Talk:Vaughan Bell
| This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
 | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Untitled
editI'm not sure if Vaughan Bell merits an article. Still Several pages link to the article which make it more likely that he is notable. let's write an article or remove the red links. Proxima Centauri (talk) 19:12, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
- I don't know. I am wary of this article as the incoming links relate to criticism of Wikipedia and we need to be careful how we cover him if he is a critic of ours. Anyway, it isn't my intention to assert that he is definitely not notable only that it is not demonstrated that he is. He writes for the Guardian approximately monthly, which adds another string to his bow. I've added that. It does seem to tip the balance more in favour of his notability. I don't think it settles the issue completely though. --DanielRigal (talk) 11:19, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
- He has done more journalism. I have added that. No one thing seems to be a clincher for notability but taken together I think it may be enough. --DanielRigal (talk) 12:43, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
- I think the mention in Criticism of Wikipedia of his comments reported by the journal Nature is a bit misleading, because he seems to have been making the case for the WP process - about quality of contributions being what matters, and that working with editors/content you disagree with also stimulates further learning. Eversync (talk) 21:56, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
Comments from the subject
editAfter many years of editing Wikipedia, it is fascinating and actually a little moving to find an entry for myself, so many thanks to the editors and contributors for maintaining it. As per Wikipedia policy, some notes solely on the talk page from me which may help with accuracy.
I notice the first line is referenced to psychreg - a spam site which just recycles Wikipedia pages. You might be better off supporting the description of my role with the South London and Maudsley NHS Trust with a direct reference to my staff page there. As an aside, the Wikipedia page incorrectly mentions I'm a research fellow at the IoPPN, I'm actually just a visiting researcher (the information is out of date and even the previous research fellow appointment was honorary). Currently the page reads as if this is a major appointment when really I spend 60% of my time at UCL, where I'm a clinical senior lecturer (not senior lecturer) in the Division of Psychiatry at the Faculty of Brain Sciences and my staff page is here which you can reference directly.
I notice there was some discussion here about notability which you may want to support by including award of the 2012 Erikson Institute Prize for Excellence in Mental Health Media. All prize winners are listed on the Erikson Institute page here.
Anyway, many thanks for the work which went into the page - Vaughan (talk) 19:49, 13 July 2016 (UTC)