Jimmy, I think this is a case where your famous divine intervention might be helpful to establish a general principle, so I'd appreciate your input.
We have Angela (Beesley) on AfD now: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Angela_Beesley_...
The fact that Angela does not want this article to exist has been cited as a reason to delete. It looks like this deletion will go through.
Two related examples are Seth Finkelstein: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Seth_Finkelstei...
He also prefers the article not to exist, but nevertheless, it was kept. Then, of course, there's Daniel Brandt.
Angela is co-founder and VP of a company that has received $4M in funding, and hosts over 1,500 wikis, including some of the largest ones besides Wikipedia. Seth is a noted anti-censorship activist. Brandt is, well, Brandt.
Whatever principle we establish here, I think fairness demands that we establish it with consistency and thoughtfulness. Special treatment would be a dangerous precedent.
Do we want to respect people's wishes if they are borderline notable to begin with?
If so, how do we define borderline notability?
If not, should Angela's article be deleted, or would that amount to special treatment?
One possible answer is: We respect your wishes if you ask nicely. Is that a fair answer, though? It is a fact that some people are, given their psychological make-up, _incapable_ of asking nicely.
I don't have any clear answers here. Certainly, given past experiences, I understand if some people prefer not to be mentioned on Wikipedia. But, given that we also want to go in the direction of changing the way Wikipedia works to increase its credibility (stable versions etc.), is it wise to establish a precedent to keep out material which could, theoretically, be well-maintained?
I would appreciate your thoughts on this.
Erik