Wikipedia talk:Notability (books)/Archive 2

message: Exactly that... I have yet to run across a book that is non-notable... that could not be stated as such by other notibility requirements. I believe that all of our existing policies and guidelines are sufficent for our purposes. Eagle talk 00:32, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/America Deceived, the debate that was the spur to begin drafting this proposal. There, though the book appeared eminently non-notable, the existing guideline standards were discussed and found to have problems, plus a number of the issues addressed in this proposal were debated.--Fuhghettaboutit 04:43, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Are these really needed? 

message: Guildeline says meeting one criterion = inclusion. The guideline does not say failing one criterion = exclusion.
So more criteria = more chances for inclusion. OK, those had more than one syllable. :-P JackyR | Talk 10:04, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Words of one syllable

message: Sorry for ducking out. The project page is looking very good indeed. My gut instinct is still to go with Francis and say that books should show influence (sorry for getting tangled trying to express that such influence might manifest itself by being taught in schools, instead of having reviews), but I fully accept that that would be setting the bar rather higher than elsewhere in WP. So very happy with what we have, or can probably be persuaded to support changes in line with other WP projects.
(And it would be wonderful to have an article on De Muur by Jos Vandeloo. :-) Not the starting place for a planned project on Dutch lit, I agree, but we certainly wouldn't delete it if some keen student wrote it.)
Below I offer two pieces of food for thought. JackyR | Talk 19:00, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, poo! I've justt deleted several hours work on the second piece (entirely different). Will post anon. JackyR | Talk 22:38, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criteria as of today 

message: How can one person simply come here and say that this has been rejected? Francis, you don't own this page. Pascal.Tesson 07:31, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As I said before, the gallons of ink spilled above are by a very circumscribed group of editors (19 at last count; majority are only six editors), and a large portion are from some of the most inclusionist editors the pedia has. As I also noted, with a detailed summary, the positions of those who have contributed are not clear, with the majority making suggestions (many implemented) and which do not even comment with respect to acceptance or rejection. Finally, and as I also noted to Francis in particular in response to previously jumping the gun (at that time 13 days after the first draft was started), the notability guidelines that have been accepted or rejected have taken as long as two years for that process. We are now two and one half months out. I do think we need to archive this talk page and have a straw poll or similar mechanism in the not too distant future, but to mark this as rejected when there has been few commentators, barely a discussion of adoption or rejection and in context only a short time period since proposal, is inappropriate and out of process.--Fuhghettaboutit 14:20, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Could you possibly comment on the eg above - which might pass WP:V, etc, but fail these guidelines? I introduced it precisely to demonstrate whether these guidelines have mileage. JackyR | Talk 19:36, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry I have been editing slightly less than usual these past two weeks. I commented on it in the next section.--Fuhghettaboutit 04:04, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal rejected? 

message: As Frankb noted a while back, much of the talk for this page has been addressed or has become obsolete as the proposal evolved. I propose archiving but wanted to put that up for debate here before doing so unilaterally. Any objections? Any thoughts on whether we should archive it all, including this post, or at what specific post should the archived section begin? I will not archive before September 19, regardless of response.--Fuhghettaboutit 20:26, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok so I went ahead and archived what seemed like unquestionnably dead discussions. But please feel free to review this and move stuff back in if you feel that is needed. Pascal.Tesson 22:41, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Archiving

message: I'm having a hard time getting my head around this proposal, mostly because I'm not sure what the core principles of notability are.  I agree that there probably are some books that don't belong on Wikipedia, but also note that the overall notability rule itself has failed to reach enough consensus even to reach guideline status, and that the notability guidelines that do exist are phenomenally broad.  Are there any core principles that we can agree on?  Thanks, TheronJ 13:50, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately, I'm not sure there are.  The only real rough consensus I can see is that having an ISBN number alone is not enough for inclusion.  I still haven't seen a real compelling argument against limiting inclusion to modern-era books published by a non-vanity press, but that doesn't seem to have much traction, either.  I just wish people would look at this from an inclusionary as opposed to an exclusionary standpoint. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:53, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Your best bet is to look at what articles exist (for creation precedent) and what are deleted (for deletion precedent). A reasonable start would be along the lines of WP:FICT: list books in the article on their author, unless this would make the article too long. List characters in the articles on the book, unless this would make the article too long. Of course, if the author fails WP:BIO, the lot of it gets deleted. Any self-published book is going to fail the notability standard (except in extreme exceptions). >Radiant< 21:28, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would never do that, as there are a) no binding precedents, and b) because we don't have a workable guideline to guide people with.  The "votes" aren't based in anything other than people's personal feelings, some of which are extremely inclusionary (any book with an ISBN) and some which are extremely exclusionary (not many books are "notable," not even all of Stephen Kings would be, etc).  Books should, at worst, be handled like albums are - if an author is notable, so are their  works.  At best, we should go with a logical position like we do our typical verifiability policy for sourcing, namely independent review - if a book is published by a non-vanity house, it's suitable for inclusion.  It shouldn't be this difficult to pull together, and I worry that when we start adding in sales figures and reviews and whatnot, it starts being pulled together by people who have a limited understanding regarding how publishing works, which is not helpful. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:55, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Pretty much every music album, movie, and television show that is published nationally is notable enough for its own page, right?  I don't have any problem with compressing the books onto the author page as long as there's room as a stylistic issue, but the "as long as there's room" doesn't really affect whether the books are notable.   Notable but stubby books like The Corsican Brothers (there's actually no entry, so it's a sub-stub at this point) might go on the Dumas page until there's enough text to spin them off, but that's true whether or not they are notable.  TheronJ
*Well, yes. But the point of guidelines isn't just a blanket "include or not", it's also a matter of organizing content. If some kind of content would make more sense merged into context, we might as well state that in the guideline. >Radiant< 21:06, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Are there any broader notability guidelines? 

