![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 |
There is a discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Notability requirements for reference books and other reference materials to develop notability guidelines for reference works. Maurreen ( talk) 07:04, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
I propose to revise this language in criterion #3:
notable motion picture, or other art form, or event or political or religious movement
as follows:
notable work of art, event, social movement, or field of endeavor
Besides tightening up the dodgy grammar, this subsumes the redundant "motion picture" in the category that encompasses it, "work of art", merges and generalizes "political or religious movement" into "social movement" rather than specially privileging politics and religion, and adds "field of endeavor". This last, I want to include because, without getting into tedious debates about what's "art" and what's not, it seems clear to me that the contribution to and impact on the world represented by, for example, The Art of Computer Programming far exceeds that represented by a novel being adapted as a movie. (This isn't to say that TAoCP doesn't easily pass other criteria, but it should be a no-brainer for criterion #3 as well.) Thoughts? — chaos5023 ( talk) 11:21, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
How's that look? — chaos5023 ( talk) 14:08, 7 May 2010 (UTC)notable motion picture, other work of art, event, social movement, or field of endeavor
Done —
chaos5023 (
talk)
16:12, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
How to handle unreferenced one or two line stubs of book articles? Should they simply be turned into a redirect to the author? (See also this discussion) Toshio Yamaguchi ( talk) 16:12, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
This criterion appears here:
Somewhat strangely, this got cited at this page, discussing the unorthodox book Elementary Calculus: An Infinitesimal Approach by H. Jerome Keisler. The book caused a stir in the '70s and still gets some attention today. Even now, it may be the only book that attempts to bring to the first-year undergraduate level the results of Abraham Robinson's work. The phrase "at least some of these works serving a general audience" seems to be cited outside the context in which such a thing could be appropriate. This is not a novel; its purposes are quite different from those of a work of fiction.
I think this criterion should get qualified further, in the interest of sanity. Michael Hardy ( talk) 20:22, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
I have deleted the "with at least some of these works serving a general audience" part. As pointed out above and in other discussion on specialized books, that criterion wss ignored in AfDs for those types of books. The recent crop of Perl books, all of which are kept, is another set of examples. Geekipedia wins. FuFoFuEd ( talk) 11:07, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
I also disagree with this clause, as it seems (to me) to contradict the GNG. I've removed it from the main list of criteria. Ozob ( talk) 10:37, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
Having recently been involved in two recent Articles for Deletion that involved books, and having had good reason to read the Notability (books) section from top to bottom, I can state un-categorically that it is a complete and utter mess.
I'm a writer and publisher. No, I'm not as big as Random House, but I know a fair amount about the industry, and where it is going. The current section is a great 20th Century Notability (books) section. It's a disaster for the 21st century, which when I look at my last bank statement, was the century we are living in.
We have a choice. We either fix it. Or we leave a mess behind us, and keep having problems. UrbanTerrorist ( talk) 05:27, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
This page in a nutshell: A book is generally notable if it verifiably meets through reliable sources, one or more of the following criteria:
The book has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the book itself.
- This entire sentence is useless. J.K. Rowling has become her own publisher. I'm my own publisher, as well as publishing other people, i.e. I'm supplying them ISBNs. Writers either publish themselves, or have a friend be the publisher of record. Exceptions are people like Amanda Hocking who the publishers were willing to toss money at.
This includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries and reviews. Some of these works should contain sufficient critical commentary to allow the article to grow past a simple plot summary. This excludes media re-prints of press releases, flap copy, or other publications where the author, its publisher, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the book.
- This paragraph is mostly OK, it needs minor tweaking to include audio (radio, podcasts), and clean up the definition of the excludes so that it is clearer that the excludes only cover First and Second party material, that they don't cover third party (i.e. press interviews), I recently saw a fight break out over a press interview where several editors took this to mean that since the interview included the writer that it should be excluded.
The book has won a major literary award.
- Perfectly clear.
The book has been considered by reliable sources to have made a significant contribution to a notable motion picture, or other art form, or event or political or religious movement.
- Total disaster. There is a battle going on right now in Wikipedia over what is a reliable source. I for one do not regard IMDB as a reliable source (the information is supplied by industry). There is no agreement anywhere on Wikipedia as to what a "Reliable Source" is. Some people regard my website as a reliable source, some don't. I know it is cited on Wikipedia in a couple of places. People who were at one time were considered reliable sources later ended up serving jail sentences, like Alan Eagleson.
The book is the subject of instruction at multiple elementary schools, secondary schools, colleges/universities or post-graduate programs in any particular country.
- This is impossible to document.
The book's author is so historically significant that any of his or her written works may be considered notable. This does not simply mean that the book's author is him/herself notable by Wikipedia's standards; rather, the book's author is of exceptional significance and the author's life and body of work would be a common study subject in literature classes.
- This paragraph is nonsensical. Any writer who's body of work "would be a common study subject in literature classes" would also be notable by Wikipedia's standards.
I'll try to finish the rest tomorrow. — Preceding unsigned comment added by UrbanTerrorist ( talk • contribs) 15:52, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
Since this has once again come up in yet another AFD, where a group of bestselling novels was nominated for deletion, and I don't recall it being discussed here in quite a while, figured I'd bring it up.
Albums are considered notable if they are a gold record. I see no reason why books wouldn't be also. Not every book gets reviews, even those selling millions of confirmed copies. Some genres of books aren't reviewed often at all. So we can't just rely on reviews to establish notability.
How many would like like being on the New York Times bestseller's list, or any other list deemed equally trustworthy, to equal instant proof of notability?
Strong oppose -- The books need to have significant coverage in multiple reliable sources, not simply be listed, as that won't make for a good article.-- Yaksar (let's chat) 00:15, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
This page appears to provide little guidance for books outside the field of literature. I'm not sure how to evaluate Smart Inventory Solutions against this guideline, for instance. Have mörser, will travel ( talk) 12:10, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
Reading the following and its footnotes:
The criterion excludes "media re-prints of press releases" which I take to refer to these one-paragraph press releases one sees on news.yahoo.com or Reuters along the lines of "Sharlotte Donte has told the gripping story of two hostages in a Tesco. The book will be released by McMaw-Jill."
But how far does the concept of a "press release" go? If the New York Review of Books decides to talk about a new book -- does that make it notable? Or is that just another form of press release? We can't be sure to what degree the choice is editorial and to what degree large publishers have deals with major publications to *make sure* what they put out achieves notability.
