Talk:Rowenna Davis

Selection as MP
Is anyone going to update with this article http://www.dailyecho.co.uk/news/district/southampton/10435458.Journalist_vying_to_become_city_s_new_MP/ ? or unnecessary? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dumbellazz (talk • contribs) 10:08, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

The article already mentions the selection process. As it will be decided soon, we might as well wait to see the result before commenting further. Andrew Davidson (talk) 17:00, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

The article does not mention the reactions she has received for running as an MP. I believe it is a necessary part of the article. Feel free to add positive reactions to counterbalance the negative for a complete view (if you can find it). Dumbellazz (talk) 14:43, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Any evidence to support tagging this article?
Im perplexed to note that Advert and Fan tags had been added to this article. There doesn't seem to be any justification for this at all. The article doesn't go beyond basic biographical detail. Granted the subject has achieved a lot for someone so young – but NPOV is not being violated by a faithful reflection of her notable achievements. From a quick google Im not seeing any negative information about the subject that's being suppressed. We ought not to put derogatory tags onto our BLPs without good reason. FeydHuxtable (talk) 13:43, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Indeed. I reviewed all the material for this subject when working on the DYK and put most of it in. The one item which wasn't included was some discussion of her coverage of an operation upon Twitter, e.g. Twitter, comments, and the reaction to Rowenna Davis’ NHS surgery liveblog. I didn't include this because I didn't find a substantial source commenting upon the matter - just some comment on journalism blogs and forums. Anyway, without some specific issue such as that, the tags should not be used because they would not be actionable. We require details and evidence, not unsupported opinion. Andrew Davidson (talk) 20:02, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Edits to match the frequent tagging of the article
The article had a lot of superfluous information which was not necessary in order to act as self-promotion for the subject's political career. I removed the self-promotionary elements of the article in line with wikipedia's guidelines; emotive and purposefully selected facts are no longer utilised in the article. I also removed the category of Feminist writer as from the articles listed on the page and after a quick google of her name, none are about feminism. Before changing my edits I would appreciate prior discussion. WilliamBaked (talk) 08:51, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

I also removed category people from Peckham and Lewisham as it is clear that she is not from either of these two places, given the fact that it clearly states she attended school in North London. WilliamBaked (talk) 08:57, 4 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I have reverted those bold changes and added a citation for her birth in Lewisham. For examples of her position on feminism, see Making feminism mainstream or LabourList is drowned out by ego-stroking testosterone – It’s time for a virtual feminist party.  As for speedy deletion, please see details of the article's history above.  It has been on Wikipedia's front page where it has been thoroughly inspected and reviewed.  There was a deletion discussion and the result was that it was speedily kept, not deleted. Andrew Davidson (talk) 07:37, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Referencing two feminism articles which are both over three years old is making a mockery of the feminist writer category, please re-consider removing the category until the subject has provided substantial material on the matter which isn't just general parroting. Also, there are still biographical information which has been re-included which is superfluous for someone still mostly irrelevant, perhaps in a few years subject will be more relevant if subject decides to climb the political ladder. And in regards to the deletion discussion I was addressing the recent tagging of the article, not the tagging from 2012. People are still thinking it should be deleted due to the soap box element, hence my edit to remove the self-promotary aspects of the article. WilliamBaked (talk) 08:39, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Categories can be quite fuzzy, with overlaps and levels so we can try some variations. I have amended the list. Andrew Davidson (talk) 21:25, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree that describing her as a feminist writer doesn't feel right. Unless there is more evidence than those two posts, then it's clearly not something she sees as a priority over other matters. Fluteflute Talk Contributions 21:50, 5 April 2013 (UTC)