At 11:46 17/09/2007, you wrote:
On 17/09/2007, David Goodman
<dgoodmanny(a)gmail.com> wrote:
The magazine Pensée is notable, and nobody is
questioning that. The
article brought up for deletion was "Pensée (Immanuel Velikovsky
Reconsidered)", a "special series of ten issues of the magazine
Pensée" devoted to a particular topic.
I think the interesting and idiosyncratic assumption that "all
published books are suitable for an article" kicks in here. Do
non-English projects make this same assumption? Does it vary between
fiction and nonfiction? Enquiring minds want to know...
If Wikipedia were a paper-based encyclopedia,
then I think there is no doubt that there would
be certain selection criteria. Wikipedia is not
paper, and consequently has decided that if it is
(a) Verifiable (b) (non-trivial) Reliable
sources, (c) written neutrally, then it is acceptable.
I noted that Wikipedia has 1000 article on all
1000 of the "top" asteroids (and many more), few
of which are any more notable pieces of rock than
another. In this instance, Wikipedia is acting as
a catalogue, and many of the articles are merely
"stubs". But that's fine by me, I'm sure asteroid #547 is notable to
someone.
Likewise, I see no problem Wikipedia summarising
every book that was ever published. It already
summarised every episode of many obscure TV programmes.
Is this encyclopedic? Wikipedia is not your typical encyclopedia.
Regards,
Ian Tresman
www.plasma-universe.com