![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
...Or rather the lack of it. I'm sure that the creator of this article is familiar with Wikipedia:Notability (people) guidelines. I would be interested to learn what justification there can be for the creation of this article. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 13:52, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
I find this article very interesting. The mere fact that she is the wife of the creator and de facto owner and tirant of wikipedia, Jimmy Wales, makes her notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Francisco8104 ( talk • contribs) 23:55, 27 June 2013
How about a New York Times write-up? And the fact that she has married the "inventor" of this website?? As per NYTs: “...the most connected woman in London...she was Tony Blair’s diary secretary at 10 Downing Street and then a director at Freud Communications, the public relations firm run by Matthew Freud, a great-grandson of Sigmund Freud, who is also Rupert Murdoch’s son-in-law. And...Blair, in his 2010 memoir, wrote that Garvey ran his schedule “with a grip of iron and was quite prepared to squeeze the balls very hard indeed of anyone who interfered.”
Are you actually going to say that Tony Blair's diary secretary at 10 Downing Street doesn't deserve to have a Wikipage, but Kajagoogoo do? You must be nuts! Or protective/biased! Thanks 114.158.149.78 ( talk) 16:33, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
Her first job in politics seems to have been as "a young PA in the UK Labour Party for Labour leader Neil Kinnock MP." User:Fred Bauder Talk 23:04, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help) --
Hillbillyholiday
talk
00:51, 28 June 2013 (UTC)Hey, AndyTheGrump! The cat's out of the bag. Want a source? Try the NEW YORK TIMES: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/30/magazine/jimmy-wales-is-not-an-internet-billionaire.html?hpw&_r=0 Or, you could continue to pretend that your biased editing/candidacies for deletion are completely free from self-serving interest. But...then there's the other 750,000 of us who've read the article sourced above... In the end, you're just going to have to deal with it: the individual you're trying to protect from publicity has chosen a public life for himself! I mean herself! Thanks! 114.158.149.78 ( talk) 16:38, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
Is this correct? I don't think she was ever in the civil service as such - a Private Secretary is a specific position, not a general description. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 21:36, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
I'm 99% certain this is wrong, and have deleted it. There is no way that a civil servant would have been touring on Blair's 'campaign bus' for example. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 21:44, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
The structure of the Career section needs to be made chronological.
1. Pre-Blair (the Neil Kinnock thing, can be sourced)
2. Blair Diary Sec position (including after the time quotes on her performance)
3. Freud Communications
TCO ( talk) 23:50, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
The diary secretary is not the same as the private secretary and it is rather confusing how this is currently piped. Spartaz is right that the diary sec is lower down and the private sec is more like the office manager (our Wiki article explains this, also other web sources do too.) I will straighten out this snarl. If we want an article on the diary sec, we can have one (or just leave it a redlink), but confusing as is. TCO ( talk) 08:10, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
Are the pictures necessary? None of them seem directly relevant, and some are just confusing. It takes a second glance to figure out that the women depicted is not, in fact, Kate Garvey (as one would assume, given that it's the first picture of a person on an article about a person). Showing a logo, Bono and the insides of a church just seems.. weird. Why not add a picture of Tony Blair and one of Jimbo Wales? And maybe a map of Great Britain ("A country Kate Garvey works in")? -- Conti| ✉ 21:44, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
I'm the one who aligned the images by request of TCO. I didn't even look at the pictures and how they fit into the article. Upon closer look, I agree with Conti and Andy... they are a perfect example of unnecessary and confusing fluff. The image of Queen Rania is especially misplaced. I'm going to be bold here and just zap both those image tables (sorry TCO). – JBarta ( talk) 01:25, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
Since this was nominated twice, without my two cents, Keep per past outcomes at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pete Williams (journalist), which served as precedent for several other AfDs. Further nominations are just trollling to "get at" Jimmy Wales and thus serve no legitimate purpose. Any further community-wide discussions of notability need to wait at least a few months. Bearian ( talk) 19:10, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
I listed the "non consensus" closed discussion at "Wikipedia: Deletion Review" today. Bacon Avacado Burrito ( talk) 23:07, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
I added the "Notability" tag to the top of the article. Some have concerns over whether this girl is an encyclopedic topic. Or that she is significant in any reasonable way. This article probably should be deleted, but I am hesitant to summarily delete this article without input from more senior notability editors. 16:52, 19 July 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eating Pizzadude ( talk • contribs)
Let us start a section to discuss the consensus on the Notability Tag on top of the page. Someone keeps removing it without discussion, per his own personal whim, stating above that he enjoys trolling or whatever. The recent AFD shows that a substantial portion of the editing body here feels that the subject is non-notable. Therefore, the tag is appropriate. Let's consider a BLP tag as well. Your opinions welcome. Thanks. MuchoMejor Cafe ( talk) 23:57, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
Please explain why you think she is not notable given the recent AfD, and please do so on the talk page before re-adding the tag on yet another sock. Martin451 ( talk) 00:32, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
What makes you think there has been some "unequivocal decision the she is, in fact, notable"? The First AFD closed as "no consensus." Do you not comprehend what the term "no consensus" means? Well, it is the very definition of "equivocal." There is not any consensus even if this POS article should be kept, much less that this person is "notable." There was also a comment at DRV earlier this month that argued that this article should not have been kept.
