User talk:Filmnews2007

Re. Please tell me why you have deleted my entry - third time?
Hello. I believe that the article in question is Matt Norman. I did not delete this, but after checking the deletion log I can inform that it has been deleted three times by three different administrators. The reason stated for deletion was the speedy deletion criterion A7. This criterion states that an article may be speedy deleted if it provides no assertion of notability of the subject. After viewing the last version of the article I believe that it did assert notability. I recommend you to take this article to the deletion review and try to have the deletion overturned. I hope this helps. Regards,-- Hús  ö  nd  12:24, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Welcome
Welcome

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate encyclopedic contributions, but some of your recent contributions seem to be advertising or for promotional purposes. Wikipedia does not allow advertising in articles. For more information on this, see If you still have questions, there is a new contributor's help page, or you can write   below this message along with a question and someone will be along to answer it shortly. You may also find the following pages useful for a general introduction to Wikipedia. I hope you enjoy editing Wikipedia! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Feel free to write a note on the bottom of my talk page if you want to get in touch with me. Again, welcome!  Tijuana Brass  07:36, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Policy on neutral point of view
 * Guideline on spam
 * Guideline on external links
 * Guideline on conflict of interest
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Possible conflicts of interest
When we see an account whose only edits are to a single subject, and linking that subject elsewhere, it invites speculation of a conflict of interest. If you are connected with the film and film-maker you are promoting, please do say so, it will not prevent you being allowed to edit on that subject but it will show good faith on your part. Guy (Help!) 11:15, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Undeletion
To request undeletion of an article, posting another article is just not going to work. The only way is to argue through WP:DRV. Good luck.--Anthony.bradbury 01:49, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

The deletion review, as you know, is open at Deletion review/Log/2007 January 20 (permanent link, will work after the discussion closes) or Deletion review (temporary link, will only work while discussion is active). Be patient, reviews usually remain open for five-six days to determine what the consensus of the community is. GRBerry 04:00, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Here's the problem
You state on my talk page: Its a time in history that finally gets to be revealed, and it's crucial to have the name of the film-maker who is about to change history in the way that this event actually happened., also I have spoken with the film-maker about this. Unfortunately, Wikipedia is a tertiary source only. What you have done is to perform original research and draw your own deductions from this. Our content policies forbid this. They also strongly discourage editing subjects in which you have a close personal involvement. You need to wait until there are reliable secondary sources talking about the person and especially the film. We have a rule that Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. It may well be that this film changes the way we look at the event, but unless and until it does, we cannot be part of that process of change. Reposting the article during the DRV was a truly terrible idea, and I'm afraid it has coloured my judgement of the thing. What's the rush? Are you tryign to engage in advance publicity for the film or something? Wikipedia is not on a deadline, there is no need to scoop anyone. Guy (Help!) 12:45, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Another Matt Norman header
Thanks for posting your question on my talk page in a respectful manner, and being open about your relation with the subject of this article. I understand your interest and reasoning, and I appreciate that you're seeking to add this article in the appropriate manner.

First, let me explain what the deletion process is, in case you're not aware of how it works. As you may already know, the consensus at Deletion Review was to move the article to an AfD (which stands for Articles for Deletion). The AfD page, along with an introduction on how it works and why articles are added to it, is located here; the specific section on the Norman article is here. The difference between the two is that the Deletion Review is to examine an article which has already been deleted, whereas an AfD is to see if an article should be deleted. The general agreement was that a speedy deletion, one without the input of concerned Wikipedia editors, was too hasty — at an AfD, more input is allowed. For the next few days, editors may add their input. You are welcome to do so as well, but beforehand, please read a couple guidelines located here, which explains what are considered valid reasons to endorse or oppose deletion (for example, saying "Don't delete this because I personally know the subject of the article" is a common reason given, but it doesn't assert that the person in question is of encyclopedic importance).

Now, to get at what you've mentioned on my talk page, I understand what you're telling me about Matt Norman. His movie sounds interesting — I'd personally like to see it, myself — and it's certainly on an important subject, Peter Norman. In the future, it may very well be influential. Those reasons alone, however, are not enough to meet the standards of notability here. For starters, an article about an important person isn't important in and of itself, nor is a family relationship to that person. I don't necessarily disagree that the movie may become important, but until such time that it is, there's only speculation that it will be, and that too is not notable (in an encyclopedic sense). Finally, there seems to be a conflict of interest here in that you seem to have done some research of your own without quoting independent, subjective, and authoritative sources — and you do seem to have a promotional interest in the movie. Both of these are against Wikipedia policy.

My suggestion, then, is this: wait for a while. Allow the movie to be released, let it build up some independent reviews. Once those are available, and editors can write from a more independent, neutral perspective, we can work with this article some more, and I'd expect it to remain. In the meantime, you can request that the text of the article as it is written now be preserved in your userspace (in other words, as something of a subset of your personal account here at Wikipedia) — that way you can refer to it a few months down the road when it's ready to be an article. In the meantime, you'd have ample opportunity to pick up some of the ins and outs of editing here, and by better understanding policy and procedure, produce a great article (or articles) in the future.

Feel free to post to my talk page again if you have any more questions. Best wishes.  Tijuana Brass  21:24, 21 January 2007 (UTC)