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 sourcedmust 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 within the scope of WikiProject Women, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women 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.
It is not clear from this short article or from the two sources why this former civil servant is notable, or ever was. Unless someone can show, with citations, that she is any more notable than thousands of other British bureaucrats, this should surely be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 10:52, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
Supression of criticism of Wallace is not justified
22.214.171.124's deletion of my contribution is not justified. The row over Wallace's role in the Rhodes affair was substantial enough to warrant press comment, and the highly unusual call by the chair of a Commons committee for the head of an Oxford College to consider resigning. In the context of an article on Wallace, it is a matter that should be recorded. The contributor does not say what she/he means by 'not lucid' and if the text is thought biased, the alleged bias should be explained and challenged and corrected on the facts. The College may not like such criticism - but it cannot not be suppressed for that reason.Unraed (talk) 18:19, 5 March 2016 (UTC)unraed