User talk:38.19.173.54

Your submission at Articles for creation: Roger P. Williams (November 14)
 Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Clarityfiend was:

The comment the reviewer left was:

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.


 * If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Roger P. Williams and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
 * If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
 * If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:AfC_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Draft:Roger_P._Williams Articles for creation help desk], on the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Clarityfiend&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:AfC_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Draft:Roger_P._Williams reviewer's talk page] or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Clarityfiend (talk) 10:08, 14 November 2022 (UTC)


 * I am sorry but this rejection is wholly arbitrary and capricious and violates Wikipedia's own guidelines. This is the standard:
 * "A person is presumed to be notable if they have received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." The main sources in question (Buffalo News and Buffalo Courier-Express) are both reliable, secondary and reputable sources and are (or have been) the primary newspapers that have covered the news of Western New York region in which Mr. Williams was notable. Mr. Williams was the head of the US attorney's office for the Western District of New York.  Other US attorneys both before and after his tenure have their own Wikipedia pages and met the notability standard.  The head of the US attorney's office is a very prestigious and important position in the US. From Wikipedia: Justices and many judges are "inherently notable".  BY logical extension, US attorneys, while perhaps not inherently notable, at least hold a position that is usually strong evidence of notability that can be established by other indicia of notability. This was not considered at all.  Secondly, and separately, Mr. Williams was the lead prosecutor for several high profile cases in Western New York. In fact, in many of these articles Mr. Williams is not just mentioned "in passing" but is actively mentioned as would any other prosecutor prosecuting a high profile case. Those cases received substantial (even international) attention at the time. Taking into account all of the facts and circumstances, it seems evident that both the significant coverage and the notability standard have been met.
 * Worse is the attempted justification for the arbitrary rejection. "Only one source is about him specifically (other than a routine announcement) and that one is a short obituary in a local newspaper."  This is a clearly erroneous statement and shows the lack of substantial review into the actual references (which are over ten in total).  First, there are at least three separate sources that are about him specifically.  One of them is an article discussing the shake-up at the US attorney's office and directly references and quotes him. That is certainly not a routine announcement. A fourth article even mentions that Mr. Williams is a "who's who" in law enforcement in Western New York and his names is included with other high profile person.   Second, the article (referenced as a mere "obituary") is not short.  It is in fact an unusually long article.  It is in fact an article rather than an obituary.  It is akin to articles that would be written about other notable people that have passed away.  You can count the number of words and independently verify that the article is certainly not "short". You can also review the number of high profile (notable) persons that Mr. Williams worked with in some capacity. This is further indicia of notability. This lack of serious review, and blatant disregarding of the correct Wikipedia standard, undermines Wikipedia's mission in general and is indicative of why less and less people in general are interested in Wikipedia articles.  I am not sure what the future holds for Wikipedia but these type of arbitrary rejections need to be curtailed to preserve Wikipedia's status as a respected source. Finally, Wikipedia is filled with published articles of people with less notability and "substantial coverage" than Mr. Williams. While that would not be an item of evidence in court, it nonetheless demonstrates just how arbitrary and capricious the decision-making authority at Wikipedia has become, at Mr. Williams's expense.  In a court of law, this decision would undoubtedly be overturned. To say this rejection is disappointing and frustrating would be a serious understatement. I request that someone reconsider the article using the correct standard. 38.19.173.54 (talk) 23:49, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
 * You are free to resubmit your draft as many times as you like. The verdict is unlikely to change. Of the references, only the first two even mention his name, a very bad sign. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:09, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately this is just more proof that this review was arbitrary and capricious and not in accordance with Wikipedia guidelines. Statement by reviewer: Of the references, only the first two even mention his name, a very bad sign. This statement is categorically false and demonstrates that the references were not sufficiently reviewed.  Of the references no less than eight mention Mr. Williams by name and no less than five of them even have quotations by Mr. Williams.  This is further proof that this article did not receive a fair and balanced review.  In addition, it is requested that the next reviewer be from the United States as it is seems evident that non-US reviewers may not appreciate the significance of certain prominent legal positions within the United States federal government. Thank you. 38.19.173.54 (talk) 18:34, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

AfC notification: Draft:Roger P. Williams has a new comment
 I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Roger P. Williams. Thanks! Theroadislong (talk) 19:24, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Roger P. Williams (December 11)
 Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Theroadislong was:

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.


 * If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Roger P. Williams and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
 * If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
 * If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:AfC_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Draft:Roger_P._Williams Articles for creation help desk], on the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Theroadislong&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:AfC_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Draft:Roger_P._Williams reviewer's talk page] or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Theroadislong (talk) 19:24, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Roger P. Williams (February 21)
 Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by InterstellarGamer12321 was:

The comment the reviewer left was:

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.


 * If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Roger P. Williams and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
 * If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
 * If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:AfC_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Draft:Roger_P._Williams Articles for creation help desk], on the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:InterstellarGamer12321&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:AfC_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Draft:Roger_P._Williams reviewer's talk page] or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

InterstellarGamer12321 ( talk &#124;  contribs ) 16:05, 21 February 2023 (UTC)