Talk:Backwaters Press

This article was nominated for deletion on 20 August 2015. The result of the discussion was no consensus.

Thank you for your review and helpful comments on the three articles that I have been working on: Mayapple Press, Backwaters Press, and Matt Mason (Poet). Your comments were challenging but hopefully we have addressed issues (or at least made progress). I understand that often what is relevant or not and/or what is sufficient sourcing is at times somewhat subjective and I am all in favor of working towards consensus of multiple editors to address such questions. As a new editor though, what I need additional guidance on is what you regard as the criteria for notability. All three of these articles have been on Wikipedia for several (+5) years (even to the point that what I saw that I was mostly doing was "updating" them) and appeared to have notability issues long resolved, but you have tagged them all as problematic in that regard and in one case, have requested deletion. Can you provide me with your objective standard that you would accept as confirming these articles are "notable?" Are there standards which can be relied on as the consensus of most editors? Do forgive me, I do not mean to be contentious. I am new and undoubtedly require some education on this matter. But it would seem to me that if these articles indeed are not notable, then a serious and perhaps impossible to resolve methodological issue exists with Wikipedia editing, such that that it continues to force editors "to go in circles" and allows no understood resolution. With all due respect, I started to work on these articles to hopefully resolve issues, not to "go in circles" on issues long resolved. Thank you for your patience with me.

Edward Dixon (talk) 19:54, 20 August 2015 (UTC) Edward[reply]

By the way, some confusion seems to exist on these citations for the awards. I don't understand why you continue to think this content is not referenced. If I am not editing this properly to show that, please fix. But the web references in the links in the References section clearly substantiate the content expressed. If I am not understanding, please advise. Thank you.

Edward Dixon (talk) 19:54, 20 August 2015 (UTC) Edward[reply]

When I click on either link I get a timed out message saying this webpage is not available.Theroadislong (talk) 20:07, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's odd. What browser do you use? Clicking from the listing under references works fine in my browsers (Firefox and Microsoft Edge in Windows 10). Can anyone independently confirm this? I could also get it to work from the link inside the contents of the article when the link for Nebraska Book Awards or Jane Geske Award was to the external web page. Of course now you have the NBA link to its undeveloped web page so it goes to that. The "Jane Geske Award" text has no link. Thanks for working with me on this.

Edward Dixon (talk) 22:59, 20 August 2015 (UTC)Edward[reply]

Neither link works for me using Chrome or Firefox on a Mac. Theroadislong (talk) 08:46, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Could someone check the references that theroadislong marked as failing verification. A bot last night might have fixed the issue the theroadislong was reporting. I can't verify it myself as the links were working for me fine even before the bot action. Thank you.

Edward Dixon (talk) 19:39, 22 August 2015 (UTC)Edward[reply]

Does that mean you have a connection with the Backwaters Press? You should declare any conflict of interest on your user page and the articles talk page. Theroadislong (talk) 20:14, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? I don't even understand why you ask. No, I have no COI in this. I have read a few books published by the press as I have hundreds of small presses across the country and have some knowledge of the literary community in Nebraska as I do several other states. This literary press really is the backbone of much of poetry and fiction published in the state and is clearly recognized as such by the Nebraska Arts Council. Whether or not it is "notable" by Wikipedia definitions, it has a most significant presence in the state of Nebraska. Back to the point, I am saying that when I search those links in my browser, the sites come up fine but I believe you that when you clicked on them, they don't, and it baffles me why that was so. I noticed some bot ran last night and it looked like it might have addressed a link issue and I wanted someone simply to check it out. Do YOU have any insight on why the links work for me but not you?

Edward Dixon (talk) 21:49, 22 August 2015 (UTC)Edward[reply]

There seems to be a misunderstanding in regard to what the links are supposed to be referencing. What I am intending to source here is that these are award-winning authors as claimed. Their link to Backwaters (not Mayapple) is clear and non-controversial. However, to satisfy the complaint, I will post different links that satisfy both objectives at the same time. By the way, I still need help to determine why the links I previously discussed work fine in Windows 10 but (as it has been claimed) fail on a Mac.

Edward Dixon (talk) 13:36, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Backwaters Press. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:42, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]