Jump to content

Talk:Kate Garvey/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Notability

...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)

Since the proposed deletion template has been removed from the article by the creator, with no response here, and no attempt to provide evidence that the subject of the article meets notability guidelines, I am inclined to move to AfD. I shall however leave this for a day or two, as a matter of courtesy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:14, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
...never mind - I see that an AfD has already been started. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:15, 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

No, it doesn't. Notability is not inherited. — Richard BB 07:43, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

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! Thanks114.158.149.78 (talk) 16:33, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Start in politics

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)

Source? AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:11, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
Source is on our blacklist for some reason. Goggle for it and you'll find it. I'm not advancing it as a source, just noting that we might find it somewhere. User:Fred Bauder Talk 00:04, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
This appears to be a wiki. User:Fred Bauder Talk 00:20, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
Neil Kinnock was Labour Party leader from 1983 to 1992, which suggests that it is unlikely that Garvey was his PA at the time, I'd have thought? AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:39, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
Well, Kinnock was an MP until 1995 and Vice-President of the European Commission from 1999 to 2004. However, I found this 2001 reference which might help:
  • "The advance team, charged with organising the daily events of the campaign, is an all-female squad led by the flame-haired Jan Royal. Some, like Kate Garvey and Sarah Hunter, are in their twenties and think nothing of finishing off a gruelling day with a 4am session in the hotel bar, dancing to Labour favourite Britney Spears. They worked for Mr Blair in opposition and resigned their Downing Street jobs to be on the campaign."
Brogan, Benedict (01 June 2001). "Babes on the Bus who keep the campaign journalists at bay". The Telegraph. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help) -- Hillbillyholiday talk 00:51, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
Yes, I'm sure we've already seen the Telegraph's Less-than-PC description of Garvey dancing to Britney Spears - I fail to see what it has to discussions relating to her notability though. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:54, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
This section is for discussion of Garvey's start in politics, no? -- Hillbillyholiday talk 01:01, 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)

Truly moronic... AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:05, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

category 'Private secretaries in the British Civil Service'

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 Diary Secretary to the Prime Minister is a political appointment. User:Fred Bauder Talk 22:19, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
A private secretary is the head of a minister's private office. A diary secretary is much lower down the greasy pole. Spartaz Humbug! 02:19, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
Interesting questions, but probably beyond Wikipedia's competence as there is hardly any published information. Also Garvey seems to have been replaced as diary secretary by someone else and to have been promoted to handling scheduling, filling in the diary, that is, rather than enforcing it. User:Fred Bauder Talk 12:51, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
What do you think a diary secretary does Fred? Filling the diary is actually what they do. Spartaz Humbug! 17:50, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
What do I think? Well, I think I don't know much about how the Prime Minister's secretary's job went because I have little information. I'm discussing it here on the chance someone might come up with some. User:Fred Bauder Talk 23:49, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
I'd have thought that not being able to find information on the job that Garvey did might possibly be an indication that it wasn't particularly notable... AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:49, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

On actually writing the article

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)

Fixed.TCO (talk) 08:30, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

DYK nomination

Pictures

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)

No, the pictures are not necessary. And yes, the picture of Queen Rania of Jordan is confusing. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:47, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
I feel they add to the subject. We can explore different areas of a topic other than just a clear "headshot", which of course we lack. If the Rania picture is confusing, a male image from Davos 2007 can be inserted: there are about 100 of them on Commons, several showing the logo. I haven't contested your cuts, Conti, (I hate edit wars). But looking over your last 100 or so edits, I see very little "building" of content and more fighting over versions.TCO (talk) 21:53, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
And how exactly do pictures not showing the subject add anything? AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:03, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
I'm happy to discuss any of my edits. I was merely trying to remove all the fluff from the article. --Conti|✉ 22:57, 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)

I also removed the logo or whatever you call it, about new labor, new Britain, since that adds nothing. Is there a reason that is being edit warred over? If so, can a case please be made for inclusion vs removal for us wander byers. Thank you, --Malerooster (talk) 03:55, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Notability, redux

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)

