Talk:New South Wales Institute for Educational Research Award for Outstanding Educational Research

Untitled
Dear Realkyhick:

Thanks for your query regarding deletion. My argument against deletion would be based upon the following:

1. I don't think that the entry is actually based upon primary research, as the entry is based upon a history of the Institute published by Rebecca Fleming.

2. As such, this is verifiable information, and this can be done through gaining a copy of the book.

3. The section within the above history dealing with this award (pp. 65-67) is in fact supported by footnotes referencing primary sources, eg. minutes of the executive of the NSW IER, the bulletin of proceedings of the IER, and interview notes with key IER officers.

4. If the entry relied upon the above information in the footnotes, rather than the book, then there would be a reasonable case that the entry relies upon primary research.

5. Is the NSW Institute itself a reliable publisher? I would say yes, as wikipedia has already accepted the NSW IER as a recognized research institute.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research#Primary.2C_secondary_and_tertiary_sources

Regards, Jamessmithpage (talk) 04:36, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I was under the mistaken assumption that the NSW IER published Fleming's book, so primary sourcing is not a problem after all, but reliance on a single source is still an issue. We need more references from other sources, preferably news media articles and the like. It may be that this article should instead by a section of the NSW IER article, with this title serving as a redirect to that section. There's nNo question that the institute itself is notable.) - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 04:55, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi there. Thanks for responding so quickly. Well, the publisher was in fact the NSW IER, but the point is that it isn't actually by definition primary research. See above comments. However, even if it were, the fact that the NSW IER is a reliable and reputable publisher should, I think, indicate that reference to the history by Rebecca Fleming ought to be considered satisfactory. 58.166.157.143 (talk) 13:59, 14 September 2009 (UTC) PS. what I have done is to include other references, as you've suggested.
 * Well, if the IEF published it, in this case it would be a primary source. However, the other refs you have added solve the problem, so I have removed the deletion notice. Thanks! - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 15:11, 14 September 2009 (UTC)