Deletion of Australian erotic poetry

Comment: blatantly crosses the line separating an encyclopedia article from a dissertation/essay/analysis. In other words, ''it's |original research and doesn't belong here'', regardless of how good or bad it is
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR)

Comment: Just a note for future ref,  and  have been superseded by , but there is no change to the underlying policy, just more what it's called and the way it's grouped
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR||WP:V||WP:ATT)

Comment: Contradictory? Article questions its own |notability. As it stands, the article is pretty much |original research and has no |reliable sources
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NN||WP:OR||WP:RS)

Comment: per , unless it can be rewritten. It would be more productive to rewrite them as two articles for the poets in question (Colin Leslie Dean and Collins, T. M. (Timothy Maurice)) which can then be appropriately referenced/filled out as Australian poets, and then group them under erotic poetry. It seems ultimately that categorisation, rather than a section article, would be more useful here
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Attribution (WP:ATT)

Comment: and '''Cleanup'''.  I have added a couple of sources and cleaned up some of the language.  It still needs massive cleanup for NPOV and  and rewriting, but I don't think that we should delete it just because we don't have an Australian Poetry or an erotic poetry article.  Someone should write those ones, too
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Attribution (WP:ATT)

Comment: The problem here isn't with the fact that it's one person, it's that you are basically using Wikipedia to promote someone the success of whom you have an apparent vasted interest in.  Therefore you have an obvious Conflict of Interest as covered by |conflict of interest as well as the other problems with the article. You seem to think that this all some personal bias on people's part, but that is not the case
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Conflict of interest (WP:COI)

Comment: WP:OR, . And since when was Wikipedia supposed to be on the cutting edge of anything? Cutting-edge stuff is for research journals, not encyclopedias
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N)