Wikipedia talk:Notability (books)/Archive 1

message: Great work. I've added a few changes to the original proposal by Fuhghettaboutit, the only notable (!) change I think is the one concerning multiple translations as a criterion. I have to think about it some more but I think the current guidelines should make slight distinctions between fiction and non-fiction. Also I am slightly concerned about the 100 000 copies treshold which sounds pretty low to me but I might be wrong here. Pascal.Tesson 02:52, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks! With regard to 100,000, the question becomes how to determine what arbitrary number should be the threshold. Let me see if I can do some research on printing standards, which might shed some light.--Fuhghettaboutit 04:04, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I found an interesting bit of info about sales number . I would say that the 100 000 copies threshold is still too low because we want a criterion that automatically establishes notability. Maybe we could have a different threshold for fiction and non-fiction since I assume that popular non-fiction (like automobile guides, or even moderately successful self-help books) have more impressive sales on average. I also have a slight concern about focusing too sharply on books written in english. A novel that sold 100 000 copies in german or portuguese for instance is an exceptionnal success. Again, I will take some time to think about a constructive edit reflecting this. (But not today). Pascal.Tesson 14:01, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Great work Fuhghettaboutit

message: I removed a proposed example of debate which resulted in the article being kept. The debate in question was Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Nazi Connection to Islamic Terrorism which did not result in a consensus keep but rather a close-call no-consensus to delete. In fact, I think this book would probably fail all proposed criteria given in the page since it is self-published, has little sales or notability and since all the reviews of it linked to in the article's page are either blogs or from sources which are not independent of the author. I am not against having examples of AfD which resulted in keep but at least let's find examples where there was a solid consensus to keep and where the criteria given in the proposal are invoked. Pascal.Tesson 16:49, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Note this last paragraph was written before I had a chance to read Francis Schonken's last comment on this talk page. Pascal.Tesson 16:51, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I see you have put back the AfD example. It's all good: I think you made your point clear. I've added the comment. Also, I think we should in fact have four sections: the obvious examples, the not-so-obvious examples which have been nominated but kept by consensus, examples that were no-consensus but for which the proposed criteria might help to reach consensus, and last but not least, the ones that were deleted. A few of each kind with some comments would help clarify the guidelines I think. I'll go AfD hunting to find some examples. Pascal.Tesson 17:44, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I attempted to locate more debates last night without much luck. I tried various google searches (site:en.wikipedia.org "Wikipedia:articles for deletion" [and then various separate searches using that basis such as "not notable nook", "non notable book", "nn book"]). Anyone have a better search criteria,/another method? I don't relish scrolling through page after page at Wikipedia:Archived delete debates--Fuhghettaboutit 17:50, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I see you found the CIA and September 11--I remember that one and participated, and was trying to think of the name last night!--Fuhghettaboutit 19:27, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

text: That gives rise to another notability criteria although maybe it's too obvious "Any book that is widely taught in colleges and/or high schools in any country." In short, no one could or ever should. I think they offered a course just on Flaubert at college.--Fuhghettaboutit 19:26, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  about examples of kept 

message: I invite someone who is more conversant with academic publications to draft a separate specific section. It seems to me we cannot use the same standard. Generally, I imagine the criteria should be more a matter of the book's influence, than its "sales"; its citation by other academics; a note on applicability/use/theshold for google scholar might be appropriate. If we don't have a separate section, I think we will have to specifically exclude academic books from this page's ambit.--Fuhghettaboutit 17:56, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How about citations?  Science Citation Index and allied works have done a lot of reseearch in this area. Kdammers 11:30, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Academic standards

message: I thought this guideline would attract more editors (maybe it soon will) but in the meantime I would say that the three of us are doing a pretty good collaborative job! :-) Pascal.Tesson 18:22, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: ^5?:-)--Fuhghettaboutit 19:29, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  time for a little self-congratulation 

message: For the sake of clarity of the talk page, I am starting a different subsection. We currently have three categories: 3000 B.C. to 1750, 1750-modern (which is what, 1950?) and modern. While it makes sense to have a separate section for older books, I think we could merge the first two categories. The common sense approach for the second category is a very reasonnable approach to the notability of much older books. I would propose that we change the section title to something like "19th century and earlier" and say that we define the "modern era" to start in 1900. We can add a sentence in the coverage notes to say that we deal first with 20th and 21st century books and then everything prior to that. Pascal.Tesson 12:28, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What about going the other way?  While there is a lot of rubbish from after, say, Gutenberg, it's pretty hard to think of a true "book" (i.e., not just some fragment) from Greece, Rome or Egypt that wouldn't be axiomatically notable (though I guess I might have to yield on some cuneiform texts).  Books from Classical antiquity might, thus, be cordoned off as "prima faciely" notable.  This would be true for India and China, too.  Responses? Kdammers 09:11, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Antiquity 

