This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of "ros wilson", and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://www.andrelleducation.co.uk/about-us/our-consultants/ros-wilson. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 13:34, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You might be better creating this article is a userspace e.g. User:AndrellEd/Ros Wilson rather than trying to create it straight in mainspace. When even the title isn't correctly formatted i.e. lowercase and using speechmarks, then there are problems appearing from the outset. Once the article is expanded then it can be moved to mainspace. Also you might want to read some of the common policies about notability and biographies of living persons and from your user name it would appear that you are connected to Ros somehow so there is also conflict of interest to consider before proceeding too far. NtheP (talk) 14:37, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article Ros Wilson, you may have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid or exercise great caution when:

1. editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with;
2. participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors; and
3. linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam).

Please familiarize yourself with relevant policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. Thank you. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 15:01, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated Ros Wilson, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ros Wilson. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 15:02, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 16:01, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've brought the discussion here to get it away from the AfD page. You are, of course, correct you could have selected another user name and edited without any knowledge that you are in any way connected with Ros, Big Writing or anything to do with education. But you didn't and when asked you've freely admitted your involvement. Great, honesty is the best policy. But once that is out in the open then people apply the contents of WP:COI - in a nutshell everything needs to be whiter than white when it comes to neutrality and all the other good stuff mentioned in the COI article.

In a way though all this is slightly secondary, the main thing at the moment is justifying the continued existence of the article. For that there need to be independent, verifiable, reliable sources about Ros and/or Big Writing. I know she's written several books on literacy education so are there reviews of those e.g. in TES, do DFCS endorse/promote the use of Big Writing in primary schools? If so are there publications, online or not that say so? It might be that there ends up being an article on Big Writing not Ros but if either is notable enoug there should be at least one article.

I'm not an expert on writing biogs on wikipedia but I'm willing to help as long as I'm convinced there is a genuine notability. NtheP (talk) 16:23, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]