Talk:Mary Ann Liebert

message: We do NOT intend this page as spam or advertising!  We are working on it so as to offer useful info to those inthe biotech field but every time we try to edit or add to it someone removes it or edits it!  PLEASE give us time to add more content/info!
Also, if you do a wiki search *1* you will see that many other articles mention our company, journals & published studies.
If you still feel we need to alter things to be less of an "ad" please tell us how....I am trying to do this properly but it is hard to go through the resources & edit the article when it keeps getting changed every 2 minutes. Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aetkin (talk • contribs) 
:I have revised it to be more like an encyclopedia article.  The claims I have left in place still need sources.  Also, you might consider linking to an external page that lists all the publications instead of listing them all here.  Just for future reference, I have removed the copyright licensing info from the article.  A version of the article that includes it explicitly can be found here.  Mangojuicetalk 15:30, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Right now, there isn't really much information in the article so I wouldn't worry about it too much.  But right now the article doesn't do any describing of how MAL, Inc. is viewed by anyone: if the article is expanded to include any real substance, the info in that substance has to be verifiable to an outsider: that is, not based on information that isn't published somewhere.  In some cases, self-published information is okay, as long as it's about non-controversial factual things, like, for instance, its history.  But generally, we're looking for independent sources.  BTW Just as a note, I would have been inclined to delete the article when I saw its speedy tag, but (1) it looked like the topic could be relatively important, and (2) you asked nicely for help.  Mangojuicetalk 20:20, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The article was not "blatant advertising" when I first created it. There are many articles in Wikipedia about publishers, and I thought that the absence of MAL needed to be corrected due to the high scientific calibre of its publications. I have restored some of the material which was included in the original piece that I created (and was deleted for no reason that I can understand), have alphabetized the journals and added Rejuvenation Research. --Ben Best 16:13, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: FYI: See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam#Need help with Mary Ann Liebert, Inc.
</br>
--A. B. 21:51, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: To repeat what I said on that page: I restored the interview link because I believe that it provides valuable insight into the background of the company. I am not an employee of MAL and have no special interest in the company other than that I like the scientific journals it publishes and I want the Wikipedia article to be informative. Anti-commerical fanaticism has the danger of censoring valuable information, which I think may be what is happening in this case. And I am not a person with much patience for spam-link advertising! --Ben Best 00:35, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please see my response to the identical comment made at  Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam#Need help with Mary Ann Liebert, Inc.. --A. B. 11:43, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-related issue -- self-promotional linking by Libert Publishing 

message: It seems that in a search for references, the article has taken on a promo tone. I am especially concerned about the section starting with "The publisher's works have been included in a number of online journal services, among them being: ... " Any modern publisher of academic journals is included in a variety of online indices. This is the norm, not something special. I am also concerned that the new citations appear to be press-release like stories. It would be nice if these were not cited from Highbeam, but from their original sources. Pinging Ceyockey. Delta13C (talk) 03:24, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: * I just did another search for sources. I cannot find any RS, rather dozens of press releases and short notices that appear to be no different from press releases come up. I do not understand how this article can pass notability if there is a vast paucity of in-depth coverage of the subject. Delta13C (talk) 04:08, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: * This discussion should not be here, but on the deletion discussion page. I should have moved it there at the outset, but will refer to this from there momentarily. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 21:44, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notability and tone