User talk:Suska323

He failed the wikipedia notability requirements. See WP:GNG. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:58, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Our field, our ball
and our rules. Sorry, but notability is what we do work on. Otherwise we'd we be getting articles about people who invent perpetual motion machines. (Actually, we do, but they don't last long... Nor do the machines.) If you can provide a reference to Asimov reviewing Larson's work, it might help. Depends on the way Asimov treated it, and where. As the article stood, it was unreferenced except for links to Larson's works - which do not prove notability by our standard. I haven't found any in the history of the article. Even better than Asimov would be a mainstream scientist without Asimov's interest in the quirky, off-beat and downright unworkable - or his Tales from the White Hart where very unusual (and never proven) technology was fictionally reported. Under our rules, we would have had an article on Darwin's work, because it excited quite a lot of coverage immediately. We wouldn't have mentioned Mendel for years. No-one else did. We don't report the new until it's been reported elsewhere. We are never the only place where something is found. At least, we shouldn't be. We aim to be the best place for finding out at base level and somewhat higher, but always with sources that can be accessed. If you can give them for Larson, an article may be in order. As I said the other day to someone with a theory, 'I may think your theory is a load of bollocks, and I do, but if it's notable bollocks, I'll defend an article about it.'. My position is similar here, with the exception that I've not read the books and am not commenting on the theory itself. Peridon (talk) 17:10, 8 September 2012 (UTC)