Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2018 December 16

= December 16 =

00:07:04, 16 December 2018 review of submission by MartinaConley
MartinaConley (talk) 00:07, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Hello I am confused as to why my article was declined. I am not posting to being an author o Wikipedia this is an assignment for my grad class and my professor needs to be able to read my information on my link in order for mw to receive credit and a grade.I have a a few more parts to add to my post. My class ends on Tuesday December 18, 2018. This is my final if I could just post the rest of my information so I can receive credit I would really appreciate it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MartinaConley (talk • contribs)
 * Your draft has been tagged for speedy deletion, because it is a copyright violation of ] You need to write in your own words not copy and paste. Theroadislong (talk) 17:22, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Please tell your professor very firmly that Wikipedia is not a free host. If your article is not intended for publication, then you should not post it here. In any case you deserve zero marks for such a blatant copyvio. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 17:34, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

04:34:34, 16 December 2018 review of submission by Gins98n1
I don't understand how this list is fundamentally different than many of the other lists on Wikipedia that use copyrighted sources. There are already many lists on Wikipedia that detail the largest law firms by lawyers in a certain geography (i.e. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_United_States-based_law_firms) Gins98n1 (talk) 04:34, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

16:20:31, 16 December 2018 review of draft by Webmasto
Hello, I created https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian_Symbolic_Rite a month ago, following the content of italian version https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rito_simbolico_italiano that has been created more than 10 years ago. The page has been converted to draft for a lack of sources (my fault), but after that I added a reference to an article of Treccani Encyclopedia, the most prominent and institutional italian encyclopedia, and an article on the website of one of the most relevant Lodges in Italy. I know that this masonic appendant body is not well known out of Italy, but it has been a fundamental part in birth, constitution and unification of official italian freemasonry Grand Orient of Italy after the turmoil of Risorgimento, as you can read on the external links. The original admin that drafted the page said that now he's satisfied with improvement, but don't feel confident in the topic. I'm afraid that the page would stay in draft for good, what can I do? Webmasto (talk) 16:20, 16 December 2018 (UTC)


 * , there are several things you can do: you could find and add enough independent reliable sources to your draft to convince reviewers that it is notable. A couple of sentences in L'Unificazione are not enough; please note that the Massoneria page in the Enciclopedie on line ("the most prominent and institutional italian encyclopedia") has no mention of this topic. Or you could try adding a sentence or so about it to our page on Freemasonry in Italy; or otherwise choose a topic for which sources are easier to find and write about that instead. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:15, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your answer, but I'm sorry I must disagree: there is a reference to the same encyclopedia you cite, a quote to a book of Albert Mackey (with link to the page on Google Books), that is one of the most notable authors on the topic of last century, and a link that list references to Italian Symbolic Rite on grandeoriente.it (official website of italian larger masonic body). Sincerely I don't know what else I can do. Webmasto (talk) 12:41, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi . The draft references three sources, clustered together at the end of the first sentence of the body, leaving 90% of the draft unreferenced. For all the reader knows, that 90% could be made up.


 * The only obvious statement the first source makes about the Italian Symbolic Rite is, "I massoni torinesi decidono di adottare quello che poi diventa il Rito simbolico italiano, formato dai soli tre gradi di apprendista, compagno e maestro, per ribadire la loro lealtà alla corona e alla linea governativa, e dichiarano di volersi uniformare al Rito francese, per sottolineare i loro legami con Parigi". This is a passing mention that does not demonstrate notability (and doesn't support any of the content where cited).


 * The second source is not arms-length from the topic, so it doesn't help establish notability.


 * The only obvious statement the third source makes on the topic is "A Grand Lodge of the Italian Symbolic Rite and a Grand Orient of Italy have been organized separately distinct from each other and there is also independently at work a Supreme Council of Italy, Ancient and Accepted Scottish Rite, founded in 1908". Again, this is a passing mention that does not demonstrate notability (and doesn't support any of the content where cited).


 * Some of these problems may be misunderstandings that can be cleared up. Citing sources explains when and why to cite sources. Possibly you can move the references to statements they support, reuse them to support more of the draft's content, or rewrite content so that it is supported by the sources. It's also possible that I'm misunderstanding the depth of the first and third sources as a result of my weak Italian and unfamiliarity with the context. To aid readers, especially when you cite non-English or offline sources, use the quote parameter of the cite templates as described in the additional annotation section of the aforementioned Citing sources guideline.


 * However, unless you can show that there is a great deal more coverage of Italian Symbolic Rite than there appears from the above, the topic is a non-starter for a Wikipedia article. As Justlettersandnumbers suggests, you could add a sentence or two to an existing article on a broader topic, or write about a different topic (we have 5.7 million to choose from, most of which need improvement). Another option would be to submit the content to an alternative outlet with different inclusion criteria. --Worldbruce (talk) 17:15, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

As I said before, I cited an article of the most important italian encyclopedia, the official website of the most important masonic body in Italy, and a book from one of the more important masonic historian of XX century. Maybe the page could need more improvement, but in my opinion it doesn't deserve to be drowned in the drafts. I'm not a newbie in Wikipedia, but I don't know what more I can do, so I give up. Webmasto (talk) 12:53, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Request on 19:00:01, 16 December 2018 for assistance on AfC submission by Hettie.epstein
The editor SITH kindly reviewed my submission and wrote that I had established notability but not met the criteria for verifiability and suggested I add inline citations to the draft article Joshua Epstein, violinist. I added about 30 inline citations to the draft article and would now like to know what I can do next to have the article published. Heather EpsteinHettie.epstein (talk) 19:00, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Hettie.epstein (talk) 19:00, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi . I have submitted Draft:Joshua Epstein (violinist) on your behalf, so it is in the pool of drafts to be reviewed. The current backlog is about 4 weeks. --Worldbruce (talk) 16:18, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

20:18:47, 16 December 2018 review of submission by MiketheJackal
The sources and references for this submission seem no less credible than similar companies in this industry. Compared against https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keeley_Electronics, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TC_Electronic and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JHS_Pedals it would appear that this submission is perfectly valid. Please be more specific with examples why this submission is not valid for inclusion. Thank you. MiketheJackal (talk)


 * I'd agree with the Decline. The problem is that the references don't all work and some are of dubious value. I know it's frustrating to see the decline but had I reviewed it I would have came to the same conclusion. It might need some work. I am going to source search and see if I see anything that could save it. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 20:56, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

23:12:56, 16 December 2018 review of draft by EmpereorPaul
I would like to know why my page is not going through unlike other micro-nation ones. EmpereorPaul (talk) 23:12, 16 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Hi . The reasons the first version was declined and deletied are stated on your talk page. Because it has been deleted, I can't see it and therefore can't comment further on it. The current version, if it were submitted for review, would not be accepted because it cites no sources and thus does not demonstrate notability (suitability for inclusion in Wikipedia). --Worldbruce (talk) 16:05, 17 December 2018 (UTC)