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

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 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]