On Tue, Jan 06, 2009 at 07:44:58PM -0500, WJhonson(a)aol.com wrote:
It is *already* covered in a text. In fact, I note,
just on Google Books,
at least six print secondary sources which *mention* it, and a few go into
details.
A book which only mentions a theorem but doesn't go into depth is useless as
a source. I would always cite the original paper in preference.
What I was suggesting is that an article with no
secondary mentions (of any
kind, whatsoever) is probably a good AfD candidate.
Every topic I am intrested in having an article for will some sort of
oblique secondary mentions - but I don't consider those to be sources for
the article, and would not include them when I add material.
- Carl