I also don't like the exclusion of personal blogs. If some literati regularly reviews books on her blog, why does that become less significant than e.g. this article in Slate -- clearly a piece promoting Frank's book? For example Cosma Shalizi reviews books on his personal blog. But I would consider any member of that list to be a notable book (worth knowing about).
Crasshopper ( talk) 17:38, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
Hi. I've just made some corrections and additions to The Primordial Emotions: The Dawning of Consciousness. The article has a notability template. Could I please have some opinions as to whether it passes muster? I've listed reviews from the Times of London and two academic journals on the article's talk page, and it's been cited 50 times in academic journals. The article's been viewed 64 times in the last 30 days. 'neath the wings ( talk) 17:53, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. I've removed the notability notice for now. 'neath the wings ( talk) 11:52, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
BKCRIT 3 states, "The book has been considered by reliable sources to have made a significant contribution to a notable motion picture, or other art form, or event or political or religious movement." Why not include social and cultural movement also? -- SupernovaExplosion Talk 00:10, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
Why only literature classes? (Point #5 of WP:BKCRIT.) Surely this attaches a greater assumed importance to authors of fiction than to authors of, for instance, philosophy (whose work is taught in philosophy classes)? – Arms & Hearts ( talk) 21:17, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
OK... the above RfC was closed with the comment that while the specific wording of the proposal did not have consensus, there was a narrow consensus that the guideline should say something about Best Sellers... and that we should continue the discussion. So let's discuss.
I agree with the closer, the guideline should say something about best sellers (if only to address a perennial question). Our job is, therefor, to reach a consensus (or at least attempt to do so) on what to say. Blueboar ( talk) 12:48, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
A new Request for Comment has been created in regard to expanding the A9 speedy deletion criterion to also include books. Please comment at the CSD criteria talk page. Thanks! — Theopolisme ( talk) 16:01, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
For future reference: [3] The WSJ just put out an article about buying your way onto, ironically, the WSJ's bestseller list. Given that these lists are gamed, should we put a caution against using them in the guideline? Ray Talk 18:39, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
A nutshell is supposed to be a concise summary to make Wikipedia more inviting to new users. There's other criteria listed at nutshell. The current Notability (books) nutshell [4] seems too complex and does not meet that listed nutshell criteria. The current nutshell should be replace with something like:
A book generally may be treated in a standalone article if it received reviews with enough coverage to allow the article to grow past a simple plot summary and/or received enough reliable source coverage about something other than a review of the book (award, turned into a movie, usage such as by a movement, school, other writers, etc.).
Other than review of the book and cites by others to passages in the book, what else is there? For films and music, people can have a jointly shared experience which reliable sources can write about. Books are different in that reactions are individual, not part of an audience in theater or concert hall, and reliable sources are not going to write about any one individual reaction to a book. Also, unlike films and music, the creation of the book is individual and not something reliable sources generally are going to write about. A few reviews from when the book is first published and perhaps some other reliable source coverage of the book a year or several years later about something other than a review of the book (award, turned into a movie, usage such as by a movement, school, other writers, etc.) essentially is what the reilable sources will provide as source information for a book topic. Citations of passages in the book by others is covered in 'usage by other writers' part of the above proposed nutshell. The book's author being so historically significant is an exception that does not need to be covered in the nutshell other than in the "etc." part.-- Uzma Gamal ( talk) 11:50, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
Is a book inherently not notable if the author doesn't have an article? Ryan Vesey Review me! 17:12, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
No, it is not inherently not notable. James500 ( talk) 18:38, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
There are a couple of current AfDs on audio dramas: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zagreus (audio drama), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tales from the Vault, both by the same publisher. These are not radio broadcasts, but straight-to-CD audio dramas. They're a bit like audiobooks, but more dramatised, with a (small) cast. So, they're not covered by any subject-specific notability guidelines, but I wondered if the good people here had any ideas/thoughts on notability criteria for audiobooks or audio dramas more generally? Should the book criteria be expanded to cover audiobooks? Bondegezou ( talk) 15:09, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
As it is now all of the criteria except 1 are redundant since the definition of "coverage" is so vague any book that fulfills criteria 2-5 automatically also fulfills criteria 1. Pretty much any book that is published by a major publishing house or press, and even most of thos published by small presses are the subject of at least one or two reviews. Does this mean that all non-selfpublished books are notable? I don't think it should. We ought to define "coverage" in a way so that the requirement is not fulfilled simply by a couple of published reviews and a publishers press notice. I'd suggest to define "significant coverage" not to include those reviews that are essentially evaluations of a recent publication, significant reviews should be those that evaluate the books impact sometime after publication, or which evidences an actual debate about the book between reviewers. Reviews that are simply "New book out, read it, I (didn't) like it" should not be considered significant coverage as this is simply to be expected for any book, and does not show or promise that the book has had any impact whatsoever. ·ʍaunus· snunɐw· 13:24, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
I do not think that that is a good idea. If I look at an article on a textbook, I am not primarily interested in its long term "impact". I am primarily interested in its utility. I don't think that your proposal it is compatible with NOT TEMP either. James500 ( talk) 18:36, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
All serious scholarly literature is "worthy of notice" for being what it is. It is also very important to what we do here.
The Open Library is not trying to produce an encyclopedia article for every book. Their web pages are more like catalogue entries. They don't contain critical commentary. They don't evaluate the book's merits. They don't try to compile or summarize the opinions expressed in published reviews. In any event, I have been told that the Wikimedia community has monopolistic intentions, so we presumably are interested in "doing the job" of any non-WIkimedia website.
The purpose of notability guidelines is to prevent people from writing articles about their pets and things like that. It is not to enforce some elitist notion that we should only include the top 0.1% (or whatever) of textbooks simply for the sake of excluding anything that isn't sufficiently elite according to some completely arbitrary standard.
If I cite a book as a source in a Wikipedia article I need, if possible, to be able to link that citation to a Wikipedia article that provides an evaluation of the merits of that book. This is very important to provide context. Our readers want and need to know why they should believe what that book says. A link to a Wikipedia article compiling reviews of that book is the most effective way to explain that.
Articles compiling reviews of textbooks are also necessary to assist our editors in deciding what sources to use. Conducting a direct search takes too long. The information needs to be summarized somewhere readily accesible.
