| Revision as of 08:28, 31 March 2012 editRyulong (talk | contribs)218,132 edits →Blackbriar (novel), The Spirit House, Parasite Pig← Previous edit | Revision as of 08:59, 31 March 2012 edit undoWikiSkeptic (talk | contribs)857 editsNo edit summaryNext edit → | ||
| Line 12: | Line 12: | ||
| :::Since I wrote the original entry for ''cat'' here on WP, I don't have to follow the dictates of the johnny-come-lately citation mafia. I know what is notable; I know what is not. However, I am feeling generous... http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/title.cgi?6573 ASHLEY GREYSON 1988, ] 1988; Hugo/Nebula winnign sci fi author; http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/title.cgi?154130 Parasite Pig multiple reviews -] (]) 07:25, 31 March 2012 (UTC) | :::Since I wrote the original entry for ''cat'' here on WP, I don't have to follow the dictates of the johnny-come-lately citation mafia. I know what is notable; I know what is not. However, I am feeling generous... http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/title.cgi?6573 ASHLEY GREYSON 1988, ] 1988; Hugo/Nebula winnign sci fi author; http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/title.cgi?154130 Parasite Pig multiple reviews -] (]) 07:25, 31 March 2012 (UTC) | ||
| ::::You keep bringing up that you have some magical sort of seniority over me or the project in general when you have no way to back up those claims. That seems to be a recurring theme in your work, as you do not see fit to keep up with the times and write articles that have references to back up things you state. The current rules and regulations of Misplaced Pages are what you should be adhering to, and there is no amount of things you state (writing the first version of ], which cannot frankly be proven, being a classicist) to change that fact. I would find that your insistence that sources are not necessary is not at all welcome in any academic community, and this being an online encyclopedia should be no different than if you were to be proposing something to be published in an academic journal. This means that you need to show that individual books are notable on their own, unless the author is some sort of paragon in the field that everything he has written is notable because he is. I do not find this latter piece to be the case for Mr. Sleator.—] (]) 08:26, 31 March 2012 (UTC) | ::::You keep bringing up that you have some magical sort of seniority over me or the project in general when you have no way to back up those claims. That seems to be a recurring theme in your work, as you do not see fit to keep up with the times and write articles that have references to back up things you state. The current rules and regulations of Misplaced Pages are what you should be adhering to, and there is no amount of things you state (writing the first version of ], which cannot frankly be proven, being a classicist) to change that fact. I would find that your insistence that sources are not necessary is not at all welcome in any academic community, and this being an online encyclopedia should be no different than if you were to be proposing something to be published in an academic journal. This means that you need to show that individual books are notable on their own, unless the author is some sort of paragon in the field that everything he has written is notable because he is. I do not find this latter piece to be the case for Mr. Sleator.—] (]) 08:26, 31 March 2012 (UTC) | ||
| :::::If you were the first animu defender I've tangled with here on WP, I would gladly outline the reasons why 250,000 Pokechu articles doesn't add up to a single 1977 Hong Kong bestseller. Unfortunately, you are something like the 5000th (5th this week). So, unfortunately i have to be a bit abrupt. ''All fields are not created equal.'' The fact that some US universities are now giving out Master's degrees in animu studies does not mean that pop culture is now a topic of serious academic inquiry. Fifty thousand years from now, pop culture lists/catalogs will just be an entry in some database somewhere, but the work of mathematicians, lyric poets, and other academic fields will still be considered notable. There's no way to communicate this point *I've tried*, but pop culture is just.. ''trivia''. Trainspotting is also ''trivia'' Planespotting is ''trivia''. It's just life; I didn't make the rules. -] (]) 08:59, 31 March 2012 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 08:59, 31 March 2012
Blackbriar (novel), The Spirit House, Parasite Pig
- Blackbriar (novel) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- The Spirit House (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Parasite Pig (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
