Talk:The Lady Tasting Tea

message: ===2006===
Regarding a merge with the David Salsburg page:
Considering this page has other links directly to it, I beleive this page has merit to exist in its own right. 
--Evolve2k 03:32, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, although it would be OK either way — best as separate. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 23:35, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

text: I think the issue is that David Salsburg's article simply identifies him as the author of the book, and adds nothing more except for a quote that dwarfs the rest of the article. This article is in the exact same pattern: a one line description and a lengthy quote from the publisher. Thus, if there's nothing more to add to either article, they can certainly be merged. If the notability of each could stand on their own (the author would need to pass either WP:AUTHOR or WP:PROF, I pretty sure the latter holds; the book needs to pass WP:BK) so that both merit an expanded article, then the merger would be unnecessary.--74.56.234.186 (talk) 18:25, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  I dislike the idea of merger and rather favor expansion of the anechdote, which is of great interest to the history of randomized experiments. Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 17:30, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge proposals

message: Regarding a merge with the David Salsburg page:
Considering this page has other links directly to it, I beleive this page has merit to exist in its own right. 
--Evolve2k 03:32, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, although it would be OK either way — best as separate. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 23:35, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: 2006

message: :I think the issue is that David Salsburg's article simply identifies him as the author of the book, and adds nothing more except for a quote that dwarfs the rest of the article. This article is in the exact same pattern: a one line description and a lengthy quote from the publisher. Thus, if there's nothing more to add to either article, they can certainly be merged. If the notability of each could stand on their own (the author would need to pass either WP:AUTHOR or WP:PROF, I pretty sure the latter holds; the book needs to pass WP:BK) so that both merit an expanded article, then the merger would be unnecessary.--74.56.234.186 (talk) 18:25, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  I dislike the idea of merger and rather favor expansion of the anechdote, which is of great interest to the history of randomized experiments. Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 17:30, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: 2009

message: I have added a notability for books template, as notability seems unclear. See above merge discussion also. All but one citation are to the importance of the topic Lady tasting tea, not to this book: the other seems to be just a book review such as would appear for any book ... and hence no indication of importance. Melcombe (talk) 12:45, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I see now that I was wrong ... they are all simple book reviews at the time of publication, but still no indication of importance. Melcombe (talk) 12:50, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Reviews are OK for WP:Notability (books) (criterion 1: published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries and reviews). Brumski (talk) 21:21, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The full version of the criterion is: "The book has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the book itself, with at least some of these works serving a general audience. This includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries and reviews. Some of these works should contain sufficient critical commentary to allow the article to grow past a simple plot summary. This excludes media re-prints of press releases, flap copy, or other publications where the author, its publisher, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the book." So do any of these reviews "contain sufficient critical commentary"., etc.?  Melcombe (talk) 08:56, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, I think they do to contain sufficient critical commentary to write more than a simple plot summary. In my experience. when people raise a new objection each time their previous objection is invalidated, they often have some more fundamental objection that they aren't expressing. You have questioned the article's notability by pointing out that the previous merge discussion objects to its notability, even though the merge discussion doesn't suggest there is a problem with notability, only with volume (size) of the article (notability was mentioned but only as an outline of what the options are, not as a criticism of the article's notability). Then you objected because the references don't actually refer to the book, even though all of them do except one. Then you objected because reviews don't count as notability, even though it's obvious they do to anyone who's read the notability guidelines. Now you object for another reason. If you have a more fundamental objection to the article you should vocalise whatever it is, so it can be assessed. If you still don't think it's notable after reading the references just nominate it for deletion and let a wider audience decide. Brumski (talk) 13:19, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: You seem not to have noticed that the article has changed since the start of the merge discussions. The article is now only about the book rather than about what is now in Lady tasting tea. You like to use the word "object" whereas I have only asked whether anyone thinks this book is notable. If I have objected to anything, it is to your incomplete and misleading quotation from what is required for "notability" to apply. It seems that, after being prompted, you have now actually said that you do think that the book is notable. Melcombe (talk) 09:08, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  Apologies, the previous comment was too blunt. The merge discussions above (Feb 06 - Apr 10) are about the book and not about the separate Lady tasting tea article that was created later on (Mar 10). I have believed the book is notable enough to have an article ever since the edits when I added the references and other material. I didn't explicitly state at the time that I thought the book was notable as I regarded it as self evident that if I added multiple references, an infobox and an image that I must believe it's notable. As for my short quotation of the notability guidelines, that isn't meant to mislead; it deliberately only quotes the relevant part of what the notability guidelines say about reviews because it was only meant to illustrate that reviews count towards notability (at the time I thought you were saying reviews didn't count because you wrote they are simple book reviews but still no indication of importance; perhaps I misunderstood you though). In any case, if you don't think the article is notable, just nominate it for deletion. Alternatively you could re-add the notability tag (I removed it because I believed notability was established by the references but I don't particularly object to you re-adding it) but really, if you still don't believe the book is notable a couple of months after adding the notability tag and after reading the references it seems more logical for you to nominate it for deletion, or start another merge discussion if you want to save the material and believe it belongs in another article Brumski (talk) 23:20, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notability 

message: Article should probably have some other perspective on the book than a quotation from the publisher....
Crasshopper (talk) 20:28, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  publisher