Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Angela Beesley (3rd nomination)
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 
— User:GRBerry, 01:27, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Stance: keep
Cited policy: WP:BIO||WP:BIO||WP:BLP (Wikipedia:Notability)