Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by SlimVirgin (talk | contribs) at 21:11, 15 July 2006 (→[]). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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)

• I hope, for the sake of consistency, your next stop will be Air Force Amy. She has probably also not been peer-reviewed, at least not by the usual method. SlimVirgin 21:11, 15 July 2006 (UTC)