The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete, per lack of notability. To the creator of the article, recreation would be a possibility if you can find reliable secondary sources that establish the notability of Ms. Wilson. An article on "Big Writing" is also a possibility, though there again you would have to demonstrate notability via coverage in third party sources, and the point below that "Wikipedia is not a webhost" is something to keep in mind. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 05:44, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ros Wilson[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable person. Assertion of notability relates to founding the "Big Writing" technique, but this technique is not itself notable. No significant news or web results found. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 15:02, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment "Big Writing" is a strategy implemented in thousands of Primary Schools throughout the UK. V.C.O.P., "Ros Wilson", "Punctuation Pyramid" all result in thousands of hit in Google. What searches have you run?— Preceding unsigned comment added by AndrellEd (talk • contribs) — AndrellEd (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Delete Non-notable per WP:BIO and WP:ACADEMIC, ~~highly promotional tone per WP:PROMO~~ (rather better now following cleanup by WikiDan), clear WP:Conflict of interest by creator User:AndrellEd, signing himself "Curtis" on article talk page, apparently company director: [1]. MuffledThud (talk) 15:21, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing has been hidden or done surrepticiously, but honestly and ethically. Delete if you wish. Used Pie Corbett's wiki page as an example because it was cited in an email to us asking for a page on ros. Hardly a promotional tone, but that is your opinion. (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:38, 18 January 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Weak Keep Certainly the technique is widely used in UK schools - to the extent that Education Authorities run courses on it e.g. [2] but whether it's the technique that has a notability or the creator I'm not sure. Certainly most of the hits I found go mention both. On that basis I'm in favour of keeping it as meeting criteria #1 & #2 of WP:AUTH. I don't think WP:ACADEMIC applies to this case as it's not involvement with scholarly research or higher education. I do agree with MuffeldThud about tone and COI. NtheP (talk) 15:42, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't think the "Learning Excellence" course offering denotes notability as much as it does the fact that the company that promotes this technique is willing to sell it to local educational insitutions. Note that the instructor for the course is a consultant from Andrell Education, the company that is promoting this technique (and, not incidently, the company that created this article). WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 17:00, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reply It doesn't work like that in the UK. Education providers (normally the councils) can commission services. The example I highlighted was a council promoting a course to teachers in it's own geographical area. They (the council) aren't going to procure a service off the company for a course unless the teaching methods are used in its schools. I agree about who is presenting the course, my point is that it is the council, who have responsibility for education in their area, feel it is appropriate to offer training on this teaching method. That an education provider use Big Writing as a literacy teaching method in their schools confers a degree of notability on the method. NtheP (talk) 17:39, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I have to disagree with NtheP. A single educational council deciding to use this method does not indicate notability. If only a single company bought IBM computers, IBM would hardly be a notable company. Notability of this company would arise from independent coverage of the company or their "Big Writing" product in independent sources such as education journals or mainstream newspapers. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 18:09, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I quoted but one example. I can google and find several hundred references to individual schools all over the UK that use this method. The point you make about reliable independent sources is the exactly the same as I have made to the creator of this article. Without those a 'cast iron' assertion of notability is hard to achieve but all the small sources provide what I said before a degree of notability. What I was refuting was your assertion, as I saw it, that the reference I gave was self promotional by the company. If I misunderstood your original point, my apologies. NtheP (talk) 18:30, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is the first article I have tried to submit, in response to requests from teachers around the UK. I appreciate any help advice with regard to making less promotional, as I felt it was simply statement of fact. As for a conflict of interest, I could understand if anything contentious, but I could submit the same information from a diferent email account surrepticiously and there would be no question. So why is there a problem now?(talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:57, 18 January 2010 (UTC). Video of work at Leeds Met. [3] (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:00, 18 January 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Andrell/Curtis please read the essay on conflict of interest, you'll find that answers many of your questions. NtheP (talk) 16:04, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The problem with the article is not primarily conflict of interest. The problem is primarily lack of notability. Other than some few primary sources (Wilson's bio at the Andrell Education site), there are no references available via a Google search to hang one's hat on. The article can't be improved by other authors because there's no information with which to improve it. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 19:08, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:47, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Would it help if I were to include a number of external references here or on the proposed page, from primary schools, other councils etc?(talk) —Preceding undated comment added 10:23, 19 January 2010 (UTC). This page was intended to be the first of several pages in response to requests from teahcers to offer definitions and descriptions of those elements that Ros Wilson includes in her strategies, such as The Punctuation Pyramid, V.C.O.P., "Big Writing", "WOW Words", "Power Writing" etc. Though there are descriptions in the forums of The TES (Times Education Supplement), the Andrell Education website, OFSTED Reports citing the techniques as succeeding in schools, some people do search Google, Wiki etc and there are no definitive listings. The logical location in my mind is Wiki. This isn't about promotion validation or anything, simply clarification.">AndrellEd —Preceding undated comment added 10:39, 19 January 2010 (UTC).[reply]

If teachers want information about this technique (which is essentially a "product" of Andrell Education), then Andrell Education should provide that information at their own website. Wikipedia is not a webhost. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 13:09, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:45, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Article seems to be primarily promotional. WP:Prof is not passed in any category. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:02, 21 January 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Delete Largely pormotional. His work might be notable but his biography does not apper to meet notability guidelines. RadioFan (talk) 14:20, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.