Talk:Let Time Pass

	Novels portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Novels, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to novels, novellas, novelettes and short stories on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.NovelsWikipedia:WikiProject NovelsTemplate:WikiProject Novelsnovel articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Denmark Low‑importance

	Denmark portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Denmark, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Denmark on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DenmarkWikipedia:WikiProject DenmarkTemplate:WikiProject DenmarkDenmark articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Untitled

I may be biased (as the author of this article) but what reasons should there be for NOT having an article on Wikipedia for a book by one of the most important Danish writers of the 20th century?--Kazhe 11:07, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing in this article to indicate that this is an important Danish writer. No reliable sources, for example. Pretend I'm not Danish, and make it clearer how this book is notable. -FisherQueen (Talk) 11:14, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't it presumed that if something is on Wikipedia, it is important without signifying it again? Would writing "a novel by important Danish writer Svend Aage Madsen" make it sound more reliable? As for references, there isn't much about this book found in English and I don't know Danish, so I can't find much info about it (I read the book in a Latvian translation), but I can certainly add some text to the page apart from the Plot description part that could somehow make it sound more reliable. Still I think that the problem mostly is not in this article but in the article about Madsen which also isn't very good and doesn't clarify his importance. --Kazhe 11:36, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is no presumption of notability just because someone has written an article. You must make the assertion that the subject is notable. That will prevent it from being deleted speedily. But you must also provide the necessary sources to prove that assertion. Otherwise someone may add the article to the AfD list for deletion after community discussion. You might familiarize yourself with our policies, especially WP:V, WP:N and WP:RS. Read these and it should be clearer what is needed. Let me know if I can help. --JodyB_{yak, yak, yak} 11:46, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry - I had such a wrong impression because everytime when I wrote about anything that it was important on the Latvian version of Wikipedia, I had the administrators commenting that no unimportant stuff is on Wikipedia, so it is just a waste of space. Anyway I've added a couple of references and slightly updated the description in the page of Svend Aage Madsen (because according to my understanding of the question if a work has been written by an important author, the work itself must be also at least semi-significant).--Kazhe 12:08, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I will try to find some reliable sources though.--Kazhe 11:38, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So in brief words why this article is important:

1) important author

2) novel of original form combining philosophy and mathematics (will be added in the article)--Kazhe 12:41, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since this week I'll have no more time I'll get back to this article next Monday by when I hope to have some additional materials on Madsen. I hope the article won't be deleted by then.--Kazhe 14:11, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've declined the speedy request. First of all, "books" are not a category of articles included under WP:CSD#A7. Second, the above is a perfectly adequate start at an explanation. If someone still feels this needs to be deleted, please use WP:AFD. Thanks. Mango juice^talk 17:25, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Let Time Flow cover.jpg

Image:Let Time Flow cover.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 14:41, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Let Time Pass. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:00, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]