User talk:Theroadislong

←

Welcome to my talk page. Click here to leave me a message .

Thank you Theroadislong for reviewing Michael P. Snyder's page so quickly!

I very much appreciate the feedback regarding links to Wikipedia/Amazon & I am going through the document now to remove these links, replace as many as possible with non-Wikipedia/Amazon links!

Cheers, McGuire Snyderlab|talk McGuire at Stanford Snyderlab (talk) Dec 17th 1:05PM Pacific Time

Please nominate attack pages for deletion

Hi, Theroadislong. I just deleted the requested article Draft:Jason Avery/Monstrosity and Eulogy that you declined on 27 September 2021. It then lingered on in Draft space. This was very clearly a libelous attack page so it should be deleted as per WP:BLPREMOVE which applies to draft space too. A good reason is that many of the Wikipedia copycat websites will scrape our draft space for content. I found this article on one of those sites and I was shocked at the nature of the post. And then doubly shocked when it said the source was Wikipedia, and sure enough it was! The moral is that draft space "bleeds out" of Wikipedia in unexpected ways. So, if you see any submission that violates WP:BLPREMOVE, please nominate it for speedy deletion just as you would any other violation of that policy. Cheers, Jason Quinn (talk) 03:36, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

That is exactly what I would normally do. I'm sorry I missed this one. Theroadislong (talk) 08:14, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

No worries. It was just a friendly reminder. Thanks for patrolling our requested articles. See you 'round. Jason Quinn (talk) 08:05, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

West Wolds Radio

I see that you have refused my request to return my article on West Wolds Radio to Wikipedia, and that you left a message on my talk page saying that I am being disruptive by resubmitting this request for it to be returned to Wikipedia.

I am unclear as to why i am being disruptive when I merely asked for a second opinion and regarding references, why have you rejected this as non notable simply because the two references were about the closure of the station? I am expected to provide independent references and I have done this. Therefore please tell me why this isn't good enough for an article to appear on Wikipedia. Rillington (talk) 15:48, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a place to merely tell about something, Wikipedia summarizes what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about a topic, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of notability. Theroadislong (talk) 15:51, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

I still don't see why you have rejected my article. Plus the references also mention other aspects of the station, such as when it first went on air. I will reflect this in a future redraft of the article so when i do this please accept that i am providing independent references to back up the material i am providing. Will you please do this and help me out rather than just rejecting my efforts, saying that I am violating definitions of this and that. It's actually very demoralising when you repeatedly have your efforts rejected on opinion-based technicalities. Rillington (talk) 16:06, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Your draft was declined NOT rejected, rejected would mean there was no chance of being accepted, declined means that if you find better sources which cover West Wolds Radio in more detail, it could be accepted. It has nothing whatsoever to do with my opinion, it is Wikipedia guidelines for accepting a draft article. In order to demonstrate notability, you need to provide multiple references to in-depth articles written about West Wolds Radio in unrelated, independent journals, magazines, books or online. Theroadislong (talk) 16:15, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. Many articles don't have multiple references to in-depth articles written about the subject in unrelated, independent journals, magazines, books or online but those articles are not declined or rejected so I feel it is unfair that mine seem to be, as this is not the first article that an article of mine been declined in recent weeks. Rillington (talk) 15:32, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Rillington please see other poor quality articles exist for that argument, that is NOT an excuse to create more! Theroadislong (talk) 15:59, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

I find all of this rather demoralising when all I am trying to do is to expand Wikipedia only to find myself repeatedly having people rejecting my efforts with no offers of help, saying that I have violated rules on things like independent sources and notability despite providing acceptable references, as I have done here.Rillington (talk) 16:04, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

I see that you continue to take a major interest in my West Wolds Radio article without any attempt to help me to make it any better, this time by leaving yet another note telling me that i have done something wrong. If you had looked at what i have actually done, you would have seen that I stated that I have added additional references which are independent references which are not connected to the subject. I have now asked for my article to be returned to Wikipedia. This is not being disruptive, which you said I was being on 7th March. This is merely wanting my efforts to be recognised with my article being available on Wikipedia. Rillington (talk) 14:49, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

