[WikiEN-l] NOR contradicts NPOV

[WJhonson at aol.com]

<<In a message dated 1/6/2009 4:59:20 P.M. Pacific Standard Time,  
cbeckhorn at 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)