In any event, deletionism is said to be the cause of the decline in the number of editors. That being the case, the last thing we should do now is make the notability guidelines more restrictive simply for the sake of doing so. James500 ( talk) 16:45, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
I should also say that if a book has received two (reliable and independent) reviews that are of reasonable length, it will satisfy GNG anyway. Criteria 1 is a restatement of GNG. Any difference between them is very slight. James500 ( talk) 09:29, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
See also Wikipedia:Articles on sources. James500 ( talk) 10:09, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
Maybe this has been hashed out to death elsewhere; if so, feel free to direct me there. I'm just curious - why require that a book be notable at all? In other words, what exactly is the downside of keeping an article about some obscure book that maybe only one person cares about? Those who don't care about it will never see it, and the one who does will be satisfied. Obvious self-promotion by authors could still be discouraged without going to extra effort to actually delete articles about older books that are clearly not examples of self-promotion. Yeah, I realize this same argument could be made about other subjects, and why not? Thanks for any feedback! Branchc ( talk) 18:56, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
Having giveful the matter consideration over a long period of time, I recommend removing the word "multiple" from criteria 1 as it appears to serve no useful purpose whatsoever. It does not affect our ability to write an adequate article. I don't believe it indicates that a book is significantly more important. James500 ( talk) 19:22, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
Sources suggesting that the historical value or importance of literary works increases with age: [5] [6] [7] [8]. Certain public records enactments are apparently also based on this idea. James500 ( talk) 01:37, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
According to PC World, ISBNs tend only to be used in Western countries: [9]. I intend to modify the threshold standards so that the requirement for an ISBN applies only to countries where ISBNs are normally used. It is clear to me the present standards were based on an erroneous assumption that ISBNs were a worldwide phenomenon. James500 ( talk) 14:43, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
The standards presently refer to a book being available at a dozen or more libraries. The problem is that libraries are selling and throwing books away all the time. Even University libraries are doing this. A book available at a dozen libraries today might not be in the future. This conflicts with the principle that notability is not temporary (WP:NTEMP). I intend to modify the requirement so that it does not refer to present holdings. If it is not possible to verify past holdings, this requirement will have to be omitted altogether. James500 ( talk) 20:27, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
I know of a novel regarding which I have found one long review, one case study chapter, two page review/discussion in a chapter, and frequent mention/discussion in two doctoral theses (including one dedicated chapter). Theses are traditionally described as "unpublished", but this is only true in the sense that they have not been subject to the usual independent peer review process. With rare exceptions, theses are "published" in the sense that they are available, and nowadays are typically on-line (including the two I've referred to). Citing them has certainly been a long accepted practice in academic studies.
My question is whether doctoral theses count towards book notability? Choor monster ( talk) 12:22, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
I have been attempting to add articles for some novels and their notability has been called into question by another user. The series in question has sold millions of copies (see citation in article), is popular amongst readers of Fantasy (anecdotal, citation needed), and is published by two of the largest publishers of science fiction and fantasy in the world ( Tor, Bantam). As of yesterday, twelve of the seventeen novels contained individual articles and I attempted do some good and create articles for the remaining five. Another user ( Deb) has repeatedly called the notability of the novels into question and has redirected many of them to the article for the series. My main issue here is that the criteria for establishing notability of a book, as currently stated, is prohibitively strict, subjective, and vague. The criteria listed seem rather strict and I can think of a number of novels which currently have articles that do not meet these requirements. However, it goes on to say that these are rules of thumb and implies that some other sort of criteria can presumably be used to establish notability. Consider The Wheel of Time, another popular series also published by Tor. It currently meets none of the criteria stated in this article, despite selling somewhere in the league of 50 million copies and being considered by many a staple of modern fantasy. It was nominated for a Hugo award (which may be considered a major literary award), which it did not win, and prior to that nomination had never won any other literary awards. Yet apparently someone thought it notable enough to warrant a main series article, an individual article for each of its fifteen books, an article for its fictional geography, etc.
Back to my main point, someone presumably previously thought that other novels in the series I have been modifying were notable enough to warrant individual articles, but now that more are being added (since more have been published) another user disagrees. This tells me that the current criteria leave too much to interpretation. It seems odd that Wikipedia would fail to acknowledge a series that has sold millions of copies and is published by a major publisher as notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Knmorgan08 ( talk • contribs) 13:20, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
I agree that the present criteria are too strict. In my view the first step is to delete the word "multiple" from criteria 1 as it serves no useful purpose whatsoever. Additional criteria relating to the level of sales and the publisher might be a good idea. James500 ( talk) 14:56, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
Can we come to a consensus on this? The following criteria have been suggested.
There has been very little administrative feedback on these proposed criteria thus far. Knmorgan08 ( talk) 12:39, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia has long treated self-published like radiation. It appears reality may be passing by, within a year or two, there will be more self-published books than otherwise. There may need to be some sort of mechanism for dealing with the reality of the market. I have personally seen self published non-fiction that is serious and well done. I have seen traditional published non-fiction that is full of errors and even fabrications. The idea that one is inherently better than the other is a weak argument. In the past it wasn't a big deal because self-published was a small market, now it's becoming the majority market, at least in number of titles. -- Green Cardamom ( talk) 19:53, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
I second this comment. Bondegezou ( talk) 14:10, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
I third this comment, so to speak. I am part of a growing community of self-published authors who eschew the gated community that is traditional publishing but also recognize the lack of quality that has been the hallmark of many indie authors in the past. Our mantra is "good writing, good editing, good cover design, great books." There is no longer any validity to the reasoning behind Wikipedia's rejection of independent authors. Aaseeger ( talk) 00:57, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
Are plays considered books, if currently being performed in theatres?-- DThomsen8 ( talk) 13:19, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
This guideline says "this guideline does not yet provide specific notability criteria for the following types of publications: comic books; graphic novels (although it does apply to manga)..." Why is there an exception for manga? Richard75 ( talk) 12:53, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
Very few children's books are used as textbooks or the like, but they do form a significant genre. Should children's books which do not have Newbery or Caldecott behind them be allowed to be considered "notable"? What criteria ought be used? Collect ( talk) 16:57, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
