Draft:Jeanette Rowley
British animal rights activist and vegan critical legal scholar. Coined the idea Vegan Jurisprudence
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jeanette Karen Rowley is a British vegan rights advocate. Reporting on employment issues, People Management quoted Rowley as “the Vegan Society’s vegan rights adviser” in relation to avoiding discrimination against vegan employees.[1] Between January and February 2020, The Guardian and Personnel Today quoted Rowley in reporting connected to the Norwich Employment Tribunal preliminary decision in Casamitjana v League Against Cruel Sports, identifying her as a legal expert with The Vegan Society in relation to ethical veganism and workplace implications under the Equality Act 2010. [2][3]
Submission declined on 16 February 2026 by Giuliotf (talk).
Where to get help
How to improve a draft
You can also browse Wikipedia:Featured articles and Wikipedia:Good articles to find examples of Wikipedia's best writing on topics similar to your proposed article. Improving your odds of a speedy review To improve your odds of a faster review, tag your draft with relevant WikiProject tags using the button below. This will let reviewers know a new draft has been submitted in their area of interest. For instance, if you wrote about a female astronomer, you would want to add the Biography, Astronomy, and Women scientists tags. Editor resources
|
| Submission declined on 14 October 2025 by Cabrils (talk). This draft's references do not show that the person meets Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion for people. The draft requires multiple published secondary sources that:
Declined by Cabrils 5 months ago.
|
| Submission declined on 9 August 2025 by Gheus (talk). This draft's references do not show that the person meets Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion for people. The draft requires multiple published secondary sources that:
Declined by Gheus 7 months ago.
|
| Submission declined on 5 June 2025 by SafariScribe (talk). This draft is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Wikipedia's verifiability policy requires that all content be supported by reliable sources.
Declined by SafariScribe 9 months ago.
|
| Submission declined on 15 May 2025 by GoldRomean (talk). This draft is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Wikipedia's verifiability policy requires that all content be supported by reliable sources.
Declined by GoldRomean 10 months ago.
|
| Submission declined on 4 March 2025 by Bonadea (talk). This draft's references do not show that the person meets Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion for people. The draft requires multiple published secondary sources that:
This draft is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Wikipedia's verifiability policy requires that all content be supported by reliable sources.
Declined by Bonadea 12 months ago.
|
Comment: Thank you for your submission, I do not think the article currently shows that the subject meets wikipedia's notablity guidelines. Specifically, the court document is a primary source and does not count towards notability, while the other sources provided are passing mentions in articles where the subject is asked for a quote and do not represent significant coverage.As a rule of thumb try to include at least three secondary sources that provide significant coverage of the subject. Giulio 22:53, 16 February 2026 (UTC)
Comment: Well done on creating the draft, and it may potentially meet the relevant requirements (including WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO) but presently it is not clear that it does. As other reviewers have noted, Wikipedia's basic requirement for entry is that the subject is notable. Essentially subjects are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject. To properly create such a draft page, please see the articles ‘Your First Article’, ‘Referencing for Beginners’ and ‘Easier Referencing for Beginners’. In short, "notability" requires reliable sources about the subject, rather than by the subject.Please note that many of the references would appear to be from sources that are NOT considered reliable for establishing notability and should be removed (including blogs, company websites, press releases, Twitter, YouTube, Instagram, Spotify etc). Please note that many of the references are not formatted correctly (see Introduction to referencing with VisualEditor and Wikipedia’s Manual of Style for help). Additionally, the draft tends to read too much like a promotional CV or advertorial, which Wikipedia is not; and contains prose that is not of a standard appropriate for an encyclopaedia (also see WP:PEACOCK). Also, if you have any connection to the subject, including being the subject (see WP:AUTOBIO) or being paid, you have a conflict of interest that you must declare on your Talk page (to see instructions on how to do this please click the link). Please familiarise yourself with these pages before amending the draft. If you feel you can meet these requirements, then please make the necessary amendments before resubmitting the page. It would help our volunteer reviewers by identifying, on the draft's talk page, the WP:THREE best sources that establish notability of the subject. It would also be helpful if you could please identify with specificity, exactly which criteria you believe the page meets (eg "I think the page now meets WP:ANYBIO criteria #3, because XXXXX"). Once you have implemented these suggestions, you may also wish to leave a note for me on my talk page, including the name of the draft page, and I would be happy to reassess. Cabrils (talk) 22:28, 14 October 2025 (UTC)
Comment: Please read WP:REFB for help with formatting sources and please don't use AI. Theroadislong (talk) 12:26, 5 July 2025 (UTC)
The tribunal’s written reasons record that Rowley provided a witness statement and gave evidence at the preliminary hearing.[4]

- provide significant coverage: discuss the person in detail, not brief mentions or interviews lacking independent analysis;
- are reliable: from reputable outlets with editorial oversight;
- are independent: not connected to the person, such as interviews, press releases, the subject's own website, or sponsored content.
Please add references that meet all three of these criteria. If none exist, the subject is not yet suitable for Wikipedia.