Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gill Langley

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus, defaulting to keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 09:09, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 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 ^(talk) 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. [1] 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 ^(talk) 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. Wikipedia would have virtually no articles if every stub was nominated for deletion within 34 minutes of being created. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 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." [2] SlimVirgin ^(talk) 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 ^(talk) 20:26, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment Vote solicited by SlimVirgin on Jayjg's talk page [3]. (I had Jayjg's talk page watched and noticed this.) --Ben Houston 20:36, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

So what? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 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 [4]), and decided that the article should be kept. Is asking for third-party opinions on Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia: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 ^(talk) 21:06, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment Jayjg, those claims you make above are pretty extreme. Anyhow, SlimVirgin's response was "So what?", she didn't contest she was getting support from you, just that from her perspective there wasn't anything wrong with it. --Ben Houston 23:54, 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 ^(talk) 21:06, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

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

Comment I think the strategy of trying to show notability, such as your comments below, are much more valuable and more likely to result in a desirable outcome that either recruiting friends to vote keep or aggressively attacking those which may not take a position you approve of. --Ben Houston 22:21, 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, [5] twice in the Guardian [6], [7] (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)

There's a 27-minute interview with her on BBC television, and an interview on BBC Radio Four that I just linked to. Plus she is the author of one book and the editor of another. And sat on an important government committee. I find this utterly bizarre. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:20, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Has she had any public recognition? Sitting on a committee doesn't confer intrinsic notability, neiother does appearing in an interview on TV. Has her work been cited anywhere? Her name comes up just three times in what are arguably the three leading British newspapers. Her book "Vegan Nutrition" has a sales rank near 500000 on Amazon.co.uk, "Animal Experimentation: The Consensus Changes" has long been out of print. What I am asking here is: would anyone outside the circle of Animal Rights activism ever have heard of Gill? I'd say no. Please convince me that I should have heard of the lady. Dr Zak 22:08, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, she is known within animal protection circles, not just animal rights activism. So anyone involved in animal testing will know of her i.e. anyone involved in writing about it, presenting evidence about it, taking cases through court etc. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:12, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Her recent report was cited in The Scientist if that's what you mean by cited. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:14, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

The Scientist doesn't exactly command great respect. In Nature (the leading British science journal) Gill is mentioned twice (as spokeswoman for the Hadwen Trust), saying that not enough is being done to replace animal testing. I see no evidence (in Nature again) that her report has been cited anywhere. The "Union for the Abolition of Vivisection" on the other hand is mentioned often. I'm a bit reminded of the Lumber Cartel. It's a running joke amongst antispam activists - I certainly have heard of it - but outside that narrow circle the joke is unknown, and I'm not convinced that that particular meme needs its entry on Wikipedia. Same here. I'm just looking for her being mentioned giving testimony etc and getting noticed for it. Dr Zak 22:41, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I mistyped: New Scientist. If you mean her recent report, it has only just been published, so people will need time to respond to it in full. When you say getting noticed for giving testimony, I'm not sure what you mean. I'm very confused by this, because there are so many (possibly hundreds of thousands) of articles about people and issues less notable, and less well referenced, than this one. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:57, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I was thinking about expert testimony in courts, or anything else that might confer public recognition. Sine you mentioned less notable people and issues, no, I'd say that minor porn stats, morning radio presenters and local politicians shouldn't have entries here either. Dr Zak 23:03, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

As the article says, she was invited to be an expert witness at the House of Lords inquiry into animal testing in 2001. She sat on the Animal Procedures Committee for eight years (the committee that oversees animal experimentation in the UK). She advises the European Commission on issues related to animal experimentation. She is one of a very small number of researchers in this field who are extremely highly regarded by all sides of the debate (scientists, animal-rights activists, governments, courts). SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:15, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

