Wikipedia talk:Notability (books)

message: 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)
thread_title:  Ironic institutionalization of "highbrow" sources 

message: In the section "Derivative articles" add the sub-section "Book series". Add this statement: "Articles on book series may be created in some cases where there are no series-level sources, drawing on the sourcing of the individual books." Also include any more specific examples/criteria for which we reach consensus below.
Support
* as nominator. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 03:06, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposal 1: in principle, series articles do not need series-specific coverage

message: Add this statement: "When at least two books in a series individually pass NBOOK, they may be covered at a series-level article alongside any non-notable books in the series. The series-level article may be in addition to or instead of individual articles for the NBOOK-notable books, following editorial judgment as discussed in WP:PAGEDECIDE."
Support
* as nominator. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 03:06, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposal 2: two notable books allow a series article

message: Add this statement: "Sources addressing individual works in a series may be treated as sources 'on' the series for NBOOK, allowing for series articles even where no individual book meets NBOOK." For example, if there are seven books and the first two each has one review, this criteria would allow a series article.
Support
*If we must add something to the guideline, I support the adding the following wording: 
*:"This guideline applies to series of books, and to multi-volume books, as well as to single-volume books. Where a source contains coverage of one of the books in a series of books, this coverage is deemed to be coverage of the series of books, in addition to being coverage of that book. Where a source contains coverage of one of the volumes in a multi-volume book, this coverage is deemed to be coverage of the multi-volume book, in addition to being coverage of that volume. Where book in a notable series of books, or a