Deletion Review

I listed the "non consensus" closed discussion at "Wikipedia: Deletion Review" today. Bacon Avacado Burrito (talk) 23:07, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Notability template

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)

I re-added the template. Someone (probably a fanboy) removed it without explanation. MuchoMejor Cafe (talk) 21:14, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
Hi MuchMejor, (or PizzaDude, Ann Bardrach or whatever you're calling yourself today..)
I would be that "fanboy" you're talking about. Just so you know, I'm slightly insulted by that description, given I'm not exactly enamoured with Tony's Cronies, nor Mr Wales, but I rather enjoy feeding the trolls so keep at it.. -- Hillbillyholiday talk 21:55, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Removal of Notability Tag

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)

It was me that removed it - and I !voted delete in the original AfD discussion. There is clearly no support for another discussion regarding Garvey's notability at this time. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:02, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
How do you know? You've jumped in literally five minutes after I suggested exploring the issue. You are probably the only person that has even read my edit. Let's give it like 7 days or so please. MuchoMejor Cafe (talk) 00:16, 23 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)

We most certainly do not need a notability tag on this article. There have been two AfDs for this article (staggering considering how young this article is) and there has been an unequivocal decision that she is, in fact, notable (I'd also like to point out I voted delete in the first debate). This is a serious case of WP:STICK. Let's just drop this subject, remove the notability tags, and get on with our lives. — Richard BB 08:05, 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)

I also voted to delete the article, and I would still prefer to have it deleted. And I can only agree with every non-sockpuppet here that the notability tag should not be applied. --Conti|✉ 10:23, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
Yeah let's cut to the chase here. Screw the tag, let's just delete this cruft. Should have been speedied. I just selected it to the right. Train Derailment2013 (talk) 15:06, 25 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)

Yes, I agree completely. — Richard BB 15:20, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment from an uninvolved author - I think this article brings up a serious case of wikiholic, notability is clearly not inherit and her works, doings, actions and deeds are obviously non notable, references are subtle or passing text, she lacks substantial coverage. I think this article may be regarded towards a RfC. Eduemoni↑talk↓ 18:54, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
Sorry if I am being lazy, but has Jimbo commented anywhere whether he thinks this should be kept or nuked? Just curious. --Malerooster (talk) 04:01, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
Here -- Hillbillyholiday talk 04:12, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
You may also be interested in the Wikipediocracy discussion here -- Hillbillyholiday talk 04:19, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
e/c, Thank you. Interesting. Jimbo commented that the afd was working "correctly" and was heading to a snowball close, but at that time it looked like it was going to be snowballed deleted? I was just curious if he thought it should be kept or deleted or had a preference either way. --Malerooster (talk) 04:21, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
I'm more curious to know what the subject of this BLP thinks of it. But, of course, that doesn't really matter at Wikipedia! -- Hillbillyholiday talk 04:30, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
@Hillbillyholiday, I am afraid to go there, there is already enough drahma at this site, not sure if I need more, but it is sort of like slowing down at a car crash, now you have me curious. I have never been to that site, should I go??? stay tuned :) --Malerooster (talk) 04:23, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
It's a hive of knuckle dragging malice... but in a nice way. -- Hillbillyholiday talk 04:27, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
e/c, ok, I just went there, for 15 seconds,the format, threading sucks and i'll stick to the drahma here and car crashes here, much better viewing, thank you :). --Malerooster (talk) 04:28, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
@Hillbillyholiday, funny assessment, I'll take your word. --Malerooster (talk) 04:30, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
I wish I could take the credit for that one. Our dear friend Prioryman was on fire during the Wikipediocracy DYK discussion. :) -- Hillbillyholiday talk 04:46, 3 August 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).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 11:40, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Article structure

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)