message: It seems like some good progress has been made on this criteria since the last time I looked at it and I appreciate the effort even if I don't agree with every point. I wanted to make one suggestion with regard to criteria six based on some recent AfD debates.
6 The book has been the subject[3] of multiple, non-trivial[4] published works whose sources are independent of the book itself.
:The immediately preceding criterion excludes media re-prints of press releases, flapcopy, or other publications where the author, its publisher, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the book[5], but includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries and reviews.
Specifically, I think its important to specify that these published works should not come exclusively from sources within the same area of study as the book in question but must include general works. The goal here is to cut down on cruft. If a book has only attracted attention from within its own field it really isn't notable. For example we've seen a number of conspiracy theory books that get reviewed or discussed by many other conspiracy theorists but which barely attract any mainstream attention at all.
Secondly, criteria 6 should exclude publications such as Publishers Weekly which review enormous numbers of books (in PW's case 7000 a year) without much of a selection bias. Surely a good number of those 7000 books a year are not notable. 
Finally, I want to make a more general point about WP:BK. Lets say that about 1000 books a year pass this criteria. Of these, there will be wikipedia articles on say the 100 most notable (bestsellers, won major prizes, etc) and those less notable books that serve to push someones POV (the conspiracy theory books, polemics on various controversial topics, etc.) but nobody is going to write up articles for vast majority of the (say 800) books that fall into neither of these categories. As a result, it will seem to our readers as if we are giving undue weight to controversial material. This will contribute to the feeling that wikipedia is becoming less of an encyclopedia and more of a compendium of diatribes and controversial ideas that have no other outlet. I would urge you all to consider a stricter inclusion criteria. GabrielF 16:03, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for taking up my invitation Garbriel. We need new voices here. Maybe searching out AFD debates on books and leaving a short aside about helping construct these criteria (in addition to addressing the article up for deletion) is a good way to get more interest going; it worked here. I for one find it dissapointing that so few editors have shared their thoughts. I am still ambivalent about the article I went to bat for. I know we must put aside our likes and dislikes but I would have wished the book at issue wasn't such a repugnant one though I still think the Naples award puts the book over the edge. Enough disgression. I think the [now implemented] suggestions are good ones and have to agree with Pascal on the last point. By anaology, it is a shame that we have so much pop culture coverage and such holes in so many other areas but we can't get rid of the former because it overbalances the latter, and have to hope that eventually they will equalize.--Fuhghettaboutit 22:11, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some suggestions 

message: I don't have much time right now, (have to leave the house in about 3 minutes) so I'll be brief: One qualification that I believe might be useful to add to this page is commercial publication in multiple languages as an evidence of notability. Would there be any objection to this? --tjstrf Now on editor review! 00:52, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well actually (people help me out here) I think it was at some point part of the criteria. But we decided to drop it to compromise with badlydrawnjeff who wants a simpler set of criteria. The question we must ask ourselves is: will adding this criterion really add anything? I'm tempted to think that any book which has multiple translations will have plenty of third-party coverage in any case. Pascal.Tesson 01:21, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The relevant question would be, is that coverage in English? --tjstrf Now on editor review! 03:33, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The relevant counter point would be: don't we accept reliable sources even if they're not in English? :-)  Pascal.Tesson 03:51, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Which, while true, is relatively useless if I don't speak other languages. --tjstrf Now on editor review! 00:15, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I happen to disagree: unless it's a very obscure language spoken by a handful you can trust editors who speak other languages to check that non-English sources do indeed say what an article claims. Pascal.Tesson 01:35, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Actually, we dropped it because it was too much to begin with (someone recommended 10 translations, which rarely happens), and it didn't add anything.  It still doesn't, IMO. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:45, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Come on man, be fair... The suggestion of 10 translations stood for less than a week. Pascal.Tesson 01:35, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Additional criteria? 

