Wikiquote:Votes for deletion archive/Angela Beesley


 * 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: delete. —LrdChaos (talk) 15:09, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Angela Beesley
Okay, fellow Wikians. Calm down before you express outrage at this nomination and consider the problem I found here. Our esteemed Angela satisfies the criteria for notability in the real world, but we have a problem with sourced quotes here. There is currently only a single quote, and it is not sourced. (I removed the link to a post in her "wikiangela" blog, which is currently redirecting to Wikipedia's global main page.) Furthermore, Angela herself complained about this source and the motivation of the editor. I can't speak to any of this, but I can see this quote has no reliable source. I spent about 15 minutes trying to scare up one or more sourced quotes, but found that most of the material about Angela is either from Wikimedia or related projects or obscure corporate websites, neither of which are wiki-reliable. Even so, I couldn't find any memorable statements from her in the non-wiki sources, regardless of reliability. I fear the she may not have had any published to date. By our practices, that makes her a notable subject with no sourceable quotes, and therefore worthy of deletion until someone can come up with solid material. I tend to be more, not less, concerned about following established practices when potential conflicts of interest arise, so I found it advisable to nominate this article. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 10:00, 1 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Vote closed. Result: delete (nine votes to delete, no dissent). —LrdChaos (talk) 15:06, 8 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete unless sourced quotes added. I plan to remove the existing quote, regardless of how this vote goes, unless it too is sourced. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 10:00, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per Angela's own complaint. I think the same considerations apply here as on the many deletion debates on Angela's Wikipedia page and I don't think that she would have a page but for the use that people want to make of it in on-wiki politics. Fys. &#147;Ta fys aym&#148;. 11:12, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. As I mentioned in another nomination, I think we would do well to set down some policy relating to requirements for sourced quotes, and that a page must have at least one. —LrdChaos (talk) 14:57, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, per the above discussion. I would also second LrdChaos' idea about having at least one sourced quote for most pages as a minimum standard for keeping -- I think we should at least discuss it. ~ UDScott 15:08, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom, et al. Though I'm really surprised there aren't any sourceable quotes by her that we could add. Koweja 16:08, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom, et al. Once the quote page for Angela is deleted, this comment will appear to be my "second edit", so I will completely understand if this !vote is to be discounted on the grounds of my newness or what have you.  I am put off at the unnecessarily harsh way that Angela attacked the person who created this page for her, as I can personally attest to her making the comment "I don’t think anyone will know what a wiki is in 100 years" in her weblog (wikiangela.com) during the month of July 2006.  Weeks later she removed her remarks, rendering this quote, the one that began this page, to be difficult to verify.   RDH3513 09:41, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * As I said above, I can't attest to any of that, because I didn't witness it. But even if I had, and regardless of whether Angela was right or wrong in her assessment of the contributor(s), neither personal attestations nor the motivations on any side are relevant. Regardless of the subject, the goal is to include reliably sourced information, and blogs are not reliable sources. (If Angela did remove such information, it would only strengthen the case to avoid the use of blogs, as information from reliable sources is supposed to be retrievable indefinitely for verification.) After some high-profile controversies, Wikimedia has become much more sensitive to the creation of articles with the clear intent of embarrasing their living subjects, formulating w:Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons to prevent unsourced personal attacks. It doesn't mean that embarrassing information shouldn't be included, only that it must be scrupulously sourced. This policy was developed for subjects unrelated to Wikimedia, but it is just as relevant to the very few Wikimedians who qualify as notable in their own right. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 11:54, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Per nom. --Sir James Paul 17:14, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. - InvisibleSun 20:44, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. unless sourced quotes are added from elsewhere. Monado 18:37, 6 January 2007 (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.