![]() | 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 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 |
I'm officially starting up a thread for a sourcing list similar to the ones at WP:VG/RS and WP:FILM/R. We also need to discuss what in-depth means as far as reviews go, but that's a whole other discussion. I'm proposing that the following are reliable sources and in which context:
Name | Type | Notes and limitations |
---|---|---|
The New York Times | General coverage, reviews, bestseller list | Bestseller list is only usable for notability if it is the main fiction or non-fiction list. |
Boston Globe | General coverage, reviews | This should be applied to other major news outlets such as the Houston Chronicle and so on as well. |
USA Today | General coverage, reviews, bestseller list | Bestseller list is only usable for notability if it is the main fiction or non-fiction list. |
Horn Book Magazine and Guide | General coverage, reviews | |
Locus | General coverage, reviews, bestseller list |
This is only a starter list to get things running - I know that there are far more out there, but I wanted to get this started. I also plan on creating a list of blatantly unusable sources as well. These will mostly be vanity awards and paid review sites to start with, though. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (。◕‿◕。) 05:07, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
Name | Type | Notes and limitations |
---|---|---|
Reader's Favorite | Vanity awards, paid reviews | The awards and reviews are both pay to play, making them vanity. One free review is offered to authors, however the expectation is that they will go on to use their paid services and RF has openly stated that their reviews never go below 4 stars. |
Kirkus Indie | Paid review site | Reviews published through this wing of Kirkus are paid for by the author and/or publisher. This poses an issue since paid reviews are less likely to be negative, as this could potentially result in reviewers couching negative feedback with praise or outright eliminating any negative reception in order to maintain customer satisfaction. |
Midwest Book Review | Paid review site | In 2011 MBR began charging for reviews despite prior claims that this was a scam. Even though the site claims that they do not write their reviews to be deliberately positive for the authors, the paid aspect still poses an issue. |
Indie Reader | Paid review site | Paid reviews pose issues of neutrality. |
iCNN | Section of CNN that accepts user submitted content, such as reviews or coverage | Material created through this outlet is unusable unless it was promoted to the main portion of CNN (where it undergoes editorial oversight and vetting), which is very rare. |
For right now this is just a list of blatantly unusable sources. The only exception is with iCNN, as very rarely some of the citizen reporting will be used on the main site. It's pretty rare, though. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (。◕‿◕。) 05:53, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
I found the biographical dictionary Contemporary Musicians (
ISSN
1044-2197,
OCLC
19730669,
wikidata:Contemporary Musicians) quite useful when looking for resources to improve
MF Doom. It seems reasonably well-cited, but I can only find two reviews of it:
JSTOR
30163606 (page 16; just more than a passing mention) and
ProQuest
1296752868. I note that NBOOK specifically disclaims applying to reference works in its
coverage notes: this guideline does not provide specific notability criteria for … reference works such as dictionaries, thesauruses, encyclopedias, atlases and almanacs …
. But I was hoping watchers might be able to help me decide whether it makes sense to write an article on this or not (and/or might know of any other sources that would help it pass GNG). It's no
The New Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians, but it seems encyclopedic to me.
AleatoryPonderings (
???) (
!!!)
20:23, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
Hey, I recently nominated an article for a vanity award for deletion. I laid out some reasons as to why it's a vanity award and some explanation as to why this was pertinent, and MarnetteD suggested including this information somewhere.
I've started on a draft about identifying vanity awards, which can be found here. Right now it's in a rough draft format, so I thought it would be good to get some feedback and see if anyone would be interested in working on it as well. Literature and books in general is an area where there are often a ton of vanity awards, so this is one of the WikiProjects I wanted to reach out to. Film and companies are two of the other areas. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (。◕‿◕。) 07:26, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
I'm currently involved in a AfD for the short story Strange Eden by Philip K Dick. The issue I'm running into here is this: the story seems like it should be notable, however coverage for it is more than a little lacking. What I did find is that the story has been republished in a number of collections since it was originally released in 1954. (Not directing anyone to the AfD, just mentioning this since it was what made me consider this as a potential sign of notability.)
