Talk:A Swag of Aussie Poetry

Untitled

So a number of people work on sorting out a few typos and improving the quality of the article and then it gets selected for deletion? One of the reasons is that as the creator of the page I might be too close to the subject? I am a journalist with an interest in poetry and this project I believe is a good representation of a selection of Aussie poetry. I thought it might be a good way to share some background information which I researched and made the relevant links to. So did I waste my time? Yes I know the producer, that's how I gathered the basic data then added to it. Like any good article you first go to the source then expand out where you can. As writing for Wikipedia is a voluntary effort and requires a certain passion to engage in, in the first place, I find it frustrating that this research should be deemed somehow unworthy when there is nothing contentious about it. I'm certainly beginning to wonder whether I should bother. I seem to spend half my time here defending any attempt I make to engage. I see my own page is up for deletion as well. We've had this discussion before and I thought it was resolved. Sorry for being so reactionary but if any of the information is factually incorrect then please advise me?§ Keith Newman§ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Keith Newman (talk • contribs) 04:24, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't a newspaper it is an encyclopedia. It may be a worthy topic but just you believing so isn't enough to meet wikipedia guidelines. You need to source and cite appropriate references that support your position. The key issue is that none of the claims are supported by verifiable, reliable sources which is a requirement of Wikipedia. Also, when a reference is provided it must support the claim it is attached to. In reality, the article is a record of interview without any source except "Pierson" which is not verifiable. There are a couple of ways you can avoid having your work challenged; the first is not writing about subjects where you have a conflict of interest - see WP:COI, the second is to make sure you have reliable and verifiable sources before you write the article WP:RS and lastly to have the article independently reviewed before you submit the article. Flat Out let's discuss it 06:04, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Do the links to the various articles and web pages, including numerous on Wikipedia, not qualify as verifying the information about the various poets and personalities involved. Pierson simply talked about the process of pulling his project together and his involvement in it. Are there any inaccurate assertions made, are there factual errors. Does my judgment as a writer of 40-years account for nothing? Just asking. How can we ensure the article remains on Wikipedia without me having to do a lot of further research and verification which frankly I don't have time for. Is it really that important to achieve Wikiperfection? Keith Newman — Preceding unsigned comment added by Keith Newman (talk • contribs) 00:34, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Keith Newman the answers to this question are covered under WP:RS reliable sources. Quite simply, if you make a claim it has to be backed up with a source. For example If you write "I had a meeting with the King of England on 3 December 1947" you need to provide a reference from a reliable source that shows this to be true. You can't use a reference that confirms the existence of the King, but fails to support that the meeting happened. If no-one van verify your interview with Pierson then it can't be used because WP does not allow us to take your word for it because you are a good guy with extensive experience. To keep the article we need to find at least one reliable, verifiable and independent source that proves the album is notable. So far I haven't found one despite my best efforts. Once we have that source, we can delete the unsupported information and present it as a factual and referenced article. Ideally this should have been done before the article was published and ideally it would be written by someone that doesn't have a declared conflict. Flat Out let's discuss it 01:07, 3 June 2013 (UTC)