Help desk
< October 5	<< Sep \| October \| Nov >>	October 7 >

Welcome to the WikiProject Articles for creation Help Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current Help Desk pages.

October 6

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Don Flye (Tennis)

I have spent numerous hours editing the initial rejection. I just resubmitted a edited submission only to be told that it was not being considered. I have asked for help several times before with no help. Please let me understand why this latest submission was rejected seconds after being submitted!! Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kflyeapple (talk • contribs) 05:05, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I believe what you saw was the old draft template which should have been removed when reviewed the last time(I have removed it). The current submission template is at the bottom of your article. Your article is in the queue, and it appears that the notability requirements can be met, but the only reference appears to be The World's Leading Tennis Players. The first two inline sources do not mention his name. The next two are Wikipedia, which can not be used as a reference, and the last from the TACOMA-PIERCE COUNTY SPORTS HALL OF FAME is not acceptable for notability. If you can find another reference preferably on the web attesting to the Wimbledon competition, approval should be no problem. -- :- ) Don 06:24, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The glass palace

Redirect to The Glass Palace. 117.226.152.158 (talk) 16:57, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect created. Thank you for your contribution to Wikipedia! Technically, redirect requests should be directed to WP:AFC/R, though. Huon (talk) 17:09, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Don Flye (Tennis)

Hello - I again have received denial for my submission for "unreliable sources". I am very confused. Every source cited backs my claims for the person. I guess I need more details. Other tennis players in Wiki who played with Don Flye have less sourcing and are published. Is the article to long?? What is unreliable about my sources?

Thank you for your time.

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/kflyeapple

(Kflyeapple (talk) 17:51, 6 October 2012 (UTC))[reply]

Short answer: No, you have not again received a denial. That's still the old message dated to 10 June. The next review is still pending, and it will be pending as long as the "review waiting" message remains on the draft. When the article is reviewed again you will be notified on your talk page.

I don't think all the issues Don pointed out above have been addressed yet. For example, the very first external link in the draft, to the USTA Boys Tournament history, doesn't mention Flye at all. Neither does the University of Washington web page that's the second external link. The source for the statement that Flye "represented the University of Washington Tennis Team in 1952, 1953 and 1957 winning four Pacific Coast Conference division championships in Singles and Doubles" should indeed say that Flye represented the University of Washington and won those championships - just linking to the university website is not enough. We might instead rely on the Federal Way Mirror article for that statement, though it doesn't give the exact years and gives fewer details in general. The new references should be turned into proper footnotes just like the book. Huon (talk) 18:42, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Inquiring as to the reason the Skidboot wikipedia article was rejected.

Inquiring as to the reason the Skidboot wikipedia article was rejected. User:Skidboot/Skidboot

Skidboot (talk) 21:06, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Because there are too few reliable sources about the movie. In fact, I don't think there was a single remotely reliable secondary source on the movie. The dog itself may be notable - I'm not sure whether the coverage it has received is significant enough - but the movie apparently isn't. Huon (talk) 21:42, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What sort of proof do you need? The film is in pre-production. I am the producer and the life story rights holder. I inserted the Skidboot Film Treatment into the body of text. I have the Skidboot film proposal, an attached director, a completed screenplay.

There are multiple sources on the internet citing the Skidboot film production e.g. the NBC subsidiary Lifegoesstrong.com

Skidboot Part 1 – Skidboot the Amazing Dog http://play.lifegoesstrong.com/skidboot-amazing-dog

Skidboot Part 2 – The Movie http://play.lifegoesstrong.com/part-2-skidboot-movie

Skidboot Part 3 – Skidboot in Training http://play.lifegoesstrong.com/part-3-skidboot-training-your-dog

Skidboot (talk) 21:52, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also not sure about your reference to Skidboot not being significant enough... the dog has a worldwide fan base and conducted hundreds of performances to include rodeos, statefairs, commercials, Oprah(Twice), Leno(Twice), Letterman, Inside Edition, Crook and Chase, Texas Country Reporter and the list goes on and on.

Here are just a few additional links from very significant celebrities:

Skidboot The Amazing Dog http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P2BfzUIBy9A

Skidboot on Oprah.com http://www.oprah.com/oprahshow/Amazing-Dog-Tricks-Video http://www.oprah.com/oprahshow/Amazing-Animal-Updates/2

Skidboot on Late Show with David Letterman http://www.skidboot.com/insideE.mpg

Skidboot on Tonight's Show with Jay Leno http://www.skidboot.com/jayleno.mpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skidboot (talk • contribs) 21:59, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, you may want to have a look at our guideline on conflicts of interest: Writing about the film you produce may not be a good idea.

We need reliable published sources that are independent of the subject, such as newspaper articles. The Life Goes Strong article is ideed one such source on the film; the corresponding link in the draft is currently broken (it has a "1" instead of a "2", I believe). Unfortunately that source has very little to do with the draft's content. Furthermore, according to our guideline on future films, "films that have not been confirmed by reliable sources to have commenced principal photography should not have their own articles, as budget issues, scripting issues and casting issues can interfere with a project well ahead of its intended filming date."

The dog itself may well be notable. The Oprah show, the Late Show with David Letterman and the like, however, are not considered reliable sources for notability purposes because they are hardly known for fact-checking and accuracy, and any source hosted on skidboot.com isn't quite independent. Huon (talk) 23:25, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Skidboot, it isn't literally that "the dog is not significant enough"; the article is about the film, and the film has not yet started so there's not a whole lot to say about it that's not just the word of involved parties like those producing it. So far as the dog himself, if for example you want to write about just the dog and not yet the film, the closest guideline would be WP:Notability (people). You would need independent, reputable sources explaining the dog's significance. So either serious works of journalism, academic publications, or books. The dog Skidboot might meet those guidelines, I haven't dug around for references, but if you want to write about the dog himself I suggest you gather the references on your Sandbox first, since there's not point putting anything in the article unless you can document it with references. If you get some Skidboot references and want some advice on whether it's enough, swing by Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions to get advice from our volunteer mentors before starting in to writing. MatthewVanitas (talk) 20:06, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]