You're the one making the assertion that they are, not me.
But I never said they were equivalent. See #1.
And again. Your argument goes "1. I compare it to this ridiculous idea. 3. Therefore it is ridiculous." As the one making the argument, it's up to you to substantiate "2. It is equivalent or analogous to this ridiculous idea."
It is analogous:
Some articles in specialised encyclopedias may not be fit for inclusion in Wikipedia. Thus, an article's inclusion in a specialised encyclopedia does not nessecarily justify its inclusion in Wikipedia.
Conclusion: An article's inclusion in any given cooking encyclopedia does not nessecarily justify its inclusion in Wikipedia.
While the logic isn't totally sound, I think in general the assumptions I have made are warranted.
Mark