Deletion of Angela Beesley (3rd nomination)

Comment: The subject does not meet  (not in a senior enough position nor responsible for technical innovations). Editing content on Wikimedia servers is not enough. Obiter dicta: Although I support deletion, I reject some of the arguments advanced. I do not agree that resigning from the Wikimedia boards makes a difference: if current board members are notable then ex-members are just as notable. Nor do I agree that the subject's opinions on whether they should have an article is relevant. When I nominated my own article for deletion, I was careful to say that it was because I thought I did not meet notability guidelines, rather than that I was offended by its presence
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BIO)

Comment: Agree that Angela is notable by  standards, though not overwhelmingly so. The article is now semi-protected, brief and factual. There is nothing about the current article to justify deletion. I appreciate Angela's concerns, but any article on this encyclopedia is subject to vandalism and incorrect edits. By that argument we could delete every article. All we can do is keep articles as factual and vandalism-free as possible
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BIO)

Comment: co-founder of a notable company, interviewed heavily for a major national newspaper, presenter at two conferences important in their fields, and thus meets . I understand the desire to respect another Wikipedian's privacy, but the fact that we like her and that she doesn't like being written about (for the second point, see Daniel Brandt) should have nothing to do with our judgment as to whether she is notable
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BIO)

Comment: We have established a standard practice (Daniel Brandt, Seth Finkelstein, and others) that we should listen to the subjects arguments no more than we would if the argument was made in the mouth of another.  If we wish to change that practice, we should do so in a general policy/guideline discussion, which might be a good idea - if someone is truly of encyclopedic importance, it will be possible to write a good article on them after they are dead, and we are never going to have articles on everything we intend to cover - but the change ought to be to tighten the standards for all living people, not just those who ask for their page to be deleted.  Her argument is that the article attracts vandals - that was the exact same argument made by Seth at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Seth Finkelstein, where we didn't listen to him because he met .  The only arguments for deletion above are this and being non-notable.  She meets  at least as strongly as Seth does.  Because we can't filter out Wikipedia in searching for her, parsing search results is challenging, but there are enough results that show her as a public speaker that she is notable.  Less notable than Jimbo?  Yes, but still notable.  The best solution under current policies is for a few people to watchlist her page for vigorous policing under 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BIO||WP:BIO||WP:BLP)