Talk:J. Roberts & Son

Contested deletion[edit]

This article should not be speedily deleted for lack of asserted importance because... (your reason here) --Frankmcb (talk) 17:07, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.luquay.com/wiki/User_talk:Largoplazo#Speedy_deletion_nomination_of_J._Roberts_.26_Son_.28Gunmakers.29

For some weird reason, you've flagged an article that I am writing today... Like right now... less than a few hours into it...

The article I'm writing is no more different than the ones about Purdey (https://en.luquay.com/w/index.php?title=James_Purdey_%26_Sons&action=edit), Rigby (https://en.luquay.com/wiki/John_Rigby_%26_Company) or Holland & Holland.

I'm putting together historical information regarding a firm and serial numbers for research. This will help others from having to scavenge across the web.

You guys make is really difficult to create content. Flagging before finished? Please. You've even flagged notes in my sandbox for deletion... these are just research notes.

Q: Why are you flagging this work in progress for deletion?

Best- Frank — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frankmcb (talk • contribs) 16:29, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

   I apologize if I was premature. I must have thought it looked completed. However, now that you've fleshed it out, with its history, locations, and rifle numbers, there is still nothing that strikes me as an indication significance or importance that would suggest why an encyclopedia might carry an article about the company. Moreover, the entire history section is lifted from the company's website, so I've flagged it as a copyright issue. (It also contains some promotional-sounding content, and twice speaks of "we". Wikipedia articles are written from a neutral point of view.) I've restored the speedy deletion tag as it still appears appropriate. By the way, as the notice indicates, you, the author, weren't permitted to remove it.

   The Purdey article at least speaks of royal warrants and innovations leading to patents, and the entire first paragraph of the Rigby article, though backing up none of it with references to independent reliable sources, gives a clear picture of a company of note. In contrast, the Roberts article tells of a company that's manufactured guns for a while. In addition, at least online, I see no independent reliable sources that would contribute to a notability assessment of the company. Largoplazo (talk) 16:54, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Well... give me a few days to work on it. So far I've got a few hours. What's the bums rush for? Best- Frank.

Also, J. Roberts owned Rigby and currently owns W.J. Jeffery. Of which both have Wiki pages about them. So it's logical to assume to add content about the company who owns both brands.

And yes, Roberts did have a royal warrant... if you'd give me enough time, you'd see it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frankmcb (talk • contribs) 17:16, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Copied from my talk page, from which the above has also been reproduced:

Ordinarily one of the first things an author thinks to include in an article is an indication as to the significance of the subject. (For example, if someone were to first write about Theresa May today, it's unlikely that they'd spend a couple of hours writing about her life before getting around to mentioning that she's the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom.) And many people create a stub of an article and then never add another thing to it. So, unless it's obvious that the author is in the middle of something (in other words, when it looks like the article is a complete article), new page patrolers tend to evaluate it on that basis within a fairly short amount of time.

The best thing to do if you want to take your time is to follow the articles-for-creation process, starting with a draft in your user space. When you're done, submit the draft for review before moving it to article space. See WP:First article. Largoplazo (talk) 17:12, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I did.

Please read "method 2":

https://en.luquay.com/wiki/Wikipedia:How_to_create_a_page

Method 2: previewing a red link

   Click edit on any accessible page;
   Surround the page title you want to create in doubled brackets, e.g., Proposed Title;
   Click the Show preview button (not the save page button);
   Click on the red link revealed.

That's what I did.

Again, what's the bums rush here?

I have stuff in my sandbox and you guys are flagging that for deletion, too...

All this is just leaving me uncomfortable with how you edit content.

Why the harassment? All you needed to do was look at the time stamp and edits and you would have seen it was a work in progress.

Instead, you flag before investigating.

Think and read before you act.

Again you ask "why?" but I already explained the why. There was nothing to investigate. And then I made a suggestion to help you out (which is the opposite of harassing you): if you want to spend a great deal of time working on details of the article before adding material that qualifies it for inclusion as an article, then create a draft in your user space. Method 2 creates a page directly in article space, which is not what I recommended you do. So my recommending that to you in no way indicates a failure on my part to have seen what you'd done before.

I don't know what's going on with other material you've written because we editors aren't all the same person. No campaign of harassment is going on.

The last thing I want is for you to be uncomfortable. I've explained fairly matter-of-factly what the situation is, but you decline to accept anything I tell you about day-to-day activities here as a given rather than as an indication of a campaign against you. Seriously, I'll be very happy for you to create a good user draft that turns out to qualify for publication. Largoplazo (talk) 18:15, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I just looked at your talk page and noticed that what you're calling "harassment" over the material in your sandbox is content that appears to be copied from another source. You don't appear to have responded to that. If that is copyrighted material that you copied from elsewhere without permission, then that's illegal and, therefore, a violation of Wikipedia and, therefore, it must be deleted. That isn't harassment, it's mandatory. Largoplazo (talk) 18:55, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's right! Now done – please see below. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 17:39, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright problem removed[edit]

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://www.jroberts-gunmakers.co.uk/about-history.php. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)

For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, providing it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 17:39, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]