The editorial part of Nature commands great respect amoungst scientists as a reliable source for news on science and science policy, especially European issues. I've said it already: what I doubt is the assertion that Gill is "highly regarded by all sides of the debate" as she is mentioned in Nature merely twice, and only as a spokesperson for an organization. Also note that unlike Nature, the New Scientist is a popular journal. Until we see the "Next of Kin" report mentioned in notable journals we must assume that the publication went unnoticed. Remember that Wikipedia isn't a vehicle to advance worthy causes, it is a record of notable causes. Dr Zak 00:29, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I think you and the nominator have misunderstood this article and, with respect, Wikipedia. This is not an article about an eminent scientist qua research scientist who is writing in peer-reviewed journals and working for a university. This is an article about a zoologist and writer, who has become an expert in an unusual field (where peer-reviewed articles are rarely, if ever, written), and who has succeeded in gaining respect from all sides of the debate, which is exceedingly rare in this area. However, I think the article speaks for itself, so I won't say any more about it, except that I'm somewhat bewildered, and very disappointed in certain people on this page. I have never viewed myself as an inclusionist, but if this is what deletionism causes, then I may indeed have to cross the floor. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:22, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Please read again what I said above. I mentioned the editorial part of Nature, the "News" section in particular. Here is what an issue looks like. Anything important in animal testing would be reported there; it's such an important issue that affects so many scientist. I made my case that Gill is non-notable (because she rarely appears in the newspapers and twice in the scientific news but not as an expert). Can you make your case that she is a highly regarded expert with verifiable evidence? There was a blog cited further up... is there really nothign better? If you can't, and someone disagrees with your view, please don't attack that person. Dr Zak 03:28, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

• Keep I have to agree that this is totally bizarre. I came across this because I've been arguing (politely, of course) with the author elsewhere and looked up her contributions, and the individual is clearly notable. I'd suggest those who voted to delete before she had the chance to weigh in be asked to reconsider given her response and the article today. Sam 21:45, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Editors will be interested in reading the talk page of the article that clearly breaches WP:AGF. My factual addition 'The Next of Kin report into what is a contentious subject has, however, not yet been peer reviewed nor subject to critical analysis' has been reverted. Let me be clear; yes I am a scientist but no I have no strong position on animal rights. Despite accusations against me, and adolescent jokes, I base my case on the facts not personalities. This article is pivotal. This is an article for a lobbying body that has a clear (though obviously legitimate) agenda. For such an article to have merit it most certainly requires peer review to establish its neutrality and scientific merit (on which I express no view). Dr Langley is obviously well established in committee circles but what is needed is evidence as to what she has actually done e.g. peer reviewed papers, academic positions attained (e.g. professor not research fellow), generating new knowledge etc. BlueValour 21:49, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

• Comment - my edit has been reverted again without any talk page discussion. I am not prepared to engage in a fruitless edit war so I have simply put an npov tag on the page. BlueValour 22:09, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Wikipedia is not paper. — JEREMY 02:37, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep I'm going to place myself firmly in the "this is bizarre" camp. Something truly odd is going on here. This article could serve as a template for how to create new articles and what topics they can cover. And not peer-reviewed? Ummm... I think maybe a foreword by Jane Goodall would constitute a peer review, perhaps the best review on the face of the planet. Yeesh. IronDuke 03:09, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep as per IronDuke and others. --Merovingian (T, C, @) 08:05, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep per IronDuke. This is rather strange. She appears to be a notable activist, add to that the unusual factor that she's a former animal researcher, and she's easily notable enough for a WP article. If we delete this we'd probably have to delete 2/3 of the bios in WP. Wrote an important report for an important activist group which was cited in New Scientist, was interviewed by the BBC... there's plenty here to call her notable enough for a WP article. Guettarda 19:41, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep per SlimVirgin and IronDuke. The article has been fleshed out from its stub state and there are many items in the article that would make her notable in the world of Animal Rights Activism. As a whole that category needs a little more attention (especially from a POV slant) and this article is a quality example of a NPOV bio in that category. It would be a shame to lose. Agne27 15:01, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.