message: I oppose the new "importance scale" ranking system now being used for novels. I believe it is not possible to maintain NPOV with such a thing and will only lead to conflict between editors who believe a work is more important (or less important) than it is. This falls into the "if it ain't broke don't fix it" category -- we don't need it. 23skidoo 13:45, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure what you are refering to. Is there any mention of a ranking system for novels in the current proposal? Pascal.Tesson 13:50, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, this is a reference to part of the WP:1.0 assessments (and by implication WP:V0.5) and their work with WikiProjects to rate the quality of article across wikipedia and the importance thing is I think meant to be a different slant / understanding on notability. I mantioned both your work on this page and the WP:1.0 assessment work on our Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels at about the same time. As there have inter related ideas I think the issues might have become confussed. In Short "Notability" is an issue for "Here!" and "Importance" (possibily based on notability) is an issue for WP:1.0 and WP:WVWP, thanks. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 14:54, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Oppose the "importance scale"

message: I propose that the modern era begins in 1923 instead of 1900.  Any book published before 1923 is in the public domain in the US, which means the full text is online or can be put online.  That's an important distinction for Wikipedia as a free-culture project. Phr (talk) 05:59, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Entirely sensible. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:57, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Modern era 

message: Is there a difference between text books and Exam-oriented-books (Like the Self Assessment and Board Review) as far as notability is concerned. Doctor Bruno 06:56, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would think the exclusion for instruction manuals already covers this. Do you think this needs to be spelled out? We are not exactly inundated by problematic exam prep book articles.--Fuhghettaboutit 17:01, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Exam Books

message: From the notability criteria:
# The book is authored by a person meeting Wikipedia's notability criteria for people.
# The book is by a bestselling or otherwise notable author.
It would seem to me that if a book was written by a bestselling or otherwise notable author, that person automatically meets Wikipedia's notability criteria for people. I think we can therefore get rid of #2 here. Andrew Levine 14:59, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Believe it or not, there are actually people who feel that an author can be noteworthy, but his/her books cannot.  Best to be safe, in my opinion. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:12, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Jeff on this one. It may be technically redundant but putting a fine a point on it doesn't hurt. --Fuhghettaboutit 17:01, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is modern era criterion #2 necessary? 

message: For notability purposes, are there any definitions or standards for what constitutes a "best seller" or "best selling author"? Thanks! -AED 04:15, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This was kicked about in the early going. There is no hard and fast rule, just like spelling, but just editor's guidelines, like the NYT. Iirc, if one percent of a countries population read a book, that's selling very danged well indeed. Suggestion for  and friends who have been following this closely— it'd be appreciated if you recapped 'fork' and 'deadend' discussions above as a ';' prefixed line-summary  to said discussion parts, and strikeout the balance (i.e. old news...). I'm sure you know where you've shifted the guideline and why, including what determinations made your reasoning move. I'll take another stab later in the week. btw, Fuhghettaboutit I was negative about the unrealistic sales numbers for the most part. I believe I can certainly go along with self-published needing a much better standard. I've also coresponded for years with a five times published author and none of her stuff was in the least worthy of an article. The thing I have trouble wrapping my arms around is why so many persons feel justified in being critical when you haven't stood in the arena and experienced just how tough getting published can be. What is the interest in keeping article count down? WMF brags about it so often. There are tons of articles on fictional characters, spin-offs, and rock/punk/jazz/etc., near-starving actors, artists and performers (not to mention sports figures!). Why should we draw the line and discourage articles on the one media that actually isn't passive, that engages the mind, and may trigger someone into a healthy passion for learning—allowing them to better raise a family given the gift of avid reading habits, and so they too will gain the confidence to write a wikipedia article someday (The 3,976,789th, I think <g>). Seriously, you curb the acceptability of well written articles on anything, and you place yourself in opposition to the foundation goal of making all knowledge available to any one. If supporting that goal makes me negative, then I'll wear the title proudly. // <B>Fra</B>nkB 18:24, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey Frank. I 100% agree that much of the above talk is now defunct, but I can also tell you that my experience is that editing other people's posts is one of the fastest way in the Wikipedia West to get shot. I would certainly support archiving. I also agree with you that there is far too much not-notable fictional universe characters and things on the 'pedia. I just don't think the fact that these things exist, that our notability standards for fiction are a failure (in my opinion) and that we are so inundated by those types of articles that our floodgate controls are rendered ineffective, is at all relevant to whether we should or should not have a cogent notability standard in another arena. Finally I also agree with you that it would be a terrible thing to discourage reading and books in any way. I am a lifelong voracious reader; I have a masters in English Lit; I worship books. It is here where our thoughts depart. I think that having articles only on notable subjects helps further this goal and you seem to think the opposite.--Fuhghettaboutit 22:28, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Best seller