The thought crossed my mind that reprints might be usable as a sign of notability, however the qualifications for this to be a sign of notability would have to be pretty selective so that it would be exclusive. My thought is that the qualifications would be along these lines:
This should be selective enough to help establish notability, as an academic or scholarly press that is bothering to reprint something would be seen as a sign of the work's legacy, whereas a regular mainstream publisher wouldn't since they have more leeway as far as reprints go. I think that real deal, this would likely only apply to about 1% of published works. Of those, most would likely meet other criteria as well. It would be akin to criteria 5, where if the author is that notable there would be other coverage in some form or fashion.
What do all of you think? This isn't the first time I've run into a situation like this. I don't think that Strange Eden would qualify even if this was a notability criteria, but this might cover some other works, especially poetry. I just don't want it to be misused, which is what I'm worried about. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (。◕‿◕。) 11:44, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
As per the discussion at the AFD on Strange Eden, are collections or anthologies that are created by publishers more notable than the stories themselves? It is a bit like a compilation album from a well known artist which has hits on it, but the album has no actual coverage. Most poets work is a snapshot of them at that time, but as I know from my Spike Milligan collection that publishers like to create new compilations which do not reflect the artists work in a specific time frame. I think a sensible discussion at AFD is best without adding more ammunition to some editors guns. Davidstewartharvey ( talk) 15:16, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
I'm thinking that this could be viewed as a subset of the fourth criteria, if not both, at least. The phrasing for it as a criteria could be like this:
Adding it to the fourth criteria:
Any other additions to make it more exclusive could be added in the notes section. Examples of notes could include:
I also added that the publication must be attached to a well-known and notable university, as I figure this will help weed out anyone trying to skirt around this by launching "University of Billy Bob Press". ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (。◕‿◕。) 10:08, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
Book crit #1 says that The book has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself.
The issue with this is that many reviews, while independent for the purposes of usability, aren't independent for the purpose of notability; entities like
Booklist have a symbiotic relationship with publishers, with the publishers seeking to get their book reviewed - regardless of whether the review is positive, negative, or in between - as part of their efforts to promote their book.
It is a very similar situation to what inspired WP:NCRYPTO, and I suggest we apply the same standard here; book-centric organizations (this would include entities like Booklist, but exclude entities like the New York Times) do not provide coverage that can be considered independent for the purposes of WP:BOOKCRIT or WP:GNG. BilledMammal ( talk) 04:38, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
X is a book written by $AUTHOR in $YEAR and published by $HOUSE. It deals with $AUTHOR_PROVIDED_SUMMARY.That would not be a valid permastub IMO, because it's a catalog entry, not an encyclopedia article. That’s exactly the same situation as company stubs based on directory listings. Tigraan Click here for my talk page ("private" contact) 08:44, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
practically everything gets an automatic routine reviewis the answer to your question
how do we write the rules to establish a good boundarybecause in the context of a different SNG WP:ROUTINE already exists. Best, Barkeep49 ( talk) 14:52, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
it excludes such coverage for being corrupt ... what they say about the topics they do choose is not trustworthy- NCRYPTO covers crypto-focused sources that are reliable, as it excludes their use for the purposes of determining notability but doesn't exclude their use generally. Plus, unreliable sources are already cannot contribute to notability; we don't need another guideline to tell us that. BilledMammal ( talk) 05:22, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
routine news coverage of such things as announcements are not sufficient basis for an article. Planned coverage of scheduled events, especially when those involved in the event are also promoting it, is considered to be routine. Wedding announcements, sports scores, crime logs ... should be considered routine.
All books that have received significant coverage in at least two reviews published by independent reliable sources should be considered notable under Wikipedia:Notability (books)#Criteria. Publications like Booklist and Publishers Weekly are well respected, so I oppose excluding reviews in book-centric publications from contributing to notability.
From Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia, " Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia, but a digital encyclopedia project. Other than verifiability and the other points presented on this page, there is no practical limit to the number of topics Wikipedia can cover, or the total amount of content." It is fine to allow articles on all books that meet the notability criteria by having two reliable reviews, even if the reviews are in book-centric publications. Cunard ( talk) 05:29, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
overruleBOOKCRIT in any straightforward way. Newimpartial ( talk) 10:27, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
explain the GNG; this may be seen in the process that mandated the current text of WP:SNG (the RfC was this one, and the RFCBEFORE may be found here.)
As the discussion has started to die off I want to propose a change based on it; I would propose we add a new section, titled "Sources".
This section would read: When determining the notability of books we should exclude routine coverage. This includes
capsule reviews and book announcements.
I believe this would allow us to exclude routine coverage such as this review, while still permitting us to include reviews from sources like NYRB and NYT. I expect that this proposal will need significant modification; I only propose it to help move the discussion forward. BilledMammal ( talk) 04:29, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
While capsule reviews can contribute to notability they give less weight than standard sources containing significant coverage.
When assessing whether reviews of books contribute to the notability of the book the content of the review must be considered. Coverage that is limited to plot summaries should be excluded when determining whether a given source contains significant coverage
Readers will be captivated by Mina’s lyricism and the insightful connections she draws between medieval ideological battles and 21st-century culture wars. This is a triumph, which is clearly not WP:SIGCOV), while avoiding complexities around determining whether a given source is a capsule review. BilledMammal ( talk) 11:59, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
When assessing whether a book is notable the content of the source must be considered. Plot descriptions and quotes should be omitted when determining whether a source contains significant coverage.
all of which could only be used to expand a "plot" section. Try using that source to expand the article; see how far you get. BilledMammal ( talk) 23:32, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
all of which could only be used to expand a "plot" section. You tried to move it, and are now objecting that I am not pretending to have made an argument I did not make. BilledMammal ( talk) 00:05, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
reception. XOR'easter ( talk) 22:53, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
Readers will be captivated by Mina’s lyricism and the insightful connections she draws between medieval ideological battles and 21st-century culture wars. This is a triumph.We can't write an article based on two such articles saying so little; we can only write a plot summary. BilledMammal ( talk) 01:02, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
WP:N says "A topic is presumed to merit an article if ..It meets either the general notability guideline (GNG) below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific notability guideline..."
. So, contrary to some argument here, NBOOK is not subject to GNG but is an alternative to it. In fact most subject-specific notability guidelines include criteria not derived from GNG.
Zero
talk
01:55, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
When assessing whether a book is notable the content of the source must be considered. Plot descriptions and quotes should be omitted when determining whether a source contains significant coverage.
I think this provides the best balance; plot descriptions are not useful in writing an article, and quotes lack independence. It won't outright ban capsule reviews from being used, but it will restrict them in a way that I think is comparable to Piotrus' proposal of giving them half weight, but without the complexity of adding weighting. BilledMammal ( talk) 23:10, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
we might behoove ourselves to quote it tooThat's true, but we're not discussing when it is appropriate to include content - we're discussing notability. BilledMammal ( talk) 01:51, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Should the following be added to Wikipedia:Notability (books)#Other considerations, below Wikipedia:Notability (books)#Articles that are plot summaries?
00:55, 5 July 2023 (UTC)Sources that are plot summaries
When assessing whether a book is notable the content of the source must be considered. Plot descriptions and quotes should be omitted when determining whether a source contains non-trivial and significant coverage.
If there are no problems with this - although I understand that some editors disagree with this proposal, I am asking about practical objections - I will open the RfC at the VPP within the next few days. BilledMammal ( talk) 00:55, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
I've been writing some author bios lately for authors who did not write in English and whose books typically weren't ever officially translated. To help with understanding I've been adding machine translations of the titles (at least when these obviously were not nonsensical). Obviously I am aware that it is better to use an official translation, but where none is available, using a machine translation (or my own translation) is kosher, right? Is there something I should do to indicate that the name is not an official translation? FOARP ( talk) 13:23, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
"Raw or lightly edited machine translations have long been considered by the English Wikipedia community to be worse than nothing."You should not be adding machine translations, even of titles, unless you understand the language well enough yourself to check and correct the translation. — David Eppstein ( talk) 14:34, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
Both of these are referring to the translation of articles as a whole, not the names of books (which are often give some general understanding of their nature/content). FOARP ( talk) 21:47, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
I have been using Wikipedia:NBOOK to evaluate whether a work of electronic literature is notable, and it works pretty well. If a work hasn't had significant coverage in two or more independent reliable sources (e.g. reviews, scholarly papers) it probably isn't notable.
