Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gill Langley
Editors will be interested in reading the talk page  of the article that clearly breaches . My factual addition 'The Next of Kin report into what is a contentious subject has, however, not yet been peer reviewed nor subject to critical analysis' has been reverted.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
— User:BlueValour, 21:49, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
Stance: comment
Cited policy: WP:AGF (Wikipedia:Assume good faith)