User talk:Yourjourneyrealised

Hazel Grove
Please read WP:POLITICIAN. A person is not entitled to a Wikipedia article just for standing as a candidate in an election; they only get to have an article if they (a) win, or (b) are notable enough for other reasons that they'd still qualify for an article on the latter grounds. Andrew Stunnell has an article because he's an MP, and even though he didn't win that particular election John Whittaker has an article because he previously won a different one — but for either Annesley Abercorn or Richard Scorer to get their own articles, you need to show that they're notable for something more than merely having been candidates. See also Articles for deletion/Richard Scorer. Bearcat (talk) 10:35, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Once an article has been subject to a deletion discussion that resulted in a delete, subsequent recreations of the article can be deleted on sight, with no need for a new discussion, if they don't make a stronger and better-referenced claim of notability than the original version did. Nobody's picking on him as an individual; Wikipedia policy is about the quality of the article, not the value of the person. If you really believe that he's actually notable enough for an article and can provide reliable sources to support that view, then the correct approach at this point is to start the article in sandbox space (i.e. User:Yourjourneyrealised/Richard Scorer) and then move it into articlespace once it's been completed. But unfortunately, once an article has been deleted once you can't just repost another version that isn't a significant improvement over the first one. Bearcat (talk) 18:01, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Richard Scorer


A tag has been placed on Richard Scorer requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a clear copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words.

If the external website belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not the owner of the external website but have permission from that owner, see Requesting copyright permission. You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion, or "db", tag; if no such tag exists, then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hang-on tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, 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. Shire Reeve (talk) 09:40, 23 March 2011 (UTC)


 * If your assertion is valid that you own the copyright to the text in the article, then you have a clear conflict of interest with Scorer. Editors with conflicts of interest are strongly discouraged from starting articles about related subjects and should edit with extreme caution when articles about related subjects already exists. —C.Fred (talk) 16:32, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of Richard Scorer for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Richard Scorer 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/Richard Scorer 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. isfutile:P (talk) 10:57, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Richard Scorer
Hi thank you for pointing out that you own the copyright on the text at the other web site. In order to keep the text on Wikipedia we would need proof that the text from the other web site really was owned by you too. This can be done by modifying the other web site to state that the content is released under a CC-BY-SA-3.0 license. However there were more problems, the style was not right for an encyclopedia in that it was promotional. This is often a problem where what is appropriate for one kind of web site is not suitable for Wikipedia. What you should do is to rewrite the article in such a way that it is different from the source web site and stick to non opinion and non promotional aspects. Steve Edge (lawyer) does not look like an advertisement for his services. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 20:39, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:David Wootton.jpg
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:David Wootton.jpg, has been listed at Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Sreejith K (talk) 15:20, 17 January 2012 (UTC)