At 10:39 AM 6/29/2006, Steve Bennett wrote:
On 6/29/06, Fred Bauder fredbaud@ctelco.net wrote:
We need to have a discussion on which books ought to have articles. Some criteria regarding notability.
Something like that exists, a print run of 5000 figures in there somewhere.
Now that's just stupid. The local grocery store's weekly flyer has a higher print run than that.
I'm leaning more and more towards the attitude of people who equate notability with "the ability to write a meaningful article based on verifiable and reputable secondary sources". At the end of the day, if we have meaningful, verifiable stuff to say about insignificant topics, Wikipedia is not harmed to any great extent by saying it.
Right -- and with books, this works pretty well. Having secondary sources ensures that there is more to the article than just a plot summary.
Chl