesley and the article's edit history.  The article is being nominated for deletion by an editor who wishes to add to it, an inherent contradiction.  The editor even re-added the disputed content at the same time as adding the AFD notice.  AFD is not a means for resolving content disputes, for which Talk:Angela Beesley and Requests for comment are the venues, and clearly the nominator, by xyr very actions at the time of nomination, does not in fact want the article deleted.  Speedy keep. Uncle G 15:22, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I have always been opposed to the existence of the article (e.g. here) but didn't nominate for deletion before because it had already been listed (and kept) under the non-notability objection. I am listing it again now as I feel that the content dispute is a direct result of the non-notability of the article subject, and is an additional reason to delete (i.e. not only is she non-notable, but that non-notability makes sourcing the article and resolving what should and shouldn't be in it impossible).  So the article contains discussion of where she went to university, but not her attempts to get her article deleted, despite no references for the former, and mentions in the Register and The Guardian for the latter . --Coroebus 15:58, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
 * So, you've been trolling the article in an attempt to prove a point and get it deleted? Angela. 16:29, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
 * No. You? --Coroebus 16:49, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep - her notability hasn't changed since the last AFD and this is not a forum for content disputes. Yomangani talk 16:51, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.