That isn't my experience at all. I've not seen a normal book review characterised as trivial. Trivial treatment would be something like a mere citation or listing, or possibly some very, very, very brief discussion. The average book review in an academic journal is certainly not trivial at all. If someone is advancing these sort of nonsense arguments at the moment, the solution is to clarify "non-trivial treatment" so that they simply can't continue to do so. Adding the words "The average periodical book review is not trivial" might suffice. I don't think that "non substantive detail treatment" is even clearly aimed at the length of the review at all. I think it is likely aimed at certain types of information such as size (eg octavo), number of pages, date and place of publication and printing, name of author, publisher and printer, ISBN, price, method of binding (eg paperback; though some old books may be notable for their rebinding if it required particularly innovative techniques), and so forth. The wholepoint of criteria 1 is that two normal book reviews equal notability. James500 ( talk) 18:37, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
I ask to add something like An academic textbook being translated and published from or in two foreign languages is being deemed noteable. Serten 10:26, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
I have a question regarding WP:NBOOK. Point 1 for notability indicates: 'The book has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself. This includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries and reviews. This excludes media re-prints of press releases, flap copy, or other publications where the author, its publisher, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the book' Does this refer to book reviews? This means effectively any book published by a mainstream publisher is entitled to an article... AusLondonder ( talk) 17:04, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
@ User:Nikkimaria: The removal of the section was copy editing. The lead section of this guideline (which reproduces the wording of WP:N exactly) says that if a topic is excluded by WP:NOT (including NOTPLOT), it doesn't get an article. The section headed "Articles that are plot summaries" merely repeats that without adding any additional instructions at all. If you look at WP:N you will notice that it doesn't contain anything like that section because mere repetition serves no useful purpose. I should also point out that edits do not need to be discussed only because they are not copy editing (PGEBOLD). They should only be reverted if there is a substantive objection (eg. I think this change would be harmful because ...). And if you can't think of a substantive objection, the edit has to be allowed to stand. So, why would this change be harmful? I can't think of any reason, since it isn't substantive, and would only change the length of the guideline. James500 ( talk) 15:20, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
There is an RfC on the subject of whether Wikipedia:Notability (publishing) should become a guideline, which is taking place at Wikipedia talk:Notability (publishing)#Should this become a guideline?. James500 ( talk) 19:30, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
There is an RfC on the subject of whether Wikipedia:Notability (history) should become a guideline, which is taking place at Wikipedia talk:Notability (history)#Should this become a guideline?. James500 ( talk) 19:54, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
Over at WP:NAUTHOR I'm trying to have the notability guidelines expanded to make it slightly easier for authors to be included in Wikipedia. The current debate is over whether or not a bestseller list could be used to help establish notability for an author and someone mentioned that it would be something that could/should more apply to NBOOK.
I'm proposing that the guidelines be expanded to allow selected bestseller lists to be used as a reliable source to assert notability. This would be in keeping with policies like the ones for WP:NALBUM and WP:NBAND where placing on a notable music chart can help assert notability for an album/single and/or a performer. This guideline would not include all bestseller lists and would instead apply only to those lists that are consistently referred to by reliable sources. For example, the New York Times Bestseller List is a list that has achieved enough notability to where it has its own article. However there are also others like the USA Today Bestseller List and the Wall Street Journal's Bestseller List that are also very well thought of, enough to where their lists are reprinted in multiple media outlets. I'm not as familiar with foreign language lists, but apparently the bestseller list for Corriere della Sera is fairly well thought of as well.
As with any other source, rankings in places that would not be considered a reliable source (Amazon, social media outlets like Goodreads, blogs, etc) would not be usable. Most of this is because many of these outlets have an almost limitless amount of categories for "bestsellers" and because they're essentially self-published sources because they rely on random user accounts/purchases to judge the rankings. There's no true oversight to these lists.
This would not be used in the exact same way as the chart rankings are for albums in that a bestseller list would only give partial notability akin to how a RS review would only give partial notability. I wouldn't mind it being used as a sign for total notability, but I'd settle for it as something that would give partial notability. If approved, this should also only count for people who have placed within the top 20 spaces of any given list. I'm gauging this by the New York Times lists, which only rank up to the top 20 titles for any given list.
My idea is that this would be added to the first criteria, which would (if approved) read as follows:
The footnote would read as follows:
So that's my proposal. What does everyone think? Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 07:08, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
FULL DISCLOSURE: I was a paid editor on an AfD'd book article, this RfC discussion is not paid.
A recent AfD, ( closed -- latest article article revision here [10]) has revealed that the notability expectations of the community is not represented in NBOOK/NBCRIT. This failure to communicate is likely causing extra work for AfC and AfD and causing new editors to write articles that cannot get published.
My reading of BKCRIT/NBOOK #5 indicates that a thinly referenced book article should fall under the author's notability as a "discriminate collection" in WP:DISCRIMINATE. This was not my experience, the community adds the caveat that the author's notability must be for books.
changes proposed that reflect the information gathered from the AfD in strike/bold
WP:BKCRIT A book is notable if it verifiably meets, through reliable sources, at least one of the following criteria:
- The book has been the subject [1] of two or more non-trivial [2] published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself. [3] This includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries, bestseller lists, [5]
and reviews. Or six professional reviews. This excludes student and college newspapers, [11] media re-prints of press releases, flap copy, or other publications where the author, its publisher, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the book. [4]- ...
- ...
- ...
- The book's author's books are
isso historically significant that any of the author's written works may be considered notable. This does not simply mean that the book's author is notable by Wikipedia's standards; rather, the book's author is of exceptional significance and theauthor's life andbody of written work would be a common subject of academic study.The five preceding criteria do not necessarily apply to books excluded by the threshold standards, and do not apply to books not yet published.
Other considerations
Threshold standards
A book should have, at a minimum, an ISBN (for books published after 1975 in a country where ISBNs are normally used), and should be catalogued by its country of origin's official or de facto national library (if that country has such a national library). For example, in the United States books are catalogued by the Library of Congress; in the United Kingdom at the British Library; in Australia at the National Library of Australia; in Canada at the Library and Archives Canada; in France at the Bibliothèque nationale de France; in Singapore at the National Library Board; in Brazil by the Fundação Biblioteca Nacional; in Argentina at Biblioteca Nacional de la República Argentina; and in India at the National Library of India. For a complete list, see List of national libraries.
Advisory: The current consensus is that WorldCat entries should number in the hundreds for fiction and non-fiction titles.
However, these criteria are exclusionary rather than inclusionary; meeting these threshold standards does not imply that a book is notable, whereas a book which does not meet them, most likely is not. There will be exceptions—books that are notable despite not meeting these threshold standards—but good reasons for the notability of such books should be clear.
- ^ a b 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.
- ^ a b Cite error: The named reference
nontrivial
was invoked but never defined (see the help page).- ^ a b Cite error: The named reference
independent
was invoked but never defined (see the help page).- ^ a b Cite error: The named reference
selfpromotion
was invoked but never defined (see the help page).- ^ Cite error: The named reference
bestseller
was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
009o9 ( talk) 00:38, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 |
There is a discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Notability requirements for reference books and other reference materials to develop notability guidelines for reference works. Maurreen ( talk) 07:04, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
I propose to revise this language in criterion #3:
notable motion picture, or other art form, or event or political or religious movement
as follows:
notable work of art, event, social movement, or field of endeavor
Besides tightening up the dodgy grammar, this subsumes the redundant "motion picture" in the category that encompasses it, "work of art", merges and generalizes "political or religious movement" into "social movement" rather than specially privileging politics and religion, and adds "field of endeavor". This last, I want to include because, without getting into tedious debates about what's "art" and what's not, it seems clear to me that the contribution to and impact on the world represented by, for example, The Art of Computer Programming far exceeds that represented by a novel being adapted as a movie. (This isn't to say that TAoCP doesn't easily pass other criteria, but it should be a no-brainer for criterion #3 as well.) Thoughts? — chaos5023 ( talk) 11:21, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
How's that look? — chaos5023 ( talk) 14:08, 7 May 2010 (UTC)notable motion picture, other work of art, event, social movement, or field of endeavor
Done —
chaos5023 (
talk)
16:12, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
How to handle unreferenced one or two line stubs of book articles? Should they simply be turned into a redirect to the author? (See also this discussion) Toshio Yamaguchi ( talk) 16:12, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
This criterion appears here:
Somewhat strangely, this got cited at this page, discussing the unorthodox book Elementary Calculus: An Infinitesimal Approach by H. Jerome Keisler. The book caused a stir in the '70s and still gets some attention today. Even now, it may be the only book that attempts to bring to the first-year undergraduate level the results of Abraham Robinson's work. The phrase "at least some of these works serving a general audience" seems to be cited outside the context in which such a thing could be appropriate. This is not a novel; its purposes are quite different from those of a work of fiction.
I think this criterion should get qualified further, in the interest of sanity. Michael Hardy ( talk) 20:22, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
I have deleted the "with at least some of these works serving a general audience" part. As pointed out above and in other discussion on specialized books, that criterion wss ignored in AfDs for those types of books. The recent crop of Perl books, all of which are kept, is another set of examples. Geekipedia wins. FuFoFuEd ( talk) 11:07, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
I also disagree with this clause, as it seems (to me) to contradict the GNG. I've removed it from the main list of criteria. Ozob ( talk) 10:37, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
Having recently been involved in two recent Articles for Deletion that involved books, and having had good reason to read the Notability (books) section from top to bottom, I can state un-categorically that it is a complete and utter mess.
I'm a writer and publisher. No, I'm not as big as Random House, but I know a fair amount about the industry, and where it is going. The current section is a great 20th Century Notability (books) section. It's a disaster for the 21st century, which when I look at my last bank statement, was the century we are living in.
We have a choice. We either fix it. Or we leave a mess behind us, and keep having problems. UrbanTerrorist ( talk) 05:27, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
This page in a nutshell: A book is generally notable if it verifiably meets through reliable sources, one or more of the following criteria:
The book has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the book itself.
- This entire sentence is useless. J.K. Rowling has become her own publisher. I'm my own publisher, as well as publishing other people, i.e. I'm supplying them ISBNs. Writers either publish themselves, or have a friend be the publisher of record. Exceptions are people like Amanda Hocking who the publishers were willing to toss money at.
This includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries and reviews. Some of these works should contain sufficient critical commentary to allow the article to grow past a simple plot summary. This excludes media re-prints of press releases, flap copy, or other publications where the author, its publisher, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the book.
- This paragraph is mostly OK, it needs minor tweaking to include audio (radio, podcasts), and clean up the definition of the excludes so that it is clearer that the excludes only cover First and Second party material, that they don't cover third party (i.e. press interviews), I recently saw a fight break out over a press interview where several editors took this to mean that since the interview included the writer that it should be excluded.
The book has won a major literary award.
- Perfectly clear.
The book has been considered by reliable sources to have made a significant contribution to a notable motion picture, or other art form, or event or political or religious movement.
- Total disaster. There is a battle going on right now in Wikipedia over what is a reliable source. I for one do not regard IMDB as a reliable source (the information is supplied by industry). There is no agreement anywhere on Wikipedia as to what a "Reliable Source" is. Some people regard my website as a reliable source, some don't. I know it is cited on Wikipedia in a couple of places. People who were at one time were considered reliable sources later ended up serving jail sentences, like Alan Eagleson.
The book is the subject of instruction at multiple elementary schools, secondary schools, colleges/universities or post-graduate programs in any particular country.
- This is impossible to document.
The book's author is so historically significant that any of his or her written works may be considered notable. This does not simply mean that the book's author is him/herself notable by Wikipedia's standards; rather, the book's author is of exceptional significance and the author's life and body of work would be a common study subject in literature classes.
- This paragraph is nonsensical. Any writer who's body of work "would be a common study subject in literature classes" would also be notable by Wikipedia's standards.
I'll try to finish the rest tomorrow. — Preceding unsigned comment added by UrbanTerrorist ( talk • contribs) 15:52, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
Since this has once again come up in yet another AFD, where a group of bestselling novels was nominated for deletion, and I don't recall it being discussed here in quite a while, figured I'd bring it up.
Albums are considered notable if they are a gold record. I see no reason why books wouldn't be also. Not every book gets reviews, even those selling millions of confirmed copies. Some genres of books aren't reviewed often at all. So we can't just rely on reviews to establish notability.
How many would like like being on the New York Times bestseller's list, or any other list deemed equally trustworthy, to equal instant proof of notability?
Strong oppose -- The books need to have significant coverage in multiple reliable sources, not simply be listed, as that won't make for a good article.-- Yaksar (let's chat) 00:15, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
This page appears to provide little guidance for books outside the field of literature. I'm not sure how to evaluate Smart Inventory Solutions against this guideline, for instance. Have mörser, will travel ( talk) 12:10, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
Reading the following and its footnotes:
The criterion excludes "media re-prints of press releases" which I take to refer to these one-paragraph press releases one sees on news.yahoo.com or Reuters along the lines of "Sharlotte Donte has told the gripping story of two hostages in a Tesco. The book will be released by McMaw-Jill."
But how far does the concept of a "press release" go? If the New York Review of Books decides to talk about a new book -- does that make it notable? Or is that just another form of press release? We can't be sure to what degree the choice is editorial and to what degree large publishers have deals with major publications to *make sure* what they put out achieves notability.
I also don't like the exclusion of personal blogs. If some literati regularly reviews books on her blog, why does that become less significant than e.g. this article in Slate -- clearly a piece promoting Frank's book? For example Cosma Shalizi reviews books on his personal blog. But I would consider any member of that list to be a notable book (worth knowing about).
Crasshopper ( talk) 17:38, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
Hi. I've just made some corrections and additions to The Primordial Emotions: The Dawning of Consciousness. The article has a notability template. Could I please have some opinions as to whether it passes muster? I've listed reviews from the Times of London and two academic journals on the article's talk page, and it's been cited 50 times in academic journals. The article's been viewed 64 times in the last 30 days. 'neath the wings ( talk) 17:53, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. I've removed the notability notice for now. 'neath the wings ( talk) 11:52, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
BKCRIT 3 states, "The book has been considered by reliable sources to have made a significant contribution to a notable motion picture, or other art form, or event or political or religious movement." Why not include social and cultural movement also? -- SupernovaExplosion Talk 00:10, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
Why only literature classes? (Point #5 of WP:BKCRIT.) Surely this attaches a greater assumed importance to authors of fiction than to authors of, for instance, philosophy (whose work is taught in philosophy classes)? – Arms & Hearts ( talk) 21:17, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
OK... the above RfC was closed with the comment that while the specific wording of the proposal did not have consensus, there was a narrow consensus that the guideline should say something about Best Sellers... and that we should continue the discussion. So let's discuss.
I agree with the closer, the guideline should say something about best sellers (if only to address a perennial question). Our job is, therefor, to reach a consensus (or at least attempt to do so) on what to say. Blueboar ( talk) 12:48, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
A new Request for Comment has been created in regard to expanding the A9 speedy deletion criterion to also include books. Please comment at the CSD criteria talk page. Thanks! — Theopolisme ( talk) 16:01, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
For future reference: [3] The WSJ just put out an article about buying your way onto, ironically, the WSJ's bestseller list. Given that these lists are gamed, should we put a caution against using them in the guideline? Ray Talk 18:39, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
A nutshell is supposed to be a concise summary to make Wikipedia more inviting to new users. There's other criteria listed at nutshell. The current Notability (books) nutshell [4] seems too complex and does not meet that listed nutshell criteria. The current nutshell should be replace with something like:
A book generally may be treated in a standalone article if it received reviews with enough coverage to allow the article to grow past a simple plot summary and/or received enough reliable source coverage about something other than a review of the book (award, turned into a movie, usage such as by a movement, school, other writers, etc.).
Other than review of the book and cites by others to passages in the book, what else is there? For films and music, people can have a jointly shared experience which reliable sources can write about. Books are different in that reactions are individual, not part of an audience in theater or concert hall, and reliable sources are not going to write about any one individual reaction to a book. Also, unlike films and music, the creation of the book is individual and not something reliable sources generally are going to write about. A few reviews from when the book is first published and perhaps some other reliable source coverage of the book a year or several years later about something other than a review of the book (award, turned into a movie, usage such as by a movement, school, other writers, etc.) essentially is what the reilable sources will provide as source information for a book topic. Citations of passages in the book by others is covered in 'usage by other writers' part of the above proposed nutshell. The book's author being so historically significant is an exception that does not need to be covered in the nutshell other than in the "etc." part.-- Uzma Gamal ( talk) 11:50, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
Is a book inherently not notable if the author doesn't have an article? Ryan Vesey Review me! 17:12, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
No, it is not inherently not notable. James500 ( talk) 18:38, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
There are a couple of current AfDs on audio dramas: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zagreus (audio drama), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tales from the Vault, both by the same publisher. These are not radio broadcasts, but straight-to-CD audio dramas. They're a bit like audiobooks, but more dramatised, with a (small) cast. So, they're not covered by any subject-specific notability guidelines, but I wondered if the good people here had any ideas/thoughts on notability criteria for audiobooks or audio dramas more generally? Should the book criteria be expanded to cover audiobooks? Bondegezou ( talk) 15:09, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
As it is now all of the criteria except 1 are redundant since the definition of "coverage" is so vague any book that fulfills criteria 2-5 automatically also fulfills criteria 1. Pretty much any book that is published by a major publishing house or press, and even most of thos published by small presses are the subject of at least one or two reviews. Does this mean that all non-selfpublished books are notable? I don't think it should. We ought to define "coverage" in a way so that the requirement is not fulfilled simply by a couple of published reviews and a publishers press notice. I'd suggest to define "significant coverage" not to include those reviews that are essentially evaluations of a recent publication, significant reviews should be those that evaluate the books impact sometime after publication, or which evidences an actual debate about the book between reviewers. Reviews that are simply "New book out, read it, I (didn't) like it" should not be considered significant coverage as this is simply to be expected for any book, and does not show or promise that the book has had any impact whatsoever. ·ʍaunus· snunɐw· 13:24, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
I do not think that that is a good idea. If I look at an article on a textbook, I am not primarily interested in its long term "impact". I am primarily interested in its utility. I don't think that your proposal it is compatible with NOT TEMP either. James500 ( talk) 18:36, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
All serious scholarly literature is "worthy of notice" for being what it is. It is also very important to what we do here.
The Open Library is not trying to produce an encyclopedia article for every book. Their web pages are more like catalogue entries. They don't contain critical commentary. They don't evaluate the book's merits. They don't try to compile or summarize the opinions expressed in published reviews. In any event, I have been told that the Wikimedia community has monopolistic intentions, so we presumably are interested in "doing the job" of any non-WIkimedia website.
The purpose of notability guidelines is to prevent people from writing articles about their pets and things like that. It is not to enforce some elitist notion that we should only include the top 0.1% (or whatever) of textbooks simply for the sake of excluding anything that isn't sufficiently elite according to some completely arbitrary standard.
If I cite a book as a source in a Wikipedia article I need, if possible, to be able to link that citation to a Wikipedia article that provides an evaluation of the merits of that book. This is very important to provide context. Our readers want and need to know why they should believe what that book says. A link to a Wikipedia article compiling reviews of that book is the most effective way to explain that.
Articles compiling reviews of textbooks are also necessary to assist our editors in deciding what sources to use. Conducting a direct search takes too long. The information needs to be summarized somewhere readily accesible.
In any event, deletionism is said to be the cause of the decline in the number of editors. That being the case, the last thing we should do now is make the notability guidelines more restrictive simply for the sake of doing so. James500 ( talk) 16:45, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
I should also say that if a book has received two (reliable and independent) reviews that are of reasonable length, it will satisfy GNG anyway. Criteria 1 is a restatement of GNG. Any difference between them is very slight. James500 ( talk) 09:29, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
See also Wikipedia:Articles on sources. James500 ( talk) 10:09, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
Maybe this has been hashed out to death elsewhere; if so, feel free to direct me there. I'm just curious - why require that a book be notable at all? In other words, what exactly is the downside of keeping an article about some obscure book that maybe only one person cares about? Those who don't care about it will never see it, and the one who does will be satisfied. Obvious self-promotion by authors could still be discouraged without going to extra effort to actually delete articles about older books that are clearly not examples of self-promotion. Yeah, I realize this same argument could be made about other subjects, and why not? Thanks for any feedback! Branchc ( talk) 18:56, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
Having giveful the matter consideration over a long period of time, I recommend removing the word "multiple" from criteria 1 as it appears to serve no useful purpose whatsoever. It does not affect our ability to write an adequate article. I don't believe it indicates that a book is significantly more important. James500 ( talk) 19:22, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
Sources suggesting that the historical value or importance of literary works increases with age: [5] [6] [7] [8]. Certain public records enactments are apparently also based on this idea. James500 ( talk) 01:37, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
According to PC World, ISBNs tend only to be used in Western countries: [9]. I intend to modify the threshold standards so that the requirement for an ISBN applies only to countries where ISBNs are normally used. It is clear to me the present standards were based on an erroneous assumption that ISBNs were a worldwide phenomenon. James500 ( talk) 14:43, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
The standards presently refer to a book being available at a dozen or more libraries. The problem is that libraries are selling and throwing books away all the time. Even University libraries are doing this. A book available at a dozen libraries today might not be in the future. This conflicts with the principle that notability is not temporary (WP:NTEMP). I intend to modify the requirement so that it does not refer to present holdings. If it is not possible to verify past holdings, this requirement will have to be omitted altogether. James500 ( talk) 20:27, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
I know of a novel regarding which I have found one long review, one case study chapter, two page review/discussion in a chapter, and frequent mention/discussion in two doctoral theses (including one dedicated chapter). Theses are traditionally described as "unpublished", but this is only true in the sense that they have not been subject to the usual independent peer review process. With rare exceptions, theses are "published" in the sense that they are available, and nowadays are typically on-line (including the two I've referred to). Citing them has certainly been a long accepted practice in academic studies.
My question is whether doctoral theses count towards book notability? Choor monster ( talk) 12:22, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
I have been attempting to add articles for some novels and their notability has been called into question by another user. The series in question has sold millions of copies (see citation in article), is popular amongst readers of Fantasy (anecdotal, citation needed), and is published by two of the largest publishers of science fiction and fantasy in the world ( Tor, Bantam). As of yesterday, twelve of the seventeen novels contained individual articles and I attempted do some good and create articles for the remaining five. Another user ( Deb) has repeatedly called the notability of the novels into question and has redirected many of them to the article for the series. My main issue here is that the criteria for establishing notability of a book, as currently stated, is prohibitively strict, subjective, and vague. The criteria listed seem rather strict and I can think of a number of novels which currently have articles that do not meet these requirements. However, it goes on to say that these are rules of thumb and implies that some other sort of criteria can presumably be used to establish notability. Consider The Wheel of Time, another popular series also published by Tor. It currently meets none of the criteria stated in this article, despite selling somewhere in the league of 50 million copies and being considered by many a staple of modern fantasy. It was nominated for a Hugo award (which may be considered a major literary award), which it did not win, and prior to that nomination had never won any other literary awards. Yet apparently someone thought it notable enough to warrant a main series article, an individual article for each of its fifteen books, an article for its fictional geography, etc.
Back to my main point, someone presumably previously thought that other novels in the series I have been modifying were notable enough to warrant individual articles, but now that more are being added (since more have been published) another user disagrees. This tells me that the current criteria leave too much to interpretation. It seems odd that Wikipedia would fail to acknowledge a series that has sold millions of copies and is published by a major publisher as notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Knmorgan08 ( talk • contribs) 13:20, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
I agree that the present criteria are too strict. In my view the first step is to delete the word "multiple" from criteria 1 as it serves no useful purpose whatsoever. Additional criteria relating to the level of sales and the publisher might be a good idea. James500 ( talk) 14:56, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
Can we come to a consensus on this? The following criteria have been suggested.
There has been very little administrative feedback on these proposed criteria thus far. Knmorgan08 ( talk) 12:39, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia has long treated self-published like radiation. It appears reality may be passing by, within a year or two, there will be more self-published books than otherwise. There may need to be some sort of mechanism for dealing with the reality of the market. I have personally seen self published non-fiction that is serious and well done. I have seen traditional published non-fiction that is full of errors and even fabrications. The idea that one is inherently better than the other is a weak argument. In the past it wasn't a big deal because self-published was a small market, now it's becoming the majority market, at least in number of titles. -- Green Cardamom ( talk) 19:53, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
I second this comment. Bondegezou ( talk) 14:10, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
I third this comment, so to speak. I am part of a growing community of self-published authors who eschew the gated community that is traditional publishing but also recognize the lack of quality that has been the hallmark of many indie authors in the past. Our mantra is "good writing, good editing, good cover design, great books." There is no longer any validity to the reasoning behind Wikipedia's rejection of independent authors. Aaseeger ( talk) 00:57, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
Are plays considered books, if currently being performed in theatres?-- DThomsen8 ( talk) 13:19, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
This guideline says "this guideline does not yet provide specific notability criteria for the following types of publications: comic books; graphic novels (although it does apply to manga)..." Why is there an exception for manga? Richard75 ( talk) 12:53, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
Very few children's books are used as textbooks or the like, but they do form a significant genre. Should children's books which do not have Newbery or Caldecott behind them be allowed to be considered "notable"? What criteria ought be used? Collect ( talk) 16:57, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
That isn't my experience at all. I've not seen a normal book review characterised as trivial. Trivial treatment would be something like a mere citation or listing, or possibly some very, very, very brief discussion. The average book review in an academic journal is certainly not trivial at all. If someone is advancing these sort of nonsense arguments at the moment, the solution is to clarify "non-trivial treatment" so that they simply can't continue to do so. Adding the words "The average periodical book review is not trivial" might suffice. I don't think that "non substantive detail treatment" is even clearly aimed at the length of the review at all. I think it is likely aimed at certain types of information such as size (eg octavo), number of pages, date and place of publication and printing, name of author, publisher and printer, ISBN, price, method of binding (eg paperback; though some old books may be notable for their rebinding if it required particularly innovative techniques), and so forth. The wholepoint of criteria 1 is that two normal book reviews equal notability. James500 ( talk) 18:37, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
I ask to add something like An academic textbook being translated and published from or in two foreign languages is being deemed noteable. Serten 10:26, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
I have a question regarding WP:NBOOK. Point 1 for notability indicates: 'The book has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself. This includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries and reviews. This excludes media re-prints of press releases, flap copy, or other publications where the author, its publisher, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the book' Does this refer to book reviews? This means effectively any book published by a mainstream publisher is entitled to an article... AusLondonder ( talk) 17:04, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
@ User:Nikkimaria: The removal of the section was copy editing. The lead section of this guideline (which reproduces the wording of WP:N exactly) says that if a topic is excluded by WP:NOT (including NOTPLOT), it doesn't get an article. The section headed "Articles that are plot summaries" merely repeats that without adding any additional instructions at all. If you look at WP:N you will notice that it doesn't contain anything like that section because mere repetition serves no useful purpose. I should also point out that edits do not need to be discussed only because they are not copy editing (PGEBOLD). They should only be reverted if there is a substantive objection (eg. I think this change would be harmful because ...). And if you can't think of a substantive objection, the edit has to be allowed to stand. So, why would this change be harmful? I can't think of any reason, since it isn't substantive, and would only change the length of the guideline. James500 ( talk) 15:20, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
There is an RfC on the subject of whether Wikipedia:Notability (publishing) should become a guideline, which is taking place at Wikipedia talk:Notability (publishing)#Should this become a guideline?. James500 ( talk) 19:30, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
There is an RfC on the subject of whether Wikipedia:Notability (history) should become a guideline, which is taking place at Wikipedia talk:Notability (history)#Should this become a guideline?. James500 ( talk) 19:54, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
Over at WP:NAUTHOR I'm trying to have the notability guidelines expanded to make it slightly easier for authors to be included in Wikipedia. The current debate is over whether or not a bestseller list could be used to help establish notability for an author and someone mentioned that it would be something that could/should more apply to NBOOK.
I'm proposing that the guidelines be expanded to allow selected bestseller lists to be used as a reliable source to assert notability. This would be in keeping with policies like the ones for WP:NALBUM and WP:NBAND where placing on a notable music chart can help assert notability for an album/single and/or a performer. This guideline would not include all bestseller lists and would instead apply only to those lists that are consistently referred to by reliable sources. For example, the New York Times Bestseller List is a list that has achieved enough notability to where it has its own article. However there are also others like the USA Today Bestseller List and the Wall Street Journal's Bestseller List that are also very well thought of, enough to where their lists are reprinted in multiple media outlets. I'm not as familiar with foreign language lists, but apparently the bestseller list for Corriere della Sera is fairly well thought of as well.
As with any other source, rankings in places that would not be considered a reliable source (Amazon, social media outlets like Goodreads, blogs, etc) would not be usable. Most of this is because many of these outlets have an almost limitless amount of categories for "bestsellers" and because they're essentially self-published sources because they rely on random user accounts/purchases to judge the rankings. There's no true oversight to these lists.
This would not be used in the exact same way as the chart rankings are for albums in that a bestseller list would only give partial notability akin to how a RS review would only give partial notability. I wouldn't mind it being used as a sign for total notability, but I'd settle for it as something that would give partial notability. If approved, this should also only count for people who have placed within the top 20 spaces of any given list. I'm gauging this by the New York Times lists, which only rank up to the top 20 titles for any given list.
My idea is that this would be added to the first criteria, which would (if approved) read as follows:
The footnote would read as follows:
So that's my proposal. What does everyone think? Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 07:08, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
FULL DISCLOSURE: I was a paid editor on an AfD'd book article, this RfC discussion is not paid.
A recent AfD, ( closed -- latest article article revision here [10]) has revealed that the notability expectations of the community is not represented in NBOOK/NBCRIT. This failure to communicate is likely causing extra work for AfC and AfD and causing new editors to write articles that cannot get published.
My reading of BKCRIT/NBOOK #5 indicates that a thinly referenced book article should fall under the author's notability as a "discriminate collection" in WP:DISCRIMINATE. This was not my experience, the community adds the caveat that the author's notability must be for books.
changes proposed that reflect the information gathered from the AfD in strike/bold
WP:BKCRIT A book is notable if it verifiably meets, through reliable sources, at least one of the following criteria:
- The book has been the subject [1] of two or more non-trivial [2] published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself. [3] This includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries, bestseller lists, [5]
and reviews. Or six professional reviews. This excludes student and college newspapers, [11] media re-prints of press releases, flap copy, or other publications where the author, its publisher, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the book. [4]- ...
- ...
- ...
- The book's author's books are
isso historically significant that any of the author's written works may be considered notable. This does not simply mean that the book's author is notable by Wikipedia's standards; rather, the book's author is of exceptional significance and theauthor's life andbody of written work would be a common subject of academic study.The five preceding criteria do not necessarily apply to books excluded by the threshold standards, and do not apply to books not yet published.
Other considerations
Threshold standards
A book should have, at a minimum, an ISBN (for books published after 1975 in a country where ISBNs are normally used), and should be catalogued by its country of origin's official or de facto national library (if that country has such a national library). For example, in the United States books are catalogued by the Library of Congress; in the United Kingdom at the British Library; in Australia at the National Library of Australia; in Canada at the Library and Archives Canada; in France at the Bibliothèque nationale de France; in Singapore at the National Library Board; in Brazil by the Fundação Biblioteca Nacional; in Argentina at Biblioteca Nacional de la República Argentina; and in India at the National Library of India. For a complete list, see List of national libraries.
Advisory: The current consensus is that WorldCat entries should number in the hundreds for fiction and non-fiction titles.
However, these criteria are exclusionary rather than inclusionary; meeting these threshold standards does not imply that a book is notable, whereas a book which does not meet them, most likely is not. There will be exceptions—books that are notable despite not meeting these threshold standards—but good reasons for the notability of such books should be clear.
- ^ a b 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.
- ^ a b Cite error: The named reference
nontrivial
was invoked but never defined (see the help page).- ^ a b Cite error: The named reference
independent
was invoked but never defined (see the help page).- ^ a b Cite error: The named reference
selfpromotion
was invoked but never defined (see the help page).- ^ Cite error: The named reference
bestseller
was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
009o9 ( talk) 00:38, 15 August 2015 (UTC)