It is disruptive to remove decline notices, you have submitted the draft for review another reviewer will accept or decline as appropriate. Theroadislong (talk) 14:52, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

im not paid sir

sir i made all the changes as suggested by you. if i was getting paid i would have tried my best at the time of creation. im checking this account after months as this was my first effort . and it hurts to see it is wasted. can you please advice me what to do .. i can assure you im not paid anything for writing this article.please help. --SourceRight (talk) 16:08, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Your user name is the same as a digital IT and technology consulting business, hence the confusion. Theroadislong (talk) 16:22, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

please help

sir im writing to you as u are connected with me since i began. im not paid at all so how can i disclose it. i read all the requirements of the paid editor. Im in no way associated with any company or pr firm. im as genuine as it can be ..and my name is just co incidental i just chose a smart name to my sensibility ..knowing least that ill be in trouble with it. kindly approve the article and guide me on how to make edits in future .please --SourceRight (talk) 17:02, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

I suggest you request a name change in order to avoid any confusion. 17:10, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Hello guys , i need some help about article creataition.

Hello my friends , tnx for spending your time for read this help request. I need help to start work in wikipedia , edit , write , and read . Please help how can i start my work in wikipedia?

If you can help me from instagram . My instagram page id is mmoeinp

Thanks alot♥️ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexiarushell (talk • contribs) 22:29, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

One would assume that as you are being paid to edit, you already know how everything works round here, like most of us here, I am a volunteer and will not be helping you. Theroadislong (talk) 22:39, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

DRAFT:PERICENT Article

You are kindly requested to please help with the improvement in the first line of my draft article as asked by you in your comments. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GK1975 (talk • contribs) 01:23, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Clean up of Duckhorn Vineyards article

Hi -- As I mentioned on the Duckhorn Vineyard Talk page, I'd be interested in doing a clean-up of the Duckhorn article. It needs a thorough revision, updating, language clean-up, better sourcing. Would you have any objection to me moving ahead? I've written about wine-related subjects for Wikipedia (and in real life) and know that there are plenty of reliable sources to use. Kinda odd that there's no mention of the legal tangle with Duck Dynasty. Thanks! 04:46, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Please help to review

Hi Theroadislong, thanks for reviewing the page previously, I have re-edit the page again, do you mind to help me to review before I resubmit?

URL: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Oakwood_(Hospitality) Appreciated! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cyuppyworld (talk • contribs) 07:52, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Just blatant advertising still with zero independent sources. As an encyclopedia, Wikipedia summarizes information that appears in independent reliable sources with significant coverage showing how an organisation n meets Wikipedia's special definition of notability. Novice editors are commonly advised to cite at least three independent, reliable, secondary sources containing significant coverage. Theroadislong (talk) 08:00, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

RJM (Artist) Page

I am working as an editor to develop a Wikipedia page for an independent music artist. This artist has been covered in several publications in the past, so I thought he would meet the notability requirements. My first initial drafts were rejected due to not having proper citations. My client then got to have a meeting with someone working within Wiki for tips and suggestions on how to keep the article factual and citable, but after following the tips and suggestions advised, the article still got rejected. Is there anything else I can add or remove to make this article meet the criteria? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mangolizer (talk • contribs) 17:04, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

You are being paid to edit, I am a volunteer of many years standing, I suggest you spend a few months editing other articles to get a feel for how things work here, Draft:RJM (Artist) fails WP:NMUSICIAN, once they have received more in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources, they might become notable, in which case somebody with no conflict of interest would be best placed to create the draft. Theroadislong (talk) 17:34, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Please help to review

Hi Theroadislong, thanks for help, I have revise again. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Oakwood_(Hospitality) appreciated!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cyuppyworld (talk • contribs) 05:20, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

I removed all the unreliable sources from Draft:FoodBeeper

Hello, I've received your review regarding my article and made sure to edit it according to your remarks. I removed all unreliable sources (twitter, LinkedIn and Facebook) and added the translation tag to the sources in French and Arabic. I'd appreciate it if you review it again and approve it or else guide me on how to improve it. thank you. Rymknows23 (talk) 08:47, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks and peer-review request

Hi, thanks a lot for pointing out some issues on the "Dumitru Enescu" web page.

Citations: I have added references as requested.

COI: The page is written in a neutral way (basically it is a translation of the Romanian wiki page, created for a honorary member of the Romanian Academy). May I ask you please to peer-review the English article?

