This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women's history and related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women's HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject Women's HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Women's HistoryWomen's History articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject London, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of London on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LondonWikipedia:WikiProject LondonTemplate:WikiProject LondonLondon-related articles
Notability is already established and reliable sources are provided already - is there a possibility that some wikipedians are too quick to apply labels without understanding the article involved BorisAndDoris (talk) 20:34, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
sorry but I've got to disagree. There is a single source listed in a very generic bibliography section. Perhaps some citations to significant coverage in 3rd party sources could clear this up. As it stands, the article does not meet WP:BIO.--RadioFan (talk) 23:02, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject." - Wikipedia:Notability (people)
A brief look at Google:Books shows 25 entries for Rhaune Laslett, a short search of the articles or book mentioned will reveal sources.
It is much easier to apply a tag than to do some constructive editing, guidelines are not rules and open to interpretation, if an article can be improved then please make suggestions or do the editing that is required but don't apply tags without discussion first.BorisAndDoris (talk) 08:33, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]