<<In a message dated 1/6/2009 4:59:20 P.M. Pacific Standard Time, cbeckhorn@fastmail.fm writes:

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.>>

And, for your example, there are secondary source books which do go into detail. You may be unaware of them, but they exist.

You, as an expert (if you are) may be able to get away with creating articles solely based on primary source citations. For the rest of us, we may need secondary source citations just to tell us whether or not the underlying papers are encyclopedic or not. And the mere fact that an article is built from primary sources, doesn't protect it from AfD consideration. We have many biographies, built completely from primary sources, which get deleted, because the subject is not notable. This works in sciences as well. Notability is established, in part, by being cited.

Will Johnson

**************New year...new news. Be the first to know what is making headlines. (http://www.aol.com/?ncid=emlcntaolcom00000026)