Thank you, Benescu (talk) 07:35, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Zaza Korinteli

Korinteli is a musician and that article is a BLP. Most of the BLP articles have Infoboxs, that's why added one there and the info written by me came from the lead of that article. I was not doing any test, I was trying to improve that article. If I did any error, please tell me here and ping me, otherwise I will revert your changes as per Silent. If here is any rule who say don't add infobox in living person's article, let me know, it'll increase my knowledge, happy editing.Success think (talk) 11:50, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

You are free to revert, but please address the formatting issues as at this edit [1] for example. Theroadislong (talk) 12:02, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

You have to ping wile answering. You didn't tell that my edits was ok or not? Success think (talk) 13:17, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

I do NOT have to ping you, unless the article is given more sources, it is likely to be sent to WP:AFD. Theroadislong (talk) 13:50, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

new edit

Hello again, a reputable Persian news source was added and please check. Thanks for your kindness. (Draft:Zahra_Meygoli) --Nazanin1376 (talk) 12:48, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Leadership Now Project Article

Dear Theroadislong,

I am a PR professional with McPherson Strategies firm that represents Leadership Now Project. We are helping to get their article approved. As you will see in the latest edits, we have scaled back the article significantly so that it includes only a highly sourced and simple stub. We look forward to working with you to approve Leadership Now's article based on Wikipedia's policies and best practices. We want to ensure the article is up to your editorial standards. Let us know if you have additional feedback we can help revise.

Thanks for your help! McP — Preceding unsigned comment added by McP2022 (talk • contribs) 14:17, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

You need to disclose your conflict of interest and paid editing status. Theroadislong (talk) 14:19, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

@Theroadislong I was just about to put down the COI stuff but you did it before me. Do you mind if I remain involved in this? SkyeWolf369 (talk) 14:20, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Please do I am running on empty after an unpleasant chest infection. Theroadislong (talk) 14:23, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

I would generally assume they would be being paid by their employer in this case possibly McPherson Strategies Firm? Also I am not extremely experienced in handling COI's but I will try my best. SkyeWolf369 (talk) 14:27, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

@Theroadislong Then again we dont know that for sure. Your opinion? SkyeWolf369 (talk) 14:32, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Hi @SkyeWolf369 and @Theroadislong Thank you for taking time to review. I am an employee of McPherson Strategies, a social impact communications firm. The firm is hired by Leadership Now Project. My team and I provide a variety of communications and PR services. We were asked to assist in working with Wikipedia editors to revise the submitted article according to your policies and best practices. We published the disclosure statement on our user page to indicate our relationship with Leadership Now. Do you have any feedback to the revised stub that was submitted on March 21 and how we can improve the draft? Thank you. McP2022 (talk) 17:43, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Since you are being paid to edit Draft:Leadership Now Project I would assume that you have the required experience and knowledge to do so, I will not be helping you promote the project, I am a volunteer here. Theroadislong (talk) 17:49, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Double Vision (band)

Hi there,

    How can Double Vision qualify for a wikipedia page and meet the standards needed to pass "WP:NBAND"? 
                                                                                                Thanks, Chrissy  — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChrissyR7204 (talk • contribs) 18:51, 22 March 2022 (UTC) 

They need to pass the criteria at WP:NBAND have you read it? Theroadislong (talk) 18:54, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

April Editathons from Women in Red

Women in Red Apr 2022, Vol 8, Issue 4, Nos 214, 217, 226, 227, 228 Online events: New: Gender studies | French overseas territories New Contest (Apr/May/Jun): Translation contest Continuing: Climate (year-long initiative) | #1day1woman Other ways to participate: Encourage someone to become a WiR member this month by registering in the box at the top of our main page. Join the conversations on our talkpage. Help us plan future events. Follow us on social media: Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 22:46, 22 March 2022 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Revisiting draft of Flajolet Lecture Prize page

Theroadislong, I really appreciate your suggestions (one year ago) for this draft page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Flajolet_Lecture_Prize You made two notes, namely (1) "Blogs are not considered to be suitable reliable sources, references need to discuss the topic in-depth with significant coverage and be independent of the award itself." and also (2) "The sources added are primary not independent." I believe that I have addressed both of these concerns. I notice that a few other people edited this page too, during the last year. Would you be willing (please) to take a look and see if you think that it is suitable to submit the page for approval now? Thank you very much for considering, and thank you very much for your guidance! MDW333 (talk) 01:35, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Theroadislong, it is safe to ignore my post now. I worked with some other editors, and the page is now approved and published. Thank you again for all of your advice last year! I appreciate you! MDW333 (talk) 11:35, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Linda Adler-Kassner Draft Article Updates

In response to - "press releases and YouTube are not reliable independent sources." - these items for [draft article] have been replaced with independent sources. Thank you.

Regarding draft Article of RICS School, of Built Environment

Dear Sir,

I am formally creating this page on behalf of RICS School of Built Environment, and I am working on it again in terms of content. I sent this item to our content department, and our content writer will immediately change the material.

