That's odd, because you're also the one merely saying that "it's compliant".
No.
I have said it has RSs. You have not disputed this. Oh wait, you have:
OK, cool, he writes fanfiction. Doesn't belong here, though. (WP:RS, WP:V, WP:ROC)
Care to justify that one? How do V and RS apply when I have supplied V and RS, hm?
I have said that the writings of a writer are germane to a bio article about that writer. You have not disputed this, unless this meaningless edit summary is supposed to:
"The writings of a writer" is a bit generousm wouldn't you say?
I have no idea how to charitably interpret this in any sane fashion, besid...
For the last few weeks, I have been engaged in a slow motion edit war on the Wikipedia Eliezer Yudkowsky article, about including discussion of HP:MoR. The specific text being removed, to my eyes, well-sourced and germane to the article. But it may be that only 2 reviews of it is not enough and the other editor will respite if I can add in another RS or two.
Of course, I don't know of any besides the ones I have. That's where you all come in. What can I add to bolster the case for inclusion?
(If this seems trivial to you, I will note that the WP article gets around 2000 readers a month, and will continue to do so indefinitely; the WP article is also ranked #3-4 in Google for "Eliezer Yudkowsky". My impression is also that people reading WP articles tend to be 'high-quality' visitors, who spend time reading it and whose opinions are molded by it. At least, I've noticed this with Evangelion articles - points and quotes I've spent time referencing and highlighting tend to show up in reviews and other mainstream coverage...)