Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:14, 16 July 2006

Gill Langley

Delete - Fails WP:BIO - no doubt a worthy scientist but consultants and research fellows are, without being disrespectful, two a penny. One published report for a lobbying body doth not a notable person make. BlueValour 00:54, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. NawlinWiki 01:08, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. DarthVader 06:05, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. She does have a few hits in LexisNexis, but they are mostly news blurbs about her report and news releases that she wrote regarding the same subject. I don't think this makes her notable. --Aguerriero (talk) 15:56, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Nathan Beach 16:57, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. If you've written fewer peer reviewed articles than me, you're nowhere near notable. -- GWO
• Keep. This woman is a well-known animal protection expert in the UK and has acted as an advisor to the British government. This is just a stub. It will be filled out. SlimVirgin 19:20, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. I find this somewhat disturbing. BlueValour, who has been editing only since May, nominated this stub for deletion just 34 minutes after I created it. Do we now have a situation where people must post finished articles first time, lest they be nominated for deletion before they've added anything? This is a published author, a former scientific consultant to the government, who is frequently used as an expert source by the media, and as an expert witness by the British government. I hope BlueValour is not making a habit of this type of nomination. And BV, please don't edit other people's posts. SlimVirgin 20:22, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

• Comment - I spend long periods patrolling new articles hence the rapid response. The report that Langley wrote was not in a peer reviewed journal. There are countless people around who have advised the Government, including me as it happens. And, SV please don't play the man and not the ball - it simply demonstrates a lack of confidence in your case. BlueValour 20:51, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

• That you were patrolling new articles is not the point. You shouldn't be responding so rapidly. Stubs need time to grow. And why on earth would Langley's material need to appear in peer-reviewed journals? Are we now to go around deleting all living bios of people not published in peer-reviewed journals? Please reconsider your approach to this. You're a new editor. Misplaced Pages would have virtually no articles if every stub was nominated for deletion within 34 minutes of being created. SlimVirgin 21:06, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

• Here's the Research Defence Society discussing Langley's notability, and a recent television interview she gave: "Gill Langley is from the Dr Hadwen Trust (an anti-vivisection organisation which funds non-animal methods of research) and is also scientific adviser to the British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection. She stated in a television interview last week that she was "looking forward to an open debate, but it hasn’t started yet". This is an astonishing statement from someone who gave evidence twice to the House of Lords committee, sat on the Animal Procedures Committee for eight years, and has been involved in dozens of debates, workshops, interview, reports, committees and investigations into animal research." SlimVirgin 22:26, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

• Keep per SV. Nom was too quick off the mark. FeloniousMonk 14:53, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Looks like a premature nomination. Langley gets almost 15,000 Google hits, a not inconsequential number, and she's also mentioned over 40 times in works on books.google.com. The article is significantly improved since the first stub was put up, giving ample indication of notability, and mention in many different sources. I recommmend that the initial voters re-examine their votes in light of the state of the current article. Jayjg 20:26, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment Vote solicited by SlimVirgin on Jayjg's talk page . (I had Jayjg's talk page watched and noticed this.) --Ben Houston 20:36, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

So what? SlimVirgin 20:51, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

SlimVirgin did not "vote solicit", she asked me to look at the article and AfD, and told me her reasoning as to why she thought it should be kept. I looked at it, did a little research of my own (I noted, for example, that Langley has been interviewed for 1/2 hour on BBC TV as well ), and decided that the article should be kept. Is asking for third-party opinions on Misplaced Pages now something to be frowned upon? I have had literally hundreds of requests on my Talk: page from dozens of editors asking me to look at situations. It used to be something that was applauded. What is frowned upon is Misplaced Pages:Harassment; I would classify watchlisting someone's Talk: page , and then using the posts there to make bad faith accusations regarding their actions on various articles, as falling under that policy. Jayjg 21:06, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - after taking the time to read through the article I agree with nom. --Ben Houston 21:04, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Amazing. You feel free to accuse others of making bad-faith votes, but feel no concern that your own vote will be seen as nothing more than a continuing campaign of harrassment against SlimVirgin. Wonders never cease. Jayjg 21:06, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Ben, you really should be ashamed of yourself. SlimVirgin 21:08, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

• How do we know that Gill is "well known"? Her name appears once in the Independent once in the last two years, twice in the Guardian , (in 2002 and 2006) and not at all in the Times. Delete, being a member of a pressure or advisory group does not make you notable; public recognition is missing. Dr Zak 21:14, 16 July 2006 (UTC)