[WikiEN-l] AfD on unencyclopedic content

[Phil Boswell]

geni wrote:
> 
> On 5/5/06, Fred Bauder <fredbaud at ctelco.net> wrote:
>> Generally proofs are encyclopedic. Much more so than many other items
>> which we regularly include.
> That would depend on how the article is presented. For example the
> proof of the [[Taniyama–Shimura theorem]] (if copyright doesn't cover
> it) would be on wikisource.
> 
The actual proof itself, yes.

I would hope that an explanation for mathematical peons like myself would
also be forthcoming. Whether that would be more appropriate to Wikipedia or
Wikibooks is a matter for conjecture.

I am still having difficulty figuring out where exactly Wikibooks is
supposed to mesh with Wikipedia in the grand Wikimedia scheme...to read some
of the discussions there, it would seem that they don't think any kind of
"meshing" suitable at all, which seems ridiculous to me...
-- 
Phil
--
View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/AfD-on-unencyclopedic-content-t1563690.html#a4248701
Sent from the English Wikipedia forum at Nabble.com.