- Angela Beesley Starling (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
It appears that this was a sort of "under-the-radar AfD". The article has survived many attempts (I didn't even count) for deletion. It is very hard to believe the attempt would finally succeed without much fanfare. Some votes appear to suffer from COI: Angela has clear COI and there are some votes from those knowing her personally and are thus suspected of COI. I'm perfectly open to a new AfD but this one should be overturned. Taku (talk) 23:48, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse delete Is there such a thing as a speedy endorse? The AfD in March 2015 was open for 7 days and has several "deletes" and no "keeps", so the suggestion there was something wrong with the close is not even wrong. Johnuniq (talk) 00:44, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- That's why I said "under-the-radar"; if I knew about the AfD, I would have voted "keep". -- Taku (talk) 10:14, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse. There's nothing wrong with the discussion and this certainly isn't the first time a previously controversial topic was deleted without comment. The previous discussion was three years prior and rejected on procedural grounds; it appears the last "valid" discussion was almost eight years ago. The community moved on. Mackensen (talk) 02:16, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse. Closure was correct; consensus can change. Stifle (talk) 09:20, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn on an IAR basis. It sends a curious message when BLPREQUESTDELETE is used to justify deletion of pages of people affiliated with Wikipedia management and operations while far more intrusive and uncomplimentary content concerning less noteworthy people is retained. I'm also uncomfortable with allowing wars of attrition to be settled by a single unrepresentative battle in the absence of relevant policy development or change. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 15:58, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- The article was SNOWed with "delete"s after Angela's persuasive !vote. An overly detailed snapshot from 2005, wih excessive reliance on poor sources, becomes inaccurate and can't be updated because of no ongoing coverage in reliable sources. That was persuasive for the article as it was. Endorse its deletion.
There may be a different question to ask here. Is the more stubby article, or even stubbier, acceptable? Does it escape G4 by having less material, if it explicitly covered the 2005 snapshot? Angela maintains an online profile, and it seems reasonable for it to be possible to find it via Wikipedia. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:02, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- It is very doubtful that suitable sources to establish notability for a new article would be available. For this review, all that matters is that there was a clear consensus with policy-based reasoning, and anyone watching the article or AfD had seven days to see the discussion. BLPREQUESTDELETE was mentioned but it was not used to justify deletion, although a couple of people agreed with the opinion that the article was a snapshot from 2005 and was no longer accurate, and could not be improved due to sourcing and notability problems. Johnuniq (talk) 09:28, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse, as I said in the discussion, this was pure Wikicruft and we wouldn't entertain any thought of keeping this if she weren't involved in Wikimedia. Angela did not contact me about the discussion, and to allege some sort of improper undisclosed COI is just fishing for controversy. Lankiveil (speak to me) 11:50, 27 October 2015 (UTC).[reply]
- Endorse deletion per above points: consensus can change. --Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 13:06, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Note on courtesy undeletion Looking at the history there has been BLP violations in the past dealt with by partial deletion of certain revisions. Unfortunately, this predates revision deletion so it would be impossible at this stage to undelete the article without restoring the removed content. On that basis I am not courtesy undeleting for the purposes of this discussion but I can confirm that the recreated article under the redirect is consistent with what was there before the page was deleted. Spartaz Humbug! 13:49, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse deletion, unanimous agreement in AfD discussion and no actual reason to dispute that decision has been presented here, as far as I can see? Stormie (talk) 23:09, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse- Consensus to delete was unanimous and strongly grounded in policy. There is no other way the discussion could have been closed. Reyk YO! 13:21, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(Overturn this many repeated nomination for a deletion are an abuse of process. If one nominates an article enough times, the vvariability of aparitcipation here mean that it is almost certain to be deleted. The last time I saw an outrageous series of nomination like this was back in 2007, when the earlier series of nomination s came to a temporary halt. Certainly, our notability standards can change, but not to this extent. DGG ( talk ) 09:40, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
|
