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

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. Consensus herein is clearly established for deletion of the article. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:48, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Angela Beesley Starling[edit]

(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]

As has been pointed out, WP:BLPRD didn't exist when I was an admin; however, as I'm no longer an admin and I've been pinged, I can express what I originally thought 9 years ago: Delete this article. Also, at the time somebody would've been absolutely stunned that I'd have kept the article at all, as I was-and-am a Deletionist, but...que sera sera. RasputinAXP 17:11, 3 March 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]
- comment' I believe as deletion has be requested by the subject that changes the situation somewhat, raising the notability bar that subjects have to jump over. Le petit fromage (talk) 20:05, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article has no useful encyclopedic content and as the subject points out above, it is most unlikely that sources will become available for updates. Notability is not established—Wikia does nothing more than note that Angela was a founder. Johnuniq (talk) 02:07, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Absolutely nothing needs to be added to Angela's incontrovertible reasoning above. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:52, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I am generally not a fan of WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE; or rather, I think it is often used outside its remit. This, on the other hand, seems precisely what it was designed for. Frickeg (talk) 00:39, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing about this article clearly passes any notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:23, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I've met Angela in real life on a number of occasions, and she's a lovely person. But, she wouldn't have an article in any other reference work. This artlcle is simple self-referential Wikicruft that would have been a straightforward WP:BIO anywhere else. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 14:01, 4 March 2015 (UTC).[reply]
Delete; I've also met Angela; had a lovely lunch with her a few years back. Insufficient reliable sources to keep and maintain this article. Her request is quite sensible. Antandrus (talk) 20:05, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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.