The result was no consensus. -- Black Falcon ( Talk) 20:08, 10 June 2007 (UTC) reply
The Article fails to meet any of the criteria outlined in Wikipedia:Notability (books). It could also be viewed as advertising and promoting non-notable material, as outlined by Wikipedia articles must not be vehicles for advertisement . The are many books like this on the subject, and this dose not raise anything new which has not already been covered. There are many notable books on the subject, and this is not one of them.-- Domer48 20:18, 4 June 2007 (UTC) reply
Re
Wikipedia:Notability (books).
The "subject" of a work means non-trivial treatment and excludes mere mention of the book, its author or of its publication, price listings and other nonsubstantive detail treatment.
"Non-trivial" excludes personal websites, blogs, bulletin boards, Usenet posts, wikis and other media that are not themselves notable. An analysis of the manner of treatment is crucial as well; Slashdot.org for example is notable, but postings to that site by members of the public on a subject do not share the site's imprimatur. Be careful to check that the author, publisher, agent, vendor. etc. of a particular book are in no way interested in any third party source.
The Socialist Review, is by and large a commentary on the Famine, and not on the book, at no time in the review dose it suggest that the information is notable, only that it is useful. In addition, a posting on Socialist Worker web sites, are not themselves notable. And is addressed by "subject" and "Non-trivial" in the criteria on Wikipedia:Notability (books)
New Statesman’s review dose not suggest the books notability, and is by and large a commerical web site. The review in fact consintrates on the author and not on the book. This again is addressed by "subject" and "Non-trivial" in the criteria on Wikipedia:Notability (books)
America, the Catholic weekly Magizine published by the Jesuits. The reviwer talks more about the author and quite clearly states that this book will not create so much as a “wrinkle” into the Famine debate. And again, I would suggest that this review could not be described as having satisafied the criteria laid out under the Wikipedia:Notability (books)
As for commercial book sites, they would definitely not constitute as being “no-trivial”.
Regards -- Domer48 20:46, 6 June 2007 (UTC) reply
Comment: There are a vast number of books on the Irish Famine, for example, a 20sec search on Addall.com (A book site) can bring up over 40 titles. There are a number of Notable titles, in this genre, such as The Great Hunger, by Cecil Woodham-Smith, Irelands Great Famine, by Cormac O Grada, and Ireland Since the Famine, by F.S.L. Lyons. As examples, the reason I mention them, is that they are cited so often in later publications. Examples of this can be found in such publications as The Great Calamity, by Christine Kinealy, The Great Shame, by Thomas Keneally, and Paddy’s Lament, by Thomas Gallagher. It is this fact, which establishes their Notability. This book has not established itself any Notability. And has not been the subject of “multiple” “non-trivial” publications such as I have outlined above. (I have a number of books related to the subject, in addition to those mentioned above and have included some here [3] and here [4] ) Regards-- Domer48 09:08, 7 June 2007 (UTC) reply
Since the only critira that is been suggested being No.1, as outlined in Wikipedia:Notability (books), can I assume that it has been conceeded that the following points, have been despenced with, and that the book dose not meet any of the criteria mentioned below?
Again, I will ask the question, what makes this book notable? I assume that editors have read it, and / or are familiar with the subject?
Paxse I have addressd your comments on your talk page, so as not to disrupt this discussion.-- Domer48 16:29, 7 June 2007 (UTC) reply
Regards -- Domer48 19:37, 7 June 2007 (UTC) reply
The reviews in these publications are in-depth and provide a wealth of information to expand the article beyond a mere plot summary (even if this were a work of fiction?). Their authors are 'generally regarded as trustworthy' as these are mainstream, well-known publications. They are authorative reviewers of publications. To suggest that these publications are somehow 'trivial' is just not on Kernel Saunters 12:29, 9 June 2007 (UTC) reply
The Socialist Review, is by and large a commentary on the Famine, and not on the book, at no time in the review dose it suggest that the information is notable, only that it is useful. In addition, a posting on Socialist Worker web sites, are not themselves notable. And is addressed by "subject" and "Non-trivial" in the criteria on Wikipedia:Notability (books)
New Statesman’s review dose not suggest the books notability, and is by and large a commerical web site. The review in fact consintrates on the author and not on the book. This again is addressed by "subject" and "Non-trivial" in the criteria on Wikipedia:Notability (books)
The Spectator review is by Kevin Myres, who writes opinion articles. As such, he gives his opinions on the subject, and as an aside mentions the book only in his conclusion. There is no critical commentary, and Kevin Myres is not an authoritative opinion in relation to the subject at hand.
Which of the sources provided do you consider "authoritative." And are we down to just these 3. In addition, is it your opinion once a book, any book has been reviewed it should be in Wikipedia. Regards -- Domer48 13:04, 9 June 2007 (UTC) reply
These reviews are nothing more than that, simple, plain reviews. The contain no critical commentary what so ever. This book has no satisfied the criteria at all. The book is not notable. I have illustrated the nature and content of the reviews and you have singularly failed to address my comments, and have been unable to establish this books notability. To answer your question, read my comments. Regards -- Domer48 14:06, 9 June 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. -- Black Falcon ( Talk) 20:08, 10 June 2007 (UTC) reply
The Article fails to meet any of the criteria outlined in Wikipedia:Notability (books). It could also be viewed as advertising and promoting non-notable material, as outlined by Wikipedia articles must not be vehicles for advertisement . The are many books like this on the subject, and this dose not raise anything new which has not already been covered. There are many notable books on the subject, and this is not one of them.-- Domer48 20:18, 4 June 2007 (UTC) reply
Re
Wikipedia:Notability (books).