I'm sure that Kate Garvey is a brilliant, accomplished, lovely woman. However, there are plenty of people meeting such a description who don't have the public notability to merit a Wikipedia article about them. Kate Garvey was such a person until she married Jimmy Wales. The Google Algorithm has decided this, not me. You do understand "algorithm", don't you? ;)
See for your self - [1]. All the photos, and the great majority of the most prominent links, involve her marriage to the God King himself. There are plenty of functionaries for heads of state who are very capable, but do not warrant an article in a major encyclopedia project, unless they are involved in some newsworthy scandal, or marry a public figure. And sometimes, the personal merges into the public, such as the case of Ms. Garvey. Or Dave Goldberg. The logic of my reverting your edits simply follows what Google has decided people are looking for when seeking information on "Kate Garvey." Furthermore, following your faulty logic, it will be necessary to comb through every article of someone married to a public figure, and remove the information about to whom they are married, such as Dave Goldberg and yes, Melania Trump. Now, on a personal level, I find you an extremely uncivil and unpleasant person with whom to deal, and I respectfully ask you to no longer comment on my talk page, or have any dealings with me anymore. You do understand "no more?" Terry Foote (talk) 13:19, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Quote finished --SamWinchester000 (talk) 13:16, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Please cool down, I did not violate you in any way but explained to you that the article structure has to reflect what you just stated. However, it does not; the point which makes her notable is only put into a personal section but the explanation for her becoming notable has to be in the main part of the article so that everyone who reads it can follow the logic of her notability. As long as the article's structure is not reflecting that, the lead just doesn't fit the article.
By the way, positioning yourself as an experienced editor (who doesn't need to talk anymore with dump SamWinchester) you should be aware that articles stand on their own and that "to comb through every article of someone married to a public figure, and remove the information about to whom they are married, such as Dave Goldberg and yes, Melania Trump" is not how Wikipedia works but rather would be called WP:POINT. --SamWinchester000 (talk) 13:14, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
Please help me understand what puts you in the position to be so imperious and condescending. You're the one saying things like "you do understand personal, don't you?" I'm just using your words so you can understand how it feels. I think you should cool down. Furthermore, I have edits reverted frequently - deal with it. And, if you take this sentence out that so offends you, take out in the opening sentence that Dave Goldberg was married to Sheryl Sandberg, and comb through all the other biographies of people married to public figures and take that out too, it's the only thing that fits logically, by the logic of your argument. You know what, take it out, leave it in, say whatever you want - I don't care. If you want to explain to me how implying that I don't have the intelligence to understand a simple sentence is appropriate, please contact me at terrywfoote@gmail.com and explain it, because I'd love to know Terry Foote (talk) 15:48, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
I'm weak, I'm not quite done yet, I'm sorry: Here's a string of people who are just as accomplished without their famous spouse: the Ali Hewson article really needs your help. Admittedly, she is the iffiest one on the list here. But, how about Laurene_Powell_Jobs - that article needs your help too. And probably the most brilliant of people listed so farr is Anne Wojcicki, of 23andme, her *former* marriage to one of the Google founders listed in the opening paragraph. As long as we're talking about successful women who were successful outside of their famous husbands, why should we restrict ourselves to the present? Martha Gellhorn was certainly several times more famous that Kate Garvey before her marriage to Ernest Hemingway. June_Carter_Cash was a household name, when Kate Garvey never was, and certainly has just as much claim to an article without mention of her spouse in the opening as Kate Garvey, but look, there's Johnny_Cash. Let's go to art, shall we? Frida_Kahlo is arguably more famous and accomplished than her husband Diego_Rivera, and certainly more so than Kate Garvey, but there's ole Rivera, in the opening paragraphs of the article. Why don't we mix things up a bit, put in the voice of the working class American man, Bruce_Springsteen. There is absolutely no doubt of his decades of fame and accomplishment, but there in the opening paragraphs, it's considered notable enough to list his barely notable spouse Patti_Scialfa. Was Joachim_Sauer less deserving that Kate Garvey of his own Wikipedia article before his marriage to Angela_Merkel?