These are 3 unsourced articles on books that appear to in no way pass any of the criteria of WP:NBOOKS. I cannot find any reviews published in reliable sources, they do not appear to have won any literary awards, they do not appear to have made a significant contribution to the arts, they do not appear to be taught in schools, and the author himself is not inherently notable enough to have his notability extend to his works. —Ryulong (竜龙) 08:13, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:57, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
- There are heaps of reviews, including from Orson Scott Card. However, WP bores me. There can be no victory over the animu clan. Shards. -WikiSkeptic (talk) 07:14, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
- Do you have evidence that such reviews exist?—Ryulong (竜龙) 07:16, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
- Since I wrote the original entry for cat here on WP, I don't have to follow the dictates of the johnny-come-lately citation mafia. I know what is notable; I know what is not. However, I am feeling generous... http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/title.cgi?6573 ASHLEY GREYSON 1988, ORSON SCOTT CARD 1988; Hugo/Nebula winnign sci fi author; http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/title.cgi?154130 Parasite Pig multiple reviews -WikiSkeptic (talk) 07:25, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
- You keep bringing up that you have some magical sort of seniority over me or the project in general when you have no way to back up those claims. That seems to be a recurring theme in your work, as you do not see fit to keep up with the times and write articles that have references to back up things you state. The current rules and regulations of Misplaced Pages are what you should be adhering to, and there is no amount of things you state (writing the first version of cat, which cannot frankly be proven, being a classicist) to change that fact. I would find that your insistence that sources are not necessary is not at all welcome in any academic community, and this being an online encyclopedia should be no different than if you were to be proposing something to be published in an academic journal. This means that you need to show that individual books are notable on their own, unless the author is some sort of paragon in the field that everything he has written is notable because he is. I do not find this latter piece to be the case for Mr. Sleator.—Ryulong (竜龙) 08:26, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
- If you were the first animu defender I've tangled with here on WP, I would gladly outline the reasons why 250,000 Pokechu articles doesn't add up to a single 1977 Hong Kong bestseller. Unfortunately, you are something like the 5000th (5th this week). So, unfortunately i have to be a bit abrupt. All fields are not created equal. The fact that some US universities are now giving out Master's degrees in animu studies does not mean that pop culture is now a topic of serious academic inquiry. Fifty thousand years from now, pop culture lists/catalogs will just be an entry in some database somewhere, but the work of mathematicians, lyric poets, and other academic fields will still be considered notable. There's no way to communicate this point *I've tried*, but pop culture is just.. trivia. Trainspotting is also trivia Planespotting is trivia. It's just life; I didn't make the rules. -WikiSkeptic (talk) 08:59, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
- You keep bringing up that you have some magical sort of seniority over me or the project in general when you have no way to back up those claims. That seems to be a recurring theme in your work, as you do not see fit to keep up with the times and write articles that have references to back up things you state. The current rules and regulations of Misplaced Pages are what you should be adhering to, and there is no amount of things you state (writing the first version of cat, which cannot frankly be proven, being a classicist) to change that fact. I would find that your insistence that sources are not necessary is not at all welcome in any academic community, and this being an online encyclopedia should be no different than if you were to be proposing something to be published in an academic journal. This means that you need to show that individual books are notable on their own, unless the author is some sort of paragon in the field that everything he has written is notable because he is. I do not find this latter piece to be the case for Mr. Sleator.—Ryulong (竜龙) 08:26, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
- Since I wrote the original entry for cat here on WP, I don't have to follow the dictates of the johnny-come-lately citation mafia. I know what is notable; I know what is not. However, I am feeling generous... http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/title.cgi?6573 ASHLEY GREYSON 1988, ORSON SCOTT CARD 1988; Hugo/Nebula winnign sci fi author; http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/title.cgi?154130 Parasite Pig multiple reviews -WikiSkeptic (talk) 07:25, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
- Do you have evidence that such reviews exist?—Ryulong (竜龙) 07:16, 31 March 2012 (UTC)