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  22:33, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point. I have added it to the coverage exclusion section.--Fuhghettaboutit 22:42, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Oh no. What I did as add it to exclusions from coverage, meaning, that the page does not provide guidance for evaluating the notability of exam prep books! As for adding a section on them, well, until such time as someone drafts a criteria for them, they should not be included as they do not fit into the criteria presently written. You'll also note that the "exclusion" from coverage section I was referring to, states that the criteria do not presently provide guidance. If you want to make some suggestions for what standards we should have for prep books, by all means.--Fuhghettaboutit 23:21, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Exam books

message: There's an interesting approach to US Constitutional interpretation 
that says that disputed borderline issues should be decided on the side 
that favors individual liberty. 
I suggest an analogy, based on the presumed agreement to the general 
ideas of free speech among anyone who would be writing here. 
"A book that has any public attention other than  a WP discussion and 
other than from its author should be 
kept, if someone other than the author of the book, or an associate 
such as that person's publisher, is prepared to write a non-trivial 
article." 
One of the comments mentioned finding that almost all the Google 
listings were to WP. WP is so much a part of popular culture that to 
be discussed here is almost enough to make something notable. 
As mentioned above, LJ lists all novels, and gives a plot summary, 
under the assumption that you never can tell.   
DGG 06:29, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think this presumption would swallow the entire notion of notability.  But you've hit on a core point, I think, which is trusting in the collective wp editorial body. Perhaps one could include this as "Other considerations" -- evidence of significant interest from multiple wp editors suggests, but not conclusively, notability.  (It seems like this whole concept must have been considered in other notability discussions before, but I'm not familiar enough with them to say.) --LQ 17:12, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  presumption of notability 

message: The problem with the "threshold" standard of a dozen or more libraries is that it disadvantages books like, say, The Gutenberg Bible (eleven complete copies).  Other notable writers might have written an early text that is rare and, because of copyright law or the exigencies of publishing, out of print.  Other notable writers might issue a limited edition work that is distributed only at a conference, for instance.  I'd propose that this "threshold" be limited with a "rare, old, or out of print" exception, or possibly something like (a) independently historically notable; (b) notable in the history of publishing; (c) notable within a particular notable writer's oeuvre. --LQ 13:23, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We're not writing a text of law here. Common sense will always prevail in these cases. Pascal.Tesson 14:57, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In theory, common sense sometimes prevails in law too. ;-)  But some people will attempt to apply rules rigidly, so if there are "common sense" exemptions then they ought to be mentioned. I used The Gutenberg Bible as an example because it is obvious, but there are less obvious examples, where notability will be harder for non-experts to ascertain; in those instances a little more greyness in the rule would be helpful to avoid non-common-sensical disputes and edit/revert wars. IMO. --LQ 16:15, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I see what you mean but this is a guideline and should be used as a rough first step in assessing the importance of a book subject. If we start chipping away at every little exception, the guideline will turn into a maze of exceptions and counter-exceptions, making it useless as a tool in AfD. If a book is not widely accessible and has not been written about in multiple non-trivial sources then it will be kept and that's all we care about. Nobody will ever seriously argue "but we should delete the Gutenberg Bible because it has only 11 copies and WP:BK says it should be 12." Actually, somebody might but that person will be blocked for trolling. :-)  Pascal.Tesson 16:29, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right to remind me that this is a guideline. I think that I may be getting hung up on the "threshold" term, which in law means a bar; "threshold" to me therefore stands in opposition to the "guideline" aspect. Perhaps, rather than pointing out the various potential exceptions, changing the heading from "Threshold standards" to "Commercial publication and distribution" (for example) would not trigger that confusion for legally-inclined folks.  Also, the last sentence in the "threshold standards" criteria cuts against the "guideline" aspect of the overall document.  How about changing the last sentence from However, these are exclusionary criteria 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. to Meeting commercial publication and distribution criteria does not imply a book is notable, but most modern books which do not meet these criteria would likely not be notable.  Or just eliminate the second half of the sentence entirely. --LQ 17:06, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  threshold standards: "dozen or more libraries" 

message: Maybe a specialist here can take a look at Greg Green and tell us how to proceed. Thanks. (F0xfree 13:48, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Greg Green 

message: I have made a small change here to return to what must have been the original intent; the sentence as it was didn't make sense to me. --Brianyoumans 08:46, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Derivative articles