{{Quote|"Non-trivial" excludes personal websites, blogs, bulletin boards, Usenet posts, wikis and other media that are not themselves reliable. An analysis of the manner of treatment is crucial as well; Slashdot.org for example is reliable, but postings to that site by members of the public on a subject do not share the site's imprimatur.|Notability Guidelines|[[WP:NBOOK]]}}
WHERE DOES THIS DEFINITION SAY IT EXCLUDES NORMAL PUBLISHED BOOKS e.g. David Wilcock's New York Times bestseller?!>?!?>!?!?!!??!?!
YOU *****!
TEXTUAL
MOTHERFUCKING
FACTS
NOT SCIENTIFIC FACTS. THE ARTICLE IS ABOUT WHAT THE BOOK SAYS JUST LIKE HOW THE ARTICLE ON THE BIBLE TALKS ABOUT JESUS DOING MIRACLES. IT'S NOT AN OPINION THAT JESUS IN THE BIBLE PERFORMED MIRACLES. IT'S A TEXTUAL MOTHERFUCKING FACT.
WHERE DOES THIS DEFINITION SAY IT EXCLUDES NORMAL PUBLISHED BOOKS e.g. David Wilcock's New York Times bestseller?!>?!?>!?!?!!??!?!
YOU *****!
(06-15-2014, 12:41 AM)Adonai One Wrote: If the article listed subjective interpretations of the books as opinions and not as fact, I would consider the article tolerable in its existence and not misleading. That is what I meant.
TEXTUAL
MOTHERFUCKING
FACTS
NOT SCIENTIFIC FACTS. THE ARTICLE IS ABOUT WHAT THE BOOK SAYS JUST LIKE HOW THE ARTICLE ON THE BIBLE TALKS ABOUT JESUS DOING MIRACLES. IT'S NOT AN OPINION THAT JESUS IN THE BIBLE PERFORMED MIRACLES. IT'S A TEXTUAL MOTHERFUCKING FACT.
![[+]](https://www.bring4th.org/forums/images/collapse_collapsed.png)