This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||
|
Time to make the page, already. DavidHobby ( talk) 13:25, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
This page should not be speedy deleted because it is a stub. Given the controversy about Rule 34, you can't expect me to type a long article, only to have it deleted. -- DavidHobby ( talk) 13:30, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
I just reverted an edit that mentioned a negative "review" by Christopher Priest. I'm agnostic on whether book articles should even mention reviews, but that's a separate issue. The Priest review was unsourced. If the source is what I think it is, that would hardly qualify as a review. At the time, it was described more as an "amazing rant"? DavidHobby ( talk) 03:22, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
Rule 34 of "Rule 34"? Requesting links. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.210.9.178 ( talk) 12:55, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||
|
Time to make the page, already. DavidHobby ( talk) 13:25, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
This page should not be speedy deleted because it is a stub. Given the controversy about Rule 34, you can't expect me to type a long article, only to have it deleted. -- DavidHobby ( talk) 13:30, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
I just reverted an edit that mentioned a negative "review" by Christopher Priest. I'm agnostic on whether book articles should even mention reviews, but that's a separate issue. The Priest review was unsourced. If the source is what I think it is, that would hardly qualify as a review. At the time, it was described more as an "amazing rant"? DavidHobby ( talk) 03:22, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
Rule 34 of "Rule 34"? Requesting links. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.210.9.178 ( talk) 12:55, 28 June 2013 (UTC)