The "subject" of a work means non-trivial treatment and excludes mere mention of the book, its author or of its publication, price listings and other nonsubstantive detail treatment.
"Non-trivial" excludes personal websites, blogs, bulletin boards, Usenet posts, wikis and other media that are not themselves notable. An analysis of the manner of treatment is crucial as well; Slashdot.org for example is notable, but postings to that site by members of the public on a subject do not share the site's imprimatur. Be careful to check that the author, publisher, agent, vendor. etc. of a particular book are in no way interested in any third party source.
The Socialist Review, is by and large a commentary on the Famine, and not on the book, at no time in the review dose it suggest that the information is notable, only that it is useful. In addition, a posting on Socialist Worker web sites, are not themselves notable. And is addressed by "subject" and "Non-trivial" in the criteria on Wikipedia:Notability (books)
New Statesman’s review dose not suggest the books notability, and is by and large a commerical web site. The review in fact consintrates on the author and not on the book. This again is addressed by "subject" and "Non-trivial" in the criteria on Wikipedia:Notability (books)
America, the Catholic weekly Magizine published by the Jesuits. The reviwer talks more about the author and quite clearly states that this book will not create so much as a “wrinkle” into the Famine debate. And again, I would suggest that this review could not be described as having satisafied the criteria laid out under the Wikipedia:Notability (books)
As for commercial book sites, they would definitely not constitute as being “no-trivial”.
Regards -- Domer48 20:46, 6 June 2007 (UTC) reply
Comment: There are a vast number of books on the Irish Famine, for example, a 20sec search on Addall.com (A book site) can bring up over 40 titles. There are a number of Notable titles, in this genre, such as The Great Hunger, by Cecil Woodham-Smith, Irelands Great Famine, by Cormac O Grada, and Ireland Since the Famine, by F.S.L. Lyons. As examples, the reason I mention them, is that they are cited so often in later publications. Examples of this can be found in such publications as The Great Calamity, by Christine Kinealy, The Great Shame, by Thomas Keneally, and Paddy’s Lament, by Thomas Gallagher. It is this fact, which establishes their Notability. This book has not established itself any Notability. And has not been the subject of “multiple” “non-trivial” publications such as I have outlined above. (I have a number of books related to the subject, in addition to those mentioned above and have included some here [3] and here [4] ) Regards-- Domer48 09:08, 7 June 2007 (UTC) reply
Since the only critira that is been suggested being No.1, as outlined in Wikipedia:Notability (books), can I assume that it has been conceeded that the following points, have been despenced with, and that the book dose not meet any of the criteria mentioned below?
Again, I will ask the question, what makes this book notable? I assume that editors have read it, and / or are familiar with the subject?
Paxse I have addressd your comments on your talk page, so as not to disrupt this discussion.-- Domer48 16:29, 7 June 2007 (UTC) reply
Regards -- Domer48 19:37, 7 June 2007 (UTC) reply
The reviews in these publications are in-depth and provide a wealth of information to expand the article beyond a mere plot summary (even if this were a work of fiction?). Their authors are 'generally regarded as trustworthy' as these are mainstream, well-known publications. They are authorative reviewers of publications. To suggest that these publications are somehow 'trivial' is just not on Kernel Saunters 12:29, 9 June 2007 (UTC) reply
The Socialist Review, is by and large a commentary on the Famine, and not on the book, at no time in the review dose it suggest that the information is notable, only that it is useful. In addition, a posting on Socialist Worker web sites, are not themselves notable. And is addressed by "subject" and "Non-trivial" in the criteria on Wikipedia:Notability (books)
New Statesman’s review dose not suggest the books notability, and is by and large a commerical web site. The review in fact consintrates on the author and not on the book. This again is addressed by "subject" and "Non-trivial" in the criteria on Wikipedia:Notability (books)
The Spectator review is by Kevin Myres, who writes opinion articles. As such, he gives his opinions on the subject, and as an aside mentions the book only in his conclusion. There is no critical commentary, and Kevin Myres is not an authoritative opinion in relation to the subject at hand.
Which of the sources provided do you consider "authoritative." And are we down to just these 3. In addition, is it your opinion once a book, any book has been reviewed it should be in Wikipedia. Regards -- Domer48 13:04, 9 June 2007 (UTC) reply
These reviews are nothing more than that, simple, plain reviews. The contain no critical commentary what so ever. This book has no satisfied the criteria at all. The book is not notable. I have illustrated the nature and content of the reviews and you have singularly failed to address my comments, and have been unable to establish this books notability. To answer your question, read my comments. Regards -- Domer48 14:06, 9 June 2007 (UTC) reply