I just read the whole page, though, and see the requirement that a book have an ISBN number. This would invalidate almost all works of electronic literature as they are generally published online - sometimes in literary journals but often self-published, because there is no commercial system for publishing electronic literature. For instance, Caitlin Fisher's These Waves of Girls is obviously notable (it's on university syllabi, won an award, significant coverage in news media and scholarship) but was technically self-published and certainly doesn't have an ISBN number.
Can we specify that works of electronic literature are exempt from these requirements? Lijil ( talk) 19:49, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
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.Realistically, I think it's good to have it set up that way—there will be the occasional exception, but the vast majority of "electronic literature" (e.g., fan fiction, musings someone posted on the Internet, etc.), is indeed going to be non-notable. We can make the occasional exception as needed, but I think we probably should warn people that works which haven't even gotten an ISBN probably, though not absolutely, are not going to be notable. Basically, it seems you've found an exception that proves the rule, and indeed the rule provides for the existence of such exceptions. So, I would be in favor of leaving that as it is. Seraphimblade Talk to me 20:04, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
Hi, I want to know if a book is translated into foreign languages, shouldn't it be considered a notable book? We know only those books that are widely read and make some impact upon the readers' circles get the privilege of being translated into other languages. Thanks. Persona2two ( talk) 14:25, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
Any input at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Power Without Glory (2015 book), on a book about early racing cars, would be appreciated. The AFD has been dominated by me (the nominator) and the book's author and I think some fresh perspectives would be helpful here. Graham87 ( talk) 12:14, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
Could someone weigh in here on whether that is a notable textbook or not? Thanks. ~WikiOriginal-9~ ( talk) 01:21, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
In terms of criteria 1, do reviews in sites such as Kirkus Reviews, Publishers Weekly and Booklist count, given the breadth of their coverage? BobFromBrockley ( talk) 15:49, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
Has anyone ever seen an AfD where a book article is kept based solely on this criterion? I'm unconvinced that this ever works successfully in practice. -- asilvering ( talk) 16:18, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
May I ask here...? Regarding the criterion: The book is, or has been, the subject of instruction at two or more schools, colleges, universities or post-graduate programs in any particular country - what is the necessity of the word 'particular' in this sentence? If the word were removed, would it make any difference? Connoissaur ( talk) 16:31, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
The book is, or has been, the subject of instruction at two or more schools, colleges, universities or post-graduate programs.Schazjmd (talk) 16:46, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
I wrote an article on a book, Bad News: How Woke Media Is Undermining Democracy, that has at its thesis that American media are turning away from a mass appeal and towards a selective readership of highly educated, upper class readers. I think it's ironic that an editor has immediately removed book reviews from mass market media like The New York Post.
In a followup on the talkpage, the other editor said they didn't meet WP:RSP criteria (though they were in Further reading not used as sources). Of lesser concern, why Jewish Journal and New York Journal of Books were lumped in with these "tainted" sources of wide appeal and removed from Further reading at the same time.
Given the notability discussion in the immediately prior section, I think the article's between a rock and a hard place. On the one hand, straightforward "factual" reviews like Publishers Weekly are attacked as "routine". But reviews that go into any analysis are labeled as POV and tainted, and therefore inadmissible to even indicate they exist. My worst fear is that we allow sources that do socio-political analysis, but only by publications with the "right" political bent like The New York Times and not Fox News or Quillette.
