User talk:Norbreckcastle

The Norbreck Castle Hotel
A tag has been placed on The Norbreck Castle Hotel, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article seems to be blatant advertising that only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become an encyclopedia article. Please read the general criteria for speedy deletion, particularly item 11, as well as the guidelines on spam.

If you can indicate why the subject of this article is not blatant advertising, you may contest the tagging. To do this, please add  on the top of The Norbreck Castle Hotel and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would help make it encyclopedic, as well as adding any citations from reliable sources to ensure that the article will be verifiable. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. WhaleyTim (talk) 12:23, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I note that you have removed the speedly delete tag from The Norbreck Castle Hotel. If you belive that your article does not meet the criteria for deletion you must add a hangon tag as described above and give reasons on the articles talk page. WhaleyTim (talk) 12:31, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of The Norbreck Castle Hotel
I have nominated The Norbreck Castle Hotel, an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Articles for deletion/The Norbreck Castle Hotel. 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. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Ian ¹³ /t  13:45, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Norbreck Castle concerns - an explanation
Hello. I see you are concerned about why this article has been proposed for deletion. Let me just explain. We have a speedy process, which means an article is immediately deleted, another user flagged the article you created for this process, however I denied the request. I have however referred the article such that it can be discussed (here) to help the community decide if we should keep it.

As we are trying to build an encyclopedia, it is important that content reaches certain standards. This includes notability, and no Original Research - both of which are concerns with this article. If it is deleted on grounds of notability, then unless something material changes about the subject, it is unlikely that the article should be recreated. If research is of concern, then obviously it is best to try and improve the article. We try and do this by adding sources to information.

With images, it is very important that they are under a free licence and a source given. Sources are required to verify the licence. Otherwise, anyone could claim that they own an image, and release it, when they don't thus infringing copyright. Additionally, images have to be encyclopaedic. We want quality articles, not adverts. This includes the addition of fake fireworks to images.

I hope this helps, but feel free to drop me a note if you need help.

Ian ¹³ /t  15:56, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Articles for deletion
Please don't remove the Articles for deletion tag from the article. Doing so will not stop the discussion at Articles for deletion/The Norbreck Castle Hotel. --Eastmain (talk) 17:07, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Savoy Hotel Blackpool


A tag has been placed on Savoy Hotel Blackpool requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about an organization or company, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Simple Boba.k.a. The Spaminator (Talk) 13:28, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of Savoy Hotel Blackpool for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Savoy Hotel Blackpool is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Savoy Hotel Blackpool until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Simple Boba.k.a. The Spaminator (Talk) 07:38, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:Sean Kanan.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Sean Kanan.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either
 * make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
 * Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add OTRS pending to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Non-free content, use a tag such as non-free fair use or one of the other tags listed at File copyright tags, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in [ your upload log]. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Jon Kolbert (talk) 03:51, 2 December 2016 (UTC)