How is this "unequivocal"? Dissemble much? I think the notability tag is a good compromise between those fanboys that think this woman has done anything worthwhile, and those saner heads who argue that the article shouldn't exist in the first place. MuchoMejor Cafe ( talk) 22:33, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
Given the blatant trolling by 'new' contributors here, I am considering proposing that any future nominations for deletion be restricted to editors with a substantial editing history. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 15:18, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Kate Garvey. Please take a moment to review
my edit. You may add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 11:40, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
Quoted from User talk sites
My logic is not faulty as long as the article itself does not nearly look as if the person became notable through her husband but only states her work for Tony Blair and other public stuff, which has nothing to do with her husband, as her carrer. If she's notable for her marriage this has to be stated in the main part of the article discussing her carrer and not only as personal life. (You understand the meaning of the word personal?) When someone reads that article he won't get the idea that this woman is famous for her marriage because the article just does not explain that connection. One sentence in the lead won't change that but rather irritate. -- SamWinchester000 ( talk) 00:05, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
Quote finished -- SamWinchester000 ( talk) 13:16, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
I personally think he was, but there it is, his marriage to Merkel, in the opening paragraph. I rest my case. And I'm still awaiting that email. Terry Foote ( talk) 23:34, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
On another note, if my job required that I learn German, then I would put the time and effort into it. Unfortunately, the next time I'm in Germany, the patient Germans will have to continue to answer in English to my awkward "wo ist der Bahnhof bitte?" I guess they think "well, at least he tried to speak German." :) Terry Foote ( talk) 17:36, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Kate Garvey. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 01:21, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Kate Garvey. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 01:06, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
...Or rather the lack of it. I'm sure that the creator of this article is familiar with Wikipedia:Notability (people) guidelines. I would be interested to learn what justification there can be for the creation of this article. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 13:52, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
I find this article very interesting. The mere fact that she is the wife of the creator and de facto owner and tirant of wikipedia, Jimmy Wales, makes her notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Francisco8104 ( talk • contribs) 23:55, 27 June 2013
How about a New York Times write-up? And the fact that she has married the "inventor" of this website?? As per NYTs: “...the most connected woman in London...she was Tony Blair’s diary secretary at 10 Downing Street and then a director at Freud Communications, the public relations firm run by Matthew Freud, a great-grandson of Sigmund Freud, who is also Rupert Murdoch’s son-in-law. And...Blair, in his 2010 memoir, wrote that Garvey ran his schedule “with a grip of iron and was quite prepared to squeeze the balls very hard indeed of anyone who interfered.”
Are you actually going to say that Tony Blair's diary secretary at 10 Downing Street doesn't deserve to have a Wikipage, but Kajagoogoo do? You must be nuts! Or protective/biased! Thanks 114.158.149.78 ( talk) 16:33, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
Her first job in politics seems to have been as "a young PA in the UK Labour Party for Labour leader Neil Kinnock MP." User:Fred Bauder Talk 23:04, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help) --
Hillbillyholiday
talk
00:51, 28 June 2013 (UTC)Hey, AndyTheGrump! The cat's out of the bag. Want a source? Try the NEW YORK TIMES: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/30/magazine/jimmy-wales-is-not-an-internet-billionaire.html?hpw&_r=0 Or, you could continue to pretend that your biased editing/candidacies for deletion are completely free from self-serving interest. But...then there's the other 750,000 of us who've read the article sourced above... In the end, you're just going to have to deal with it: the individual you're trying to protect from publicity has chosen a public life for himself! I mean herself! Thanks! 114.158.149.78 ( talk) 16:38, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
Is this correct? I don't think she was ever in the civil service as such - a Private Secretary is a specific position, not a general description. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 21:36, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
I'm 99% certain this is wrong, and have deleted it. There is no way that a civil servant would have been touring on Blair's 'campaign bus' for example. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 21:44, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
The structure of the Career section needs to be made chronological.
