Talk:Introduction to Lattices and Order

	Mathematics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mathematics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of mathematics 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.MathematicsWikipedia:WikiProject MathematicsTemplate:WikiProject Mathematicsmathematics
???	This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's priority scale.

Why this particular book?

I am sure this is a very fine book, but I am wondering if this article really belongs in Wikipedia. It reads like an advertisement for one particular book that the wikipedia page creator liked. But there are thousands of mathematics books out there. Usually we don't have a separate article for each one of them, it would be impossible to do. More importantly, Wikipedia is not meant to be a compendium of reviews of mathematical books. One can understand a separate page for really classical ones of great historical interest, like Newton's Principia or Hardy and Wright's Introduction to the theory of Numbers, etc. But I am not sure of the rationale of this particular one (or others even more recent like Using the Borsuk–Ulam Theorem, coincidently by the same wikipedia author, etc).

The section "audience and reception" is blatant advertisement. Why quote all these reviewers saying the book is so wonderful? And that the diagrams are well done (big deal, these are hundreds of books with good diagrams without the need to say so.) Again, I have not read or seen that book, and I don't doubt it's a wonderful book to learn from. Just that this article seems out of place. PatrickR2 (talk) 06:01, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It is notable because it has multiple in-depth published sources directly about it. See WP:GNG. Two published reviews might barely pass GNG, but three would be my minimum for creating an article. This one has double that many. If you think other books are more worthy of attention, find the reviews for them and write an article; your failure to do so is not my problem. As for the "audience and reception" section, it merely reports what those sources say. If there had been negative reviews I would have quoted them as well, as I have done for other books. I included the reviews that I included because they were all the published reviews that I could find, not because they were particularly positive. As for "coincidently by the same wikipedia author": your failure of WP:AGF is noted, and concerning. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:29, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]