Please give us some time so that we can continue to have this repair and serve the best organic content available.

Thank You

An update : It has been re-edited please review https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:RICS_School_of_Built_Environment,_Amity_University

can you help me please me with my article please (visaltes) thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Visaltis (talk • contribs) 13:29, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Fore School of Management

Dear Theroadislong, I've once draftified Fore School of Management (6 months ago). Later I guess it passed through an AfC review and now its in a AfD discussion. I would have liked to vote there, but I'm refraining because of my past involvement with that entity's page. Since, we both are working on university related AfC pages and you happen to be more experienced than me, I guess you can take a better decision on this. There is something a miss with the nominator; a very new ID on AfD tagging spree. As long as they are doing justice to Wikipedia, I see no big issue as such. But, still an oversight from a seasoned editor like you will add value to it. -Hatchens (talk) 14:44, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

I've edited for neutral tone and removed some promotional stuff, will keep an eye on it. Theroadislong (talk) 14:35, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

mr o

Dear Kind Young Gentleman,

so i forgor to put the full list of students who look up to mr o (a lot) and his notable achievements. I will next draft.

Thank you, Jack

request for accepting draft submited by me.

Hello sir I've created a article on one of my ancestors Raja Maldev Panwar founder of Malpura city in state of Rajasthan,India. Because of lack of historical records on him I could not attach more links than already attached. It is very important for people of alpura to know about him so I request you to accept my article and let the people know about this forgotten king.

Yours sincerely, Mala Parmar — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mala Parmar (talk • contribs) 17:34, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Thank you Theroadislong for reviewing my Draft Article Khawaja Abdul Haye

Can you please let me know in detail about your reservations on the draft. Are the existing footnotes wrongly cited or you are referring to the material that doesn't include citation at all? Appreciate your feedback. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SaadShakeelKhan (talk • contribs) 17:02, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

There are at least 6 sections of the draft with no sources whatsoever, each and every statement of fact in a WP:BLP requires and independent reliable source placed after the content that it supports. Theroadislong (talk) 17:17, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. I understand your concern, but I've one confusion here. It's a biography, how can I give sources of the life events. I researched a lot of biographies on Wikipedia before creating this draft.

Also, I must make your attention to one point that the biography is from 1910 - 1991 and the published work which can be challenged, for that I have made a lot of effort to find the sources for it. But how can I find the sources of life events? SaadShakeelKhan (talk) 19:26, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

You will need to cite the source from where ever you got the information, articles are based on reliable sources, NOT what we personally know. If you cannot find sources then remove the content. Theroadislong (talk) 19:30, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

I got your point Theroadislong, I'll update accordingly.

Also, I need your guidance regarding one point. For content related to the education of the person for whom I'm writing the biography. Can I upload the degrees (graduation, post graduate, doctorate, etc.), can they be accepted as a reliable source? SaadShakeelKhan (talk) 19:53, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

No they are primary sources and cannot be used. Theroadislong (talk) 19:56, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Thankyou Theroadislong. Appreciate your support and guidance. SaadShakeelKhan (talk) 21:37, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

@Theroadislong I have removed major chunk of the data without sources, can you please review and update. Thank you. SaadShakeelKhan (talk) 07:49, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Help from the Draft: Pandascrow.io

Thank you, your feedback was helpful, after reading with your feedback in mind it made sense, to me, although I got most of those data from the website, however, thank you a lot, I've removed the product and service section and retouched a few word and submitted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prezine (talk • contribs) 19:37, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Sidney Wood: rejection of article

This is extremely disappointing. I have never met Wood but have the highest regard for his scientific work in my field. I could cite many Wikipedia articles on phonetics specialists which do not quote what independent sources say about the subject, but have nevertheless been accepted. I feel that demands are being made in the case of Wood that are not made for other speech scientists of comparable repute. RoachPeter (talk) 20:58, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

The existence of other poor quality articles is not an excuse to create more, see WP:OSE. Theroadislong (talk) 22:59, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

The articles I am referring to are not "poor". They are competent and objective summaries of the achievements of scientists in my field, but the authors of the articles have not felt it necessary to include testimonials from other parties. Your implication that I have submitted a poor article is offensive. RoachPeter (talk) 06:46, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

You can ask for other opinions here Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk. Please be advised that ALL content of WP:BLPs requires independent reliable sources, it is not negotiable. Theroadislong (talk) 08:10, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Thank you, but I can't imagine that asking for more opinions would help. I can see there's no point in persisting. RoachPeter (talk) 14:29, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