Reactions? ☆ Bri ( talk) 21:21, 24 March 2024 (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 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 |
I'm officially starting up a thread for a sourcing list similar to the ones at WP:VG/RS and WP:FILM/R. We also need to discuss what in-depth means as far as reviews go, but that's a whole other discussion. I'm proposing that the following are reliable sources and in which context:
Name | Type | Notes and limitations |
---|---|---|
The New York Times | General coverage, reviews, bestseller list | Bestseller list is only usable for notability if it is the main fiction or non-fiction list. |
Boston Globe | General coverage, reviews | This should be applied to other major news outlets such as the Houston Chronicle and so on as well. |
USA Today | General coverage, reviews, bestseller list | Bestseller list is only usable for notability if it is the main fiction or non-fiction list. |
Horn Book Magazine and Guide | General coverage, reviews | |
Locus | General coverage, reviews, bestseller list |
This is only a starter list to get things running - I know that there are far more out there, but I wanted to get this started. I also plan on creating a list of blatantly unusable sources as well. These will mostly be vanity awards and paid review sites to start with, though. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (。◕‿◕。) 05:07, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
Name | Type | Notes and limitations |
---|---|---|
Reader's Favorite | Vanity awards, paid reviews | The awards and reviews are both pay to play, making them vanity. One free review is offered to authors, however the expectation is that they will go on to use their paid services and RF has openly stated that their reviews never go below 4 stars. |
Kirkus Indie | Paid review site | Reviews published through this wing of Kirkus are paid for by the author and/or publisher. This poses an issue since paid reviews are less likely to be negative, as this could potentially result in reviewers couching negative feedback with praise or outright eliminating any negative reception in order to maintain customer satisfaction. |
Midwest Book Review | Paid review site | In 2011 MBR began charging for reviews despite prior claims that this was a scam. Even though the site claims that they do not write their reviews to be deliberately positive for the authors, the paid aspect still poses an issue. |
Indie Reader | Paid review site | Paid reviews pose issues of neutrality. |
iCNN | Section of CNN that accepts user submitted content, such as reviews or coverage | Material created through this outlet is unusable unless it was promoted to the main portion of CNN (where it undergoes editorial oversight and vetting), which is very rare. |
For right now this is just a list of blatantly unusable sources. The only exception is with iCNN, as very rarely some of the citizen reporting will be used on the main site. It's pretty rare, though. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (。◕‿◕。) 05:53, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
I found the biographical dictionary Contemporary Musicians (
ISSN
1044-2197,
OCLC
19730669,
wikidata:Contemporary Musicians) quite useful when looking for resources to improve
MF Doom. It seems reasonably well-cited, but I can only find two reviews of it:
JSTOR
30163606 (page 16; just more than a passing mention) and
ProQuest
1296752868. I note that NBOOK specifically disclaims applying to reference works in its
coverage notes: this guideline does not provide specific notability criteria for … reference works such as dictionaries, thesauruses, encyclopedias, atlases and almanacs …
. But I was hoping watchers might be able to help me decide whether it makes sense to write an article on this or not (and/or might know of any other sources that would help it pass GNG). It's no
The New Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians, but it seems encyclopedic to me.
AleatoryPonderings (
???) (
!!!)
20:23, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
Hey, I recently nominated an article for a vanity award for deletion. I laid out some reasons as to why it's a vanity award and some explanation as to why this was pertinent, and MarnetteD suggested including this information somewhere.
I've started on a draft about identifying vanity awards, which can be found here. Right now it's in a rough draft format, so I thought it would be good to get some feedback and see if anyone would be interested in working on it as well. Literature and books in general is an area where there are often a ton of vanity awards, so this is one of the WikiProjects I wanted to reach out to. Film and companies are two of the other areas. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (。◕‿◕。) 07:26, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
I'm currently involved in a AfD for the short story Strange Eden by Philip K Dick. The issue I'm running into here is this: the story seems like it should be notable, however coverage for it is more than a little lacking. What I did find is that the story has been republished in a number of collections since it was originally released in 1954. (Not directing anyone to the AfD, just mentioning this since it was what made me consider this as a potential sign of notability.)