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)

Keep on spaming and of course ignoring my point that the article structure (not just the lead) has to be improved to reflect your points.
P. S.: You were reacting extremely violating even more than once within your answer because of only one passing ironic post by me that was absolutely not intended to be like that (althoug I have been a bit nerved from your frome close to scratch coming repeating Melania Trump, First Lady POINT). I'm sorry, that might seem like a bad excuse but maybe the fact that English is not my native language might be a reason for producing not enough sensibility (instead of e. g. a smart joke). --SamWinchester000 (talk) 07:22, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
I'm giving you opportunity to settle this privately again, so for the third time, terrywfoote@gmail.com Spamming? Since you refuse, we have to take up space on Wikipedia, so you have no one but yourself to blame. By the logic of your argument, which is so perfect yet complex that I'm apparently too stupid to understand, you need to get to work on all those biographies above, if you want to remove information from the Kate Garvey article. Structure? I thought this was about the marriage information detracting from the individual accomplishments of Kate Garvey. That was your original argument, until you decided to change it. OK then, if your arguing about structure, then change the structure of all the other biographies I listed and many more. Or, how about this, a possible solution to the problem - find some interesting facts about Kate Garvey's career serving Tony Blair to fill out the void left by removing his marriage, rather than getting into an edit war and being extremely rude to me, calling it irony. Did Ms. Garvey contribute to key policy issues? What did Ms. Garvey do exactly for Tony Blair, anyway, do you know? By the way, Unhöflichkeit ist keine Ironie. Hopefully Google translate got this right I will give you this much - your English is much better than my German. I'd love to be able to read "Faust" in the original. If Mark Twain wrote an essay on the miseries of learning German, then I don't stand a chance. Now, please, terrywfoote@gmail.com Terry Foote (talk) 12:19, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
You yourself say that she is not famous for Tony Blair. Yet you're strongly opposing the idea to improve the article by reflecting in the article just what you yourself explained, the fact that she's known for Jimmy Wales. If it is like that (I believe you, don't worry) then the article should exactly state that (her getting well-known through her marriage with Wales) in its main part not only in a personal section that will make a neutral reader think that her marriage is not reason for her notability. That's indeed what I have naturally thought at first – because of the article's structure. When such a thing happens it shows that the article might be improved. --SamWinchester000 (talk) 02:37, 28 November 2016 (UTC) Btw, the fact that his second wife (historically much more important for Wikipedia than his third) does not have an article made me even more think that Ms. Garvey seemed to have her independent notability. P. S.: My Brazilian uncle learned German in a year. ;) (Of course one also needs the time for that.)
Again, I show weakness, because I really should just ignore this, but I don't. Now, not famous for Tony Blair? That's not an entirely accurate representation of what I said. From what I understand, she was the English equivalent of Tony Blair's calendar keeper. She organized his schedule and was like his gatekeeper, limiting his access, as any head-of-state needs. While an extremely important job, nonetheless, I can't think of one person in her equivalent position around the world have their own Wikipedia article. Many people are very talented with important jobs who don't warrant a Wikipedia article. So, I will argue that her marriage to Jimmy Wales is what pushed her into the realm of public awareness, and having people search for her on Google, and then having a Wikipedia article. If I'm wrong, well then I'm wrong, and I'll admit that. You have to admit, that if you take out the sentence about her marriage to Jimmy Wales, then you have to take out Miuccia Prada from the Patrizio_Bertelli. Now, if you have some recommendation about standardizing all of these articles, placing marriages exclusively under a "Personal" heading, well then that may be a good thing. The problem is that like I've said, some marriages are matters of public interest. If Kate Garvey were married to a pipe fitter named Pete Higglesby from Manchester, well then that would be strange and inappropriate.

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)

P.S. Do David Cameron's or Theresa May's diary secretaries have their own Wikipedia articles? I doubt it. If you can find them, then I'll have a big change of opinion. Nevertheless, the structure of a lot of biographies will still have to be changed. Oh, and check this out - Philip_May, an article almost identical in structure to Ms. Garvey's. Now, just because most people find this article because they want to know to whom Theresa May is married doesn't mean that Mr. May isn't accomplished in his own right. Most investment relationship managers aren't public people......unless they marry a public figure. Terry Foote (talk) 18:24, 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).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

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).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:06, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Archive 1
Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kate_Garvey/Archive_1&oldid=1229212011"