That's rather defeatist, the draft Draft:Sidney Wood (phonetician) was declined NOT rejected, which means with improvement it can be accepted. Theroadislong (talk) 14:39, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Request on 08:36:39, 27 March 2022 for assistance on AfC submission by 74ox

• 74ox (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Tariq AlDulaimi (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello, Could anyone give his opinion about this article? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Tariq_AlDulaimi

Mohamed Abbas (talk) 08:36, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Your draft Draft:Tariq AlDulaimi doesn't suggest why he is notable? Theroadislong (talk) 08:39, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Request on 10:22:20, 27 March 2022 for assistance on AfC submission by Khalid-hassan-aziz

• Khalid-hassan-aziz (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Khalid hassan aziz (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Khalid-hassan-aziz (talk) 10:22, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Khalid-hassan-aziz your draft has zero content, we cannot accept blank drafts. Theroadislong (talk) 10:24, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Draft:Eric Michaels

What is consider reliable when Wikipedia doesn't accept any copyright websites newspapers records online stores that sell the product of this individual. What is acceptable and considered reliable. Only Wikipedia articles? If so how in the world does Wikipedia expand? Is there any way where I can add websites reference links that are copyrighted? I don't feel like I am violating any copyright infringement rules. I am not stealing somebody else's work and calling it my own. I merely linking their information as relevant and proof to my writing which is only fact and not of my opinion. Please help I am a new Wikipedia member and I just want to post my first article which is a biography. I'm speaking to the individual for accurate details and I'm struggling to find ways that are acceptable to Wikipedia to back up my statements for details. Again please be understanding and, helpful thank you. I have been looking everywhere for this question to be explained to me and so far all I've been reading is a reliable source is a reliable source, which is a ridiculous explanation that gives me no information as to what Wikipedia accepts. All I understand is what they don't accept. So what is an accepted source?

Reliable sources would include newspaper or magazine articles about him, online reviews etc, but not Wikipedia articles, Wikipedia cannot reference itself. Your draft has zero sources, where did you get the information from, just cite where you got it from. In order for an article’s subject to be considered notable by the Wikipedia community, we require that it receive significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject this is what you base an article on. WP:YFA has more help,but you have started with the most difficult task on Wikipedia. If you are speaking to the individual then also please read WP:COI. Theroadislong (talk) 17:35, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Sir now there are sources too, now pass

Kishan Mahipal

Sir now there are sources too, now pass — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheManishPanwar (talk • contribs) 19:48, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

There is no indication that they pass the criteria at WP:NSINGER so I will not be accepting the draft. Theroadislong (talk) 19:58, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Steve Zipperman block, speedy deletion

I have made appropriate changes. It should be suitable now. The other candidate in his party has a published page. Can you not have a bit of patience with a first submission? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dragonflymagnet (talk • contribs) 20:37, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Dragonflymagnet,No we can not. Its a blatant ad. Just read the first line and ask yourself honestly if it belongs in an encyclopedia. Also COI disclosure is not optional. And we truly do not care that their opponent has an article, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS.Slywriter (talk) 20:40, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

I saw nothing prompting a COI, and it doesn't apply to me in any case. I am a voter in the county, and a PC. I am not paid by any campaign. Dragonflymagnet (talk) 20:53, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Let's try this again, a campaign volunteer is a Conflict of Interest, so please make the necessary declaration or stop editing the draft Slywriter (talk) 21:08, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Dragonflymagnet, also no idea what PC stands for here.Slywriter (talk) 21:08, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

It's nice to learn something new every day. A PC or Precinct Committeeman is the lowest level elected official in a political party. Dragonflymagnet (talk) 21:37, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Draft:Puffy Mattress - Thank you for reviewing

First of all, Thank you for reviewing my article. Your last comment on my article was "It is still blatant advertisement", I compare it to Casper Sleep, in my opinion it has the same tone. I guess the reference is the issue I can remove all the reference that is related to puffy that will sounds a advertisement. What do you think? --Liptapp (talk) 04:35, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

rejected submission (for an article on the Workshop on Algorithms in Bioinformatics WABI)

I sent a reply/rebuttal/questions through the general channel, but I am not sure who actually gets it, so I thought I'd send you a message directly.

This is about the (revised) submission for the Workshop on Algorithms in Bioinformatics (WABI), which you very promptly reviewed (thanks!) and rejected (not so happy, obviously ;-). You rejected it on grounds of (1) its looking more like advertising -- not being neutral, (ii) not containing references to independent, verifiable sources, and (iii) pointing instead to things I created. Each of these statements is in fact wrong: let me go through them in reverse order.

