Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Angela Beesley Starling (2nd nomination): Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 12:33, 26 February 2015

Angela Beesley Starling

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

While well-formatted and written, the current article relies heavily on crowd-sourced or user-generated websites like LinkedIn, Wikia, and Crunchbase. It uses primary sources from Wikimedia press releases and websites and the few secondary press sources mixed in are just brief mentions or quotes. A quick Google News search doesn't turn up anything more substantial. CorporateM (Talk) 18:36, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I did find one good in-depth article in the current page here. Even if it is only a local source, a second source of that level of depth may allow us to re-write it based on secondary sources and remove all the primary or crowd-sourced sources on the current page. CorporateM (Talk) 17:02, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@CorporateM: Hasn't the subject of this article tried several times unsuccessfully to get it deleted? It seems as though I remember something like that, but there was a fight to keep it. Wikimandia (talk) 01:00, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not that I know of. I just came across this article while doing cleanup on Wikia CorporateM (Talk) 08:14, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:22, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:22, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:22, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:22, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note that this has been to Afd often - mostly during 2005 and 2006 - Peripitus (Talk) 09:57, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for adding all the previously hidden AfDs; I'm skimming the old discussions, but a new nomination still seems appropriate. Our notability standards have risen since 2005. Many of those discussions did not actually focus on sources. In one KEEP vote, the editor actually advocated we "bend the rules" because of her contributions to Wikipedia and in many others editors said she was notable without providing sources, or the source provided did not actually verify notability.

Meanwhile, this AfD ~~seems to have been closed incorrectly~~ (Clarification: BLPREQUESTDELETE did not exist at the time the AfD was closed, but by today's standard it would have been deleted.) by @RasputinAXP:. The article-subject @Angela: requested deletion, therefore WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE would require us to delete the article if there was no consensus, not default to keep. CorporateM (Talk) 10:41, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete please! I'm the subject. The problem with articles about non-notable people is they can't be kept up to date as there are no new reliable sources. As an example, only one of my children was listed in the article (until this week when she was removed). I guess the other child didn't have any sources to say she existed. I can't be bothered arguing about COI policies so I won't edit the page despite the fact it has been inaccurate for years. I did point out some inaccuracies on the talk page 3 years ago but nothing changed. It's an odd snapshot of part of my life in 2005. It's not an accurate encyclopedia article and it can't be improved. Angela (talk) 11:40, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 15: / Line 15: @@
 *'''Note''' that this has been to Afd often - mostly during 2005 and 2006 - [[User:Peripitus |Peripitus]] [[User talk:Peripitus|(Talk)]] 09:57, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 :::Thanks for adding all the previously hidden AfDs; I'm skimming the old discussions, but a new nomination still seems appropriate. Our notability standards have risen since 2005. Many of those discussions did not actually focus on sources. In one KEEP vote, the editor actually advocated we "bend the rules" because of her contributions to Wikipedia and in many others editors said she was notable without providing sources, or the source provided did not actually verify notability.
-:::Meanwhile, [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Angela_Beesley_(3rd_nomination) this AfD] seems to have been closed incorrectly by {{ping|RasputinAXP}}. The article-subject {{ping|Angela}} requested deletion, therefore [[WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE]] would require us to delete the article if there was no consensus, not default to keep. [[User:CorporateM|CorporateM]] ([[User_talk:CorporateM|Talk]]) 10:41, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
+:::Meanwhile, [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Angela_Beesley_(3rd_nomination) this AfD] <s>seems to have been closed incorrectly</s> <b>(Clarification: BLPREQUESTDELETE did not exist at the time the AfD was closed, but by today's standard it would have been deleted.)</b> by {{ping|RasputinAXP}}. The article-subject {{ping|Angela}} requested deletion, therefore [[WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE]] would require us to delete the article if there was no consensus, not default to keep. [[User:CorporateM|CorporateM]] ([[User_talk:CorporateM|Talk]]) 10:41, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 *'''Delete''' please! I'm the subject. The problem with articles about non-notable people is they can't be kept up to date as there are '''no new reliable sources'''. As an example, only one of my children was listed in the article (until this week when she was removed). I guess the other child didn't have any sources to say she existed. I can't be bothered arguing about COI policies so I won't edit the page despite the fact it has been inaccurate for years. I did point out some inaccuracies [[Talk:Angela Beesley Starling#Updates needed|on the talk page]] 3 years ago but nothing changed. It's an odd snapshot of part of my life in 2005. It's not an accurate encyclopedia article and it can't be improved. [[User:Angela|Angela]] ([[User talk:Angela|talk]]) 11:40, 26 February 2015 (UTC)