1. Pre-Blair (the Neil Kinnock thing, can be sourced)
2. Blair Diary Sec position (including after the time quotes on her performance)
3. Freud Communications
TCO ( talk) 23:50, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
The diary secretary is not the same as the private secretary and it is rather confusing how this is currently piped. Spartaz is right that the diary sec is lower down and the private sec is more like the office manager (our Wiki article explains this, also other web sources do too.) I will straighten out this snarl. If we want an article on the diary sec, we can have one (or just leave it a redlink), but confusing as is. TCO ( talk) 08:10, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
Are the pictures necessary? None of them seem directly relevant, and some are just confusing. It takes a second glance to figure out that the women depicted is not, in fact, Kate Garvey (as one would assume, given that it's the first picture of a person on an article about a person). Showing a logo, Bono and the insides of a church just seems.. weird. Why not add a picture of Tony Blair and one of Jimbo Wales? And maybe a map of Great Britain ("A country Kate Garvey works in")? -- Conti| ✉ 21:44, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
I'm the one who aligned the images by request of TCO. I didn't even look at the pictures and how they fit into the article. Upon closer look, I agree with Conti and Andy... they are a perfect example of unnecessary and confusing fluff. The image of Queen Rania is especially misplaced. I'm going to be bold here and just zap both those image tables (sorry TCO). – JBarta ( talk) 01:25, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
Since this was nominated twice, without my two cents, Keep per past outcomes at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pete Williams (journalist), which served as precedent for several other AfDs. Further nominations are just trollling to "get at" Jimmy Wales and thus serve no legitimate purpose. Any further community-wide discussions of notability need to wait at least a few months. Bearian ( talk) 19:10, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
I listed the "non consensus" closed discussion at "Wikipedia: Deletion Review" today. Bacon Avacado Burrito ( talk) 23:07, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
I added the "Notability" tag to the top of the article. Some have concerns over whether this girl is an encyclopedic topic. Or that she is significant in any reasonable way. This article probably should be deleted, but I am hesitant to summarily delete this article without input from more senior notability editors. 16:52, 19 July 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eating Pizzadude ( talk • contribs)
Let us start a section to discuss the consensus on the Notability Tag on top of the page. Someone keeps removing it without discussion, per his own personal whim, stating above that he enjoys trolling or whatever. The recent AFD shows that a substantial portion of the editing body here feels that the subject is non-notable. Therefore, the tag is appropriate. Let's consider a BLP tag as well. Your opinions welcome. Thanks. MuchoMejor Cafe ( talk) 23:57, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
Please explain why you think she is not notable given the recent AfD, and please do so on the talk page before re-adding the tag on yet another sock. Martin451 ( talk) 00:32, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
What makes you think there has been some "unequivocal decision the she is, in fact, notable"? The First AFD closed as "no consensus." Do you not comprehend what the term "no consensus" means? Well, it is the very definition of "equivocal." There is not any consensus even if this POS article should be kept, much less that this person is "notable." There was also a comment at DRV earlier this month that argued that this article should not have been kept.
How is this "unequivocal"? Dissemble much? I think the notability tag is a good compromise between those fanboys that think this woman has done anything worthwhile, and those saner heads who argue that the article shouldn't exist in the first place. MuchoMejor Cafe ( talk) 22:33, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
Given the blatant trolling by 'new' contributors here, I am considering proposing that any future nominations for deletion be restricted to editors with a substantial editing history. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 15:18, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Kate Garvey. Please take a moment to review
my edit. You may add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 11:40, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
Quoted from User talk sites
My logic is not faulty as long as the article itself does not nearly look as if the person became notable through her husband but only states her work for Tony Blair and other public stuff, which has nothing to do with her husband, as her carrer. If she's notable for her marriage this has to be stated in the main part of the article discussing her carrer and not only as personal life. (You understand the meaning of the word personal?) When someone reads that article he won't get the idea that this woman is famous for her marriage because the article just does not explain that connection. One sentence in the lead won't change that but rather irritate. -- SamWinchester000 ( talk) 00:05, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
Quote finished -- SamWinchester000 ( talk) 13:16, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
I personally think he was, but there it is, his marriage to Merkel, in the opening paragraph. I rest my case. And I'm still awaiting that email. Terry Foote ( talk) 23:34, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
On another note, if my job required that I learn German, then I would put the time and effort into it. Unfortunately, the next time I'm in Germany, the patient Germans will have to continue to answer in English to my awkward "wo ist der Bahnhof bitte?" I guess they think "well, at least he tried to speak German." :) Terry Foote ( talk) 17:36, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Kate Garvey. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 01:21, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Kate Garvey. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 01:06, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |