Deletion of Angela Beesley (3rd nomination)

Comment: with all due respect to Angela's wishes, the precedent is that no one can request their bios to be deleted (the Brandt rule), nor is vandalism of the article relevant to deletion. In my opinion she just barely passes . --Wikipedia:Esperanza|E
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BIO)

Comment: per nom. Having articles on the current board members makes some degree of sense, but now she has resigned the exception ends and she is back in the not-meeting- category
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BIO)

Comment: I'd keep a scary proportion of relatively long-deceased people so long as their articles were very well-sourced (long-forgotten local bigwigs of no national importance and little lasting legacy are A-OK by me). I guess at least it's conceivable that a local history buff could find such articles worthwhile; and even if they are rarely edited that'd be fine since there'd be relatively little fresh source information to draw on anyway. Even if nobody looked at it for 5 years, it may turn out to be just the obscure person that the next reader was looking for, and to find a well-referenced article on the subject could be extremely useful to them. On the other hand, when faced with a modern person (and at the back of my mind the fact they don't want to be listed lingers) I set the bar far higher. The absurdly poor state of this article, the poor referencing etc. is, in theory, a matter for cleanup not AFD. But still part of me thinks: what's the point of cleaning this article up? What information, or useful way of seeing information, will be saved by doing so? Miss Beesley has played a part, if we wish to aggrandize ourselves, in shaping the history of the internet, but only as a cog in the bigger machine of the Foundation and the online communities she has interacted with. This article will never explain, nor should it attempt to, the way that cog turned, the gears it meshed with, the times things ran smoothly, and the times more oil should have been applied... that would all fall short of  and  (at least until some biographies get published, but heck, I doubt that'll happen any time soon, and no, a blog does ''not'' count as a "serial biography"). Without that, though, I'm afraid there's really nothing left to be said. ''That'' was precisely what her role in "notable" history has been. We can have her date of birth (ooh, is that a reference I can see for it? Ummm... no) and place of birth (aha, a reference! oops, my mistake) and even find out which university she went to (so long as you'll believe anything you'll see uncited in an encyclopedia that "anyone can edit"). Oh yes, and she has the sort of picture that drive anon IPs to leave unwholesome messages on her talk page; but so long as we don't go down the :de: route and scrap fair use images entirely, they can always check out a certain J. Wales's former employees instead. In summary, what would be lost from leaving an unlinked "Angela Beesley", heck, even an "A. Beesley", in the articles where she's relevant? I can't see any "notable information loss". And deleting articles like this is a surefire way to boost our average factual accuracy. And indeed, to get back closer to the "anyone can edit" philosophy (which Angela would espouse, I am sure), so long as the back end of that was an "and also anyone can nominate non-notable living people biographies for deletion
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:V||WP:NOR)

Comment: because she meets and exceeds the notability guidelines established by .  The whole "0 hits in New York Times" thing up above is absurd, that is hardly a requirement for inclusion
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BIO)

Comment: Looking at the article cold, I'm not seeing a shred of notability outside of Wikipedia. Could someone explain to me exactly what aspects of  she fulfills
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BIO)

Comment: Notability does not have an expiration date, and frankly the  process should be all the more scrupulous when the subject of an article requests deletion. I can appreciate Angela's stated concerns, but she was notable when the article was written, and remains notable now
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion (WP:AFD)

Comment: While "I'm sick of this article being trolled" isn't a valid reason, she fails .  She may be notable to wikipedia, but notability is determined based on the world at large, not WP
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NN)

Comment: the best next thing would be Angela taking an important decision based on this article not being deleted, so the article could say it, and doing so, self-reference not merely WP, but itself! "blablabla because of this article not being deleted from Wikipedia." References could be added pointing to the AfD discussions. At least, that would be encyclopedic, being related to the cause of her "notability": WP. That is, it wouldn't be '''trivia'''. BTW, anybody knows what's the name of her pet? And anybody heard about ? If in some years she becomes notable enough for someone to do a research about her (for, say, writing her bio), he would find the same info we've found about her, in the same places we've found it. And then, we could make a serious encyclopedic, third source, article about her. Don't fear for that info to be lost because of deleting our article. WP is not a log
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:NOR)

Comment: because she meets .  If any other subject of an article (think Daniel Brandt) came here asking for the deletion of his/her article, he or she would be met with scorn and insults and plenty of "we can write about whomever we want" statements and the article would be speedily kept.  If the article is a troll magnet as has been proposed, clean it up, make it current, and lock it.  As numerous people have said numerous times before, being a magnet for vandals and trolls is no reason to delete an article.  There are really no grounds for the deletion of this article.  Angela Beesley is more notable than Libby Hoeller, I suspect
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BIO)

Comment: Obviously NN, must fail 
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BIO)

Comment: I disagree with the idea a resignation makes one less notable.  Angela does easily meet 's requirements for multiple reliable sources giving non-trivial coverage, so there's no "nn" arguement to be made here.  But obviously we have failed with this biography, which I think is a shame.  We're unable to protect from trolling junk.  I think this deletion sets a sad, but unavoidable precedent.  If this is deleted, we must now honor all similiar requests by the "notable but not famous".    Also, if we make this permanently fully protected as deleted (or redirected), we certainly have no justification for denying at least permanent semi-protection to any other living biography with problems.  To those who say we should just fix clean the article up, I say, we had our chance and we blew it
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BIO)

Comment: some seem quite insistant on keeping unsourced information in this article. Even birth dates must be sourced to |reliable sources (not blogs). In regards to this AFD the subject is quite borderline on the inclusion guidelines, and I usually defer to the wise judgement of dbpsmith et al
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS)

Comment: Ah, this is a tough one. Do I go with the Golden Rule ("Do unto others as you would have them do unto you") or the Brass Rule ("Do unto others as they do unto you")? My sense of humor inclines me to joke that  implies that all people even marginally involved in Wikipedia administration should have a personal biography page, in order to set an example to the world of how well the process works. But appealing as that is in theory, the cold reality is that privilege will always trump process. So that's a mug's game. We're all better off going with compassion here, the quality of mercy is not strain'd. So I vote "delete", in hopes of strengthening the principle of respect for the wishes of a living person
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What "Ignore all rules" means (WP:SENSE)

Comment: seams to satisfy , as 'The person made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in their specific field
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BIO)

Comment: although '''CONTRA nom'''. It is irrelevant whether someone herself wants the article to be deleted, stronger, that is more a reason to keep it, because articles should be judged on the merits, not preferences. HAving sai that, the merits are listed in , and she is clearly not notable enough in the real world to warrant an article at wikipedia. Being part or having been part of wikipedia by itself is NOT sufficient reason to have an article, they should be treated in the same way as we would do with other articles. My conclusion, delete as NN
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BIO)