Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vanessa Beeley (2nd 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 keep. Expand, improve and if all else fails PROD or re-nominate. Seems like there is hope for this article. Missvain (talk) 01:37, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Vanessa Beeley
AfDs for this article:


 * – ( View AfD View log )

Has become a battleground. The current version violates WP:BLP in so many aspects, despite attempts to bring in neutrality by a few editors, that it may put Wikimedia Foundation at risk of legal action. Currently I see little chance for this biography to become a neutral, encyclopaedic article about that borderline notable person. — kashmīrī  TALK  09:44, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. —  kashmīrī  TALK  09:44, 28 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep: She is notable. The version of the page linked here cites and accurately represents numerous reliable sources, complying with both the WP:NPOV and WP:FRINGE policies. CowHouse (talk) 09:57, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone  11:41, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone  11:41, 28 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep. A large number of RS have covered this person substantiating the topic's notability. OP claims the page is a violation of BLP. This is nonsense. The page is reflective of RS coverage. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:07, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete as nom, with no prejudice to draftifying until the bias and mudslinging are removed. No, I don't support Beeley's views, however the amount of bias in this article, and the WP editing history of some of its contributors, give little hope for it to become an article worthy of an encyclopaeda. — kashmīrī  TALK  14:21, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Your nomination counts as your !vote, since it already states your position. It's not necessary to repeat one's opinion. Cheers, XOR&#39;easter (talk) 19:06, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep An article having become a battleground is not a reason to delete it, particularly when there is every indication that a fully policy-compliant version could be written. Indeed, as points out, such a version appears to exist within the article history already. The available sources indicate that the notability bar is cleared. The existing text is good enough that there's no need to blow it up and start over (i.e., WP:TNT does not apply). XOR&#39;easter (talk) 19:18, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Addendum The article went through AfD and was kept in April 2020, when it had half as many references as it does now. An attack page is a page, in any namespace, that exists primarily to disparage or threaten its subject; or biographical material that is entirely negative in tone and unsourced or poorly sourced. That is manifestly not the case here, thanks to the absence of threats and the abundance of sources. Any issues with tone or balance can be addressed through ordinary discussion and editing, rather than deletion. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 20:29, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep: As others have said, being a "battleground" on Wikipedia does not limit the subject's notability. Kashmiri is inappropriately using the deletion process because they're having a hard time gaining consensus on the talk page. — Toughpigs (talk) 04:04, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete I would suggest deletion on the grounds that it is an attack page. The page was previously deleted in 2018 for that reason. It was deleted a second time in 2018 because it was created by a blocked or banned user.
 * The page includes numerous one-line statements about Beeley’s views but provides no context. There is a long list of problematic sentences in the bio which I have raised on talk. One example is the sentence “After French presidential candidate François Fillon denounced Assad, Beeley tweeted "Zionists rule France”. Sometimes we have removed context which would be useful to the reader. One example is the sentence “That year, she met with Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, describing it as her "proudest moment””. Beeley actually said ""Proudest moment. Meeting President Bashar al Assad with the US Peace Council Delegation". One of the sources we used for Beeley’s statement did mention that visit was with the Peace Council but we chose to remove that part of the quote.


 * The page makes no attempt to explore Beeley’s view. One example of this is her attitude to the White Helmets. We include a few sentences about her opinion of the White Helmets:
 * "She has said White Helmets volunteers, described by Beeley as terrorists, are a legitimate military target”.
 * "She described the White Helmets as "a fraudulent terrorist organisation"".


 * We describe her as "among the most influential figures in spreading content online about the White Helmets" but make no effort to explain why she considers the White Helmets terrorists or why she links them to al-Qaeda.


 * It has also been extremely difficult to add content to the page which reflects positively on Beeley. Such opinions do exist. The journalist John Pilger described her reports from Syria as “substantiated investigative work”. It is a notable opinion from a well-known journalist so one would expect there would be no issue with including it in Beeley’s bio. Unfortunately, that hasn’t been the case.
 * Burrobert (talk) 13:42, 29 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete as an attack page. I think the WMF is lucky Beeley has her hands full with other matters, since she would probably succeed in a defamation lawsuit against Wikipedia. That's why we have WP:BLP. I'm frequently embarrassed when I tell people I'm a Wikipedia editor, and they, correctly, comment that Wikipedia is unreliable on certain topics. This article is one of the worst examples. It's unsalvageable, given what currently counts as RS. --NSH001 (talk) 18:57, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete pr NSH001. (Also: Trying to write "the truth" about what has been going on in Syria today, is like trying to write the truth about Saddam Hussein's WMD in 2003), Huldra (talk) 21:34, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep as per editors above. Obviously notable given range of RS coverage. Any specific problems (as per e.g. Burrobert above) can be dealt with through finding consensus and following WP policy. BobFromBrockley (talk) 13:28, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep clearly notable and has recieved substantial coverage in mainstream sources. Delete votes reflect WP:PROFRINGE advocacy attempting to give WP:FALSEBALANCE as a volation of WP:NPOV. Attempting to suggest that the conspiracy theories around White Helmets are credible is arguably a WP:BLP violation. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:35, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete She is not so important that keeping an article is worth the unending angry back and forth it creates.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:29, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep per Hemiauchenia and XOR'easter. The way it reads now is very skeletal, with basically every sentence standalone -- but it's still referenced, and therefore has the potential to be a fleshed-out encyclopedic entry. I do think the negative statements in the lead need to be supported better in the body (e.g. substantiating her status as a conspiracy promoter with more attributed refs, fuller context, and more direct responses to/commentary on her work). JoelleJay (talk) 21:31, 30 November 2020 (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.