(iii) I did not create any of the sources referred to in the entry (references to proceedings and articles, Wikipedia entries, conference web sites, etc.), except for a single one, the WABI web page at wabi-conference.org. I have no association of any kind with any of the others, was not invited to review them, did not provide any information for them, etc.

(ii) All references (other than to the WABI web page at wabi-conference.org) are to conference proceedings, produced and published by academic publishers (Springer Verlag for Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Dagstuhl for the Leibnitz International Proceedings in Informatics), to journals from a professional society (ACM, the Association for Computing Machinery, the main professional association for computer scientists, publisher of a couple dozen journals, including Ubiquity, and of several dozen conferences) and from another commercial publisher (BioMed Central, publisher of the journal Algorithms in Molecular Biology), and, for each conference, to the web site set up by the conference organizers for that year (if still up) or the corresponding conference entry in researchr.org, a platform that collects information about publications (in journals and conferences) across most scientific disciplines and is a widely used tool in science. All of these are, as requested, independent, verifiable, and trusted (at least by everyone in science).

(i) The entry I submitted is not advertising: it simply states basic facts about the conference, such as history, motivation, goals, organization, procedures, past events); it makes no claims of excellence or influence or attendance size or uniqueness or any other perceived quality. In fact, I deliberately copied in structure and in choice of references the existing Wikipedia entries for our two sister conferences, Research in Computational Biology (RECOMB) and Intelligent Systems for Molecular Biology (ISMB) -- please look up those two entries, as the comparison is important.

The information provided in all three entries (WABI, RECOMB, ISMB) is identical in nature and is supported in exactly the same way -- if you check those two Wiki entries, you'll see that their references are, as for my submission, composed mostly of pointers to past meetings of the conference (proceedings and/or web sites), plus the next meeting, plus one or two references relating to their history (the ISCB society for ISMB, for instance). The only significant difference is in the formatting of the references: I simplified the text associated with each proceedings/website reference (writing just WABI 2xxx), whereas both ISMB and RECOMB opted to use the full academic style for each reference, taking a few lines for each. My rationale was that these references are just links (for RECOMB and ISMB as well as for WABI) and made to be followed by clicking, so that the full academic style significantly increases the size of the article without adding information. But I am happy to rewrite them in the full academic style if you prefer.

All three conferences are closely related, take place yearly, have been around for over 20 years each, share many of the same researchers in their governing structure, and share a large fraction of attendees each year. The wiki entries are nearly identical in construction and content across all three. Yet two are actual Wikipedia entries, but the third, the one I submitted, is rejected. Why? Have the standards changed since the ISMB and RECOMB entries were accepted?

Please reconsider your decision.

Thank you, Bernard Moret — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.151.219.183 (talk) 10:32, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Your draft was declined not rejected. Wikipedia is not a place to merely tell about something or someone Wikipedia summarizes what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about a topic, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of notability. Also see other stuff exists.Research in Computational Molecular Biology is tagged for notability and primary sources, so is NOT a good article to model yours on. Theroadislong (talk) 10:45, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick reply. So the issue seems to be notability. That does not explain why Wikipedia has entries for Research in Computational Biology and Intelligent Systems for Molecular Biology even though they are basically identical in notability, but I do get the point about "other stuff exists", thanks!

I am trying to understand what notability means in a scholarly context.

The three conferences I mentioned are all "notable" in the sense that the papers published in the proceedings of these conferences get cited by many other researchers in other publication outlets (other conferences, other journals) and so collectively accumulate hundreds to thousands of verifiable references from reliable sources every year. It's not clear from the "notability" entry whether such references to individual papers within a journal or conference would count toward notability of the journal or conference itself. (Although that is definitely the case within the scientific community, where journals and conferences that get more citations are ranked higher.) There is also a question of how one would document this type of notability.

On the other hand, if the references must be to the conference or journal as a whole, then the whole category of scientific conferences and journals falls off Wikipedia almost entirely -- the nature of scientific research means that good conferences and journals do not attract attention from outside unless some unusual confluence of world events and particular scientific breakthrough arises. If that is indeed Wikipedia policy (and the many Wikipedia entries about scientific conferences and journals are all, in effect, historical accidents and now deletions in waiting ;-), then I will withdraw my submission. 98.151.219.183 (talk) 11:38, 29 March 2022 (UTC)