The thought crossed my mind that reprints might be usable as a sign of notability, however the qualifications for this to be a sign of notability would have to be pretty selective so that it would be exclusive. My thought is that the qualifications would be along these lines:
This should be selective enough to help establish notability, as an academic or scholarly press that is bothering to reprint something would be seen as a sign of the work's legacy, whereas a regular mainstream publisher wouldn't since they have more leeway as far as reprints go. I think that real deal, this would likely only apply to about 1% of published works. Of those, most would likely meet other criteria as well. It would be akin to criteria 5, where if the author is that notable there would be other coverage in some form or fashion.
What do all of you think? This isn't the first time I've run into a situation like this. I don't think that Strange Eden would qualify even if this was a notability criteria, but this might cover some other works, especially poetry. I just don't want it to be misused, which is what I'm worried about. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (。◕‿◕。) 11:44, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
As per the discussion at the AFD on Strange Eden, are collections or anthologies that are created by publishers more notable than the stories themselves? It is a bit like a compilation album from a well known artist which has hits on it, but the album has no actual coverage. Most poets work is a snapshot of them at that time, but as I know from my Spike Milligan collection that publishers like to create new compilations which do not reflect the artists work in a specific time frame. I think a sensible discussion at AFD is best without adding more ammunition to some editors guns. Davidstewartharvey ( talk) 15:16, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
I'm thinking that this could be viewed as a subset of the fourth criteria, if not both, at least. The phrasing for it as a criteria could be like this:
Adding it to the fourth criteria:
Any other additions to make it more exclusive could be added in the notes section. Examples of notes could include:
I also added that the publication must be attached to a well-known and notable university, as I figure this will help weed out anyone trying to skirt around this by launching "University of Billy Bob Press". ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (。◕‿◕。) 10:08, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
Book crit #1 says that The book has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself.
The issue with this is that many reviews, while independent for the purposes of usability, aren't independent for the purpose of notability; entities like
Booklist have a symbiotic relationship with publishers, with the publishers seeking to get their book reviewed - regardless of whether the review is positive, negative, or in between - as part of their efforts to promote their book.
It is a very similar situation to what inspired WP:NCRYPTO, and I suggest we apply the same standard here; book-centric organizations (this would include entities like Booklist, but exclude entities like the New York Times) do not provide coverage that can be considered independent for the purposes of WP:BOOKCRIT or WP:GNG. BilledMammal ( talk) 04:38, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
X is a book written by $AUTHOR in $YEAR and published by $HOUSE. It deals with $AUTHOR_PROVIDED_SUMMARY.That would not be a valid permastub IMO, because it's a catalog entry, not an encyclopedia article. That’s exactly the same situation as company stubs based on directory listings. Tigraan Click here for my talk page ("private" contact) 08:44, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
practically everything gets an automatic routine reviewis the answer to your question
how do we write the rules to establish a good boundarybecause in the context of a different SNG WP:ROUTINE already exists. Best, Barkeep49 ( talk) 14:52, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
it excludes such coverage for being corrupt ... what they say about the topics they do choose is not trustworthy- NCRYPTO covers crypto-focused sources that are reliable, as it excludes their use for the purposes of determining notability but doesn't exclude their use generally. Plus, unreliable sources are already cannot contribute to notability; we don't need another guideline to tell us that. BilledMammal ( talk) 05:22, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
routine news coverage of such things as announcements are not sufficient basis for an article. Planned coverage of scheduled events, especially when those involved in the event are also promoting it, is considered to be routine. Wedding announcements, sports scores, crime logs ... should be considered routine.
All books that have received significant coverage in at least two reviews published by independent reliable sources should be considered notable under Wikipedia:Notability (books)#Criteria. Publications like Booklist and Publishers Weekly are well respected, so I oppose excluding reviews in book-centric publications from contributing to notability.
From Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia, " Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia, but a digital encyclopedia project. Other than verifiability and the other points presented on this page, there is no practical limit to the number of topics Wikipedia can cover, or the total amount of content." It is fine to allow articles on all books that meet the notability criteria by having two reliable reviews, even if the reviews are in book-centric publications. Cunard ( talk) 05:29, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
overruleBOOKCRIT in any straightforward way. Newimpartial ( talk) 10:27, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
explain the GNG; this may be seen in the process that mandated the current text of WP:SNG (the RfC was this one, and the RFCBEFORE may be found here.)
As the discussion has started to die off I want to propose a change based on it; I would propose we add a new section, titled "Sources".
This section would read: When determining the notability of books we should exclude routine coverage. This includes
capsule reviews and book announcements.
I believe this would allow us to exclude routine coverage such as this review, while still permitting us to include reviews from sources like NYRB and NYT. I expect that this proposal will need significant modification; I only propose it to help move the discussion forward. BilledMammal ( talk) 04:29, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
While capsule reviews can contribute to notability they give less weight than standard sources containing significant coverage.
When assessing whether reviews of books contribute to the notability of the book the content of the review must be considered. Coverage that is limited to plot summaries should be excluded when determining whether a given source contains significant coverage
Readers will be captivated by Mina’s lyricism and the insightful connections she draws between medieval ideological battles and 21st-century culture wars. This is a triumph, which is clearly not WP:SIGCOV), while avoiding complexities around determining whether a given source is a capsule review. BilledMammal ( talk) 11:59, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
When assessing whether a book is notable the content of the source must be considered. Plot descriptions and quotes should be omitted when determining whether a source contains significant coverage.
all of which could only be used to expand a "plot" section. Try using that source to expand the article; see how far you get. BilledMammal ( talk) 23:32, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
all of which could only be used to expand a "plot" section. You tried to move it, and are now objecting that I am not pretending to have made an argument I did not make. BilledMammal ( talk) 00:05, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
reception. XOR'easter ( talk) 22:53, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
Readers will be captivated by Mina’s lyricism and the insightful connections she draws between medieval ideological battles and 21st-century culture wars. This is a triumph.We can't write an article based on two such articles saying so little; we can only write a plot summary. BilledMammal ( talk) 01:02, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
WP:N says "A topic is presumed to merit an article if ..It meets either the general notability guideline (GNG) below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific notability guideline..."
. So, contrary to some argument here, NBOOK is not subject to GNG but is an alternative to it. In fact most subject-specific notability guidelines include criteria not derived from GNG.
Zero
talk
01:55, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
When assessing whether a book is notable the content of the source must be considered. Plot descriptions and quotes should be omitted when determining whether a source contains significant coverage.
I think this provides the best balance; plot descriptions are not useful in writing an article, and quotes lack independence. It won't outright ban capsule reviews from being used, but it will restrict them in a way that I think is comparable to Piotrus' proposal of giving them half weight, but without the complexity of adding weighting. BilledMammal ( talk) 23:10, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
we might behoove ourselves to quote it tooThat's true, but we're not discussing when it is appropriate to include content - we're discussing notability. BilledMammal ( talk) 01:51, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Should the following be added to Wikipedia:Notability (books)#Other considerations, below Wikipedia:Notability (books)#Articles that are plot summaries?
00:55, 5 July 2023 (UTC)Sources that are plot summaries
When assessing whether a book is notable the content of the source must be considered. Plot descriptions and quotes should be omitted when determining whether a source contains non-trivial and significant coverage.
If there are no problems with this - although I understand that some editors disagree with this proposal, I am asking about practical objections - I will open the RfC at the VPP within the next few days. BilledMammal ( talk) 00:55, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
I've been writing some author bios lately for authors who did not write in English and whose books typically weren't ever officially translated. To help with understanding I've been adding machine translations of the titles (at least when these obviously were not nonsensical). Obviously I am aware that it is better to use an official translation, but where none is available, using a machine translation (or my own translation) is kosher, right? Is there something I should do to indicate that the name is not an official translation? FOARP ( talk) 13:23, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
"Raw or lightly edited machine translations have long been considered by the English Wikipedia community to be worse than nothing."You should not be adding machine translations, even of titles, unless you understand the language well enough yourself to check and correct the translation. — David Eppstein ( talk) 14:34, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
Both of these are referring to the translation of articles as a whole, not the names of books (which are often give some general understanding of their nature/content). FOARP ( talk) 21:47, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
I have been using Wikipedia:NBOOK to evaluate whether a work of electronic literature is notable, and it works pretty well. If a work hasn't had significant coverage in two or more independent reliable sources (e.g. reviews, scholarly papers) it probably isn't notable.
I just read the whole page, though, and see the requirement that a book have an ISBN number. This would invalidate almost all works of electronic literature as they are generally published online - sometimes in literary journals but often self-published, because there is no commercial system for publishing electronic literature. For instance, Caitlin Fisher's These Waves of Girls is obviously notable (it's on university syllabi, won an award, significant coverage in news media and scholarship) but was technically self-published and certainly doesn't have an ISBN number.
Can we specify that works of electronic literature are exempt from these requirements? Lijil ( talk) 19:49, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
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.Realistically, I think it's good to have it set up that way—there will be the occasional exception, but the vast majority of "electronic literature" (e.g., fan fiction, musings someone posted on the Internet, etc.), is indeed going to be non-notable. We can make the occasional exception as needed, but I think we probably should warn people that works which haven't even gotten an ISBN probably, though not absolutely, are not going to be notable. Basically, it seems you've found an exception that proves the rule, and indeed the rule provides for the existence of such exceptions. So, I would be in favor of leaving that as it is. Seraphimblade Talk to me 20:04, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
Hi, I want to know if a book is translated into foreign languages, shouldn't it be considered a notable book? We know only those books that are widely read and make some impact upon the readers' circles get the privilege of being translated into other languages. Thanks. Persona2two ( talk) 14:25, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
Any input at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Power Without Glory (2015 book), on a book about early racing cars, would be appreciated. The AFD has been dominated by me (the nominator) and the book's author and I think some fresh perspectives would be helpful here. Graham87 ( talk) 12:14, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
Could someone weigh in here on whether that is a notable textbook or not? Thanks. ~WikiOriginal-9~ ( talk) 01:21, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
In terms of criteria 1, do reviews in sites such as Kirkus Reviews, Publishers Weekly and Booklist count, given the breadth of their coverage? BobFromBrockley ( talk) 15:49, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
Has anyone ever seen an AfD where a book article is kept based solely on this criterion? I'm unconvinced that this ever works successfully in practice. -- asilvering ( talk) 16:18, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
May I ask here...? Regarding the criterion: The book is, or has been, the subject of instruction at two or more schools, colleges, universities or post-graduate programs in any particular country - what is the necessity of the word 'particular' in this sentence? If the word were removed, would it make any difference? Connoissaur ( talk) 16:31, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
The book is, or has been, the subject of instruction at two or more schools, colleges, universities or post-graduate programs.Schazjmd (talk) 16:46, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
I wrote an article on a book, Bad News: How Woke Media Is Undermining Democracy, that has at its thesis that American media are turning away from a mass appeal and towards a selective readership of highly educated, upper class readers. I think it's ironic that an editor has immediately removed book reviews from mass market media like The New York Post.
In a followup on the talkpage, the other editor said they didn't meet WP:RSP criteria (though they were in Further reading not used as sources). Of lesser concern, why Jewish Journal and New York Journal of Books were lumped in with these "tainted" sources of wide appeal and removed from Further reading at the same time.
Given the notability discussion in the immediately prior section, I think the article's between a rock and a hard place. On the one hand, straightforward "factual" reviews like Publishers Weekly are attacked as "routine". But reviews that go into any analysis are labeled as POV and tainted, and therefore inadmissible to even indicate they exist. My worst fear is that we allow sources that do socio-political analysis, but only by publications with the "right" political bent like The New York Times and not Fox News or Quillette.
Reactions? ☆ Bri ( talk) 21:21, 24 March 2024 (UTC)