User talk:Deutschebag17

In reference to your objection to the speedy deletion of BLT Pictures: First of all, I did not delete the article. I simply put a tag that indicated that the article met the criteria for speedy deletion. Someone else with admin status actually takes another look at it to see if it should be deleted. That's the way it should be — have more than one person make the judgement.

Second, you can go into your User Contributions page and see everything that you enetered, and then simply cut and paste it back from there. The link is right below the Search box on the left side of this page, and here's a direct link to yours: [1]. Simply go to the first entry in the list for the article you want and click on the "diff" link, and it will show you the last version. If you need to backtrack to an earlier version, clink on the "Older edit" link.

Having said all that, there are guidelines at Wikipedia on whether or not a subject is notable enough to merit an article. If the producers had a film or video that had been shown in some public forum — a theater, a film festival, and so on — and had some sort of record of their existence somewhere like a newspaper article where facts in the article can be verified, then BLT Pictures might merit an article. But, by your own admission, the partnership hasn't produced anything other than a 20-minute video with no verifiable record of public showing. Furthermore, Google comes up with nothing at all when the keywords "BLT Pictures" + Australopithecus are entered. In other words, we have no record that BLT Pictures really exists except your say-so.

Another thing to consider: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Wikipedia is not a place to promote anything. If you have any personal involvement with BLT Pictures, then you may run afoul of Wikipedia policies on conflict of interest. The reason for this is that Wikipedia tries to maintain a neutral point of view in all of its articles. An author who writes an article about something he or she is directly involved in is not likely to see all points of view about the subject. For instance, if I were to write an article about my own business, I wouldn't be to likely to include anything negative about it, even if it were otherwise deserved. You can write about something where you have a conflict of interest, but it will be subject to much greater scrutiny. Moreover, something that appears to be self-promotional is likely to be considered spam and be proposed for deletion by Wikipedia editors on a regular basis — most people take a really dim view of spam on WP.

So here's what I propose. Write your article, and when you're done, I will put a {{prod}} tag on the article, with a note that it is being proposed for administrative purposes. This process is much more deliberate that a speedy delete, as different people actually debate the merits of the article on the discussion page for a few days instead of just yanking the article. How's that? Realkyhick 03:06, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Some advice

Hi! I saw your user page and it said you're new and looking for help. Well, I noticed your multiple attempts at editing The Fall of the House of Usher. My advice is to remember to use the "Show Preview" button before you submit changes. I'm guilty of forgetting this myself more often than not, but anyway, that's how you can confirm everything is as it should be before moving on. Welcome to Wikipedia, by the way, and best of luck - stick around! Midnightdreary 01:38, 20 March 2007 (UTC)