Template:Did you know nominations/Association of Applied Biologists
- The following discussion is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was: rejected by Shubinator (talk) 16:50, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
Association of Applied Biologists
edit- ... that the Association of Applied Biologists (logo pictured) is one of the United Kingdom's oldest biological science learned societies?
Created/expanded by CBethanH (talk). Self nom at 11:38, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Late nomination for an article that does not exist. A check of the nominator's edit history and talk page show that a request to create the article was submitted to WP:AFC but the request was denied due to copyright violation issues. If the nominator ever creates the article Association of Applied Biologists then a new request should be submitted for the day that article appears in the article namespace. --Allen3 talk 12:14, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
The kind people in the chatroom have now made the page for me for you to review CBethanH (talk) 12:50, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
- Yes there is. Sorry, but we don't usually peruse the old nominations, I guess, unless someone (like the original reviewer here) is notified--I don't know if they were. As to the matter at hand: this may well fall in line with the formal DYK rules, but I do not believe the article in its current state should be on the front page. There is a bit too much non-neutral language in it ("high quality and novel research", for instance), and too much organizational information. Too much of it is sourced to the organization itself or to primary sources (like this one, where they are but one name in a 22-page long PDF)--in fact, I am not sure if there is a single (reliable) secondary reference here. Sorry, and I know it is very difficult to write decent articles on such academic and professional organizations, but this isn't what should display Wikipedia's strength. Drmies (talk) 21:12, 30 January 2012 (UTC)