Delete me
I don’t believe I meet Wikipedia’s requirements for inclusion in the encyclopedia. I didn’t think so on April 1st 2005 when the article about me was first written. I assumed it had been put there as an April Fool’s Day joke, so I listed it for deletion. The article was kept, mostly because people felt me being on the Board of the Wikimedia Foundation made me notable enough for an article.
On the French Wikipedia not long after, Anthere listed herself and me for deletion, and we were deleted in May 2005. Back on the English Wikipedia, WikiFanatic relisted me for deletion in October 2005 and again it was kept. On the German Wikipedia, Southpark listed me for deletion in May 2006 and I was deleted there. The article still exists in Czech, Italian, Japanese, and Portuguese.
Since I announced my resignation from Wikimedia’s Board, I assumed the people who had said “keep, she’s on the Board” on the previous attempts would no longer have a reason to keep me, so I decided to relist the article on “Articles for deletion” (AfD). It’s starting to look like I was wrong.
It’s half way through my AfD (they last 5 days). Almost 100 people have “voted” (though many will claim AfD is not a vote, especially since it was renamed from “votes for deletion” to “articles for deletion”). The outcome at half time is 56% in favour of deletion — definitely not close enough to consensus to delete (since the English Wikipedia takes a “when in doubt, don’t delete” approach). It was an interesting turnaround since the first 14 comments were all in favour of deletion. It looked like it was going to be a non-controversial listing, and Kimchi.sg, who I met in Singapore last month, thought the case was so clear, he deleted the article under Wikipedia’s “snowball clause“, which states
“If an issue raises no controversy, and therefore doesn’t have a snowball’s chance in hell of getting an unexpected outcome from a certain process, then there is no need to run it through that process.”
However, Badlydrawnjeff objected, and Kimchi undeleted it.
The sensible reasons people are giving for keeping the article are mostly that founding Wikia makes me encyclopedic, and that my time on Wikimedia’s Board is still significant even if it’ll soon be over. There are also a lot of very odd reasons for keeping me, with claims that vandalism isn’t a reason to delete an article… even though no one suggested it was, and a few people with the opinion that the subject of an article shouldn’t be allowed to request its deletion.
It’s a very strange experience to have 100 people discussing your supposed notability, or lack of it. I don’t know what to make of the fact that Australians and people I’ve met seem more inclined to delete me! It’s unfortunate that some people are taking the listing to mean that I’ve lost my belief in the “wiki-way” or that this somehow shows Wikipedia isn’t working. I don’t feel that at all. I accept that articles will be vandalised, and I don’t think long-term semi-protection is beneficial to the project as a whole. Although I am sick of being trolled, it was my resignation that I put forward as the reason for deletion, so this should only be seen as a reflection of my acceptance of the notability policies, not as any sort of reflection on whether or not Wikipedia can successfully handle biographies of living persons.
Continued at “Who is this Angela person I keep hearing about?â€
Update (18 July): The Italian and Portuguese Wikipedias are now voting to delete me too.
Wikia
WikiChix
Freedom defined
GreenReaper said,
July 16, 2006 at 5:36
Is the rise of wiki technology and Wikipedia not an important topic? Are leading members of that movement not notable? Will this not be something that people will want to know about in 100 years? I thought you were an eventualist. :-)
The very first thing you say in the nomination is “I’m sick of this article being trolled.” If you did not wish it to be considered as one of your reasons, you should not have included it in the nomination.
Angela Beesley said,
July 16, 2006 at 16:34
I am an eventualist, but I\’m also a pessimist. I don\’t think anyone will know what a wiki is in 100 years.
I had hoped people would read beyond the first seven words of the nomination.
On The Same Page said,
July 17, 2006 at 15:29
Fireworks and Wikipedia deletion drama…
It’s a few weeks after 4th of July, and people are still shooting of illegal fireworks. Luckily I’m posting this from my laptop outside, and was treated to their show. Well, now the fair is ready to shoot off their’s (with their PR bl…
sj said,
July 18, 2006 at 6:27
Let this be a warning to all who might attempt to do something notable.
In 100 years, there may be no collective memory of “wikis”, but in 10 years many founding Wikimedians will have their own encyclopedia entries through their future work. At least, if we can all survive that long.
F said,
July 18, 2006 at 8:54
I presume da Vinci stopped being an artist when he died. So since he stopped *being* what he is notable for, should we delete his article? I know this sounds silly but it seems to me the argument is analogous to your reason for deleting the article on yourself (perhaps da Vinci is a bad example, bet we could find something better but you get the point). You were for some time a member of the Board of the biggest encyclopedia in the world. That is notable.
Wish you all the very best and good luck in the future ;)
Angela Beesley said,
July 18, 2006 at 12:34
The difference is that da Vinci was and is notable, and I don\’t believe I ever was. As I explained on my talk page:
I wasn\’t notable before I resigned, but people voted \”keep\” because I was on the Board and not because they actually thought I was notable. Therefore, I thought my resignation would leave them with no reason to vote \”keep\” this time. If I had actually been notable, the AfD outcome might have been the same this time, but considering how borderline it was and the complete lack of consensus regarding the article, I thought the resignation would be enough to change the outcome of this AfD.
Italian Wikipedia said,
July 18, 2006 at 23:14
Personale coinvolgimento nelle voci…
Angela Beesley e Anthère, due dei nomi più noti della Wikipedia internazionale, hanno richiesto la cancellazione delle voci che li riguardano (v). Suggerisco la lettura di alcune interessanti riflessioni della stessa Angela (qui (EN)), contenenti s…..
Ta bu shi da yu said,
July 27, 2006 at 23:54
FWIW, I think you are notable. I’m also putting your article on my watchlist.
Sorry things have come to this Angela :(
Drake said,
July 30, 2006 at 9:41
I didn’t know who you were until about half an hour ago. Keep the bio up, especially the picture, for no other reason than because you’re a hottie, and there needs to be more beauty in the world and on the web. Don’t be so modest. I bet you’re better looking than the others.
Rui Silva said,
August 4, 2006 at 18:33
I voted against deletion of your article in the Portuguese language Wikipédia, because I think Wikipédia is an encyclopedic - and cyclopic! - project and people want to know who is (or was) behind it. It is not for you to decide that “I am not encyclopedic; i’m not a Da Vinci” - it’s for US, the users, editors and lovers of Wikipedia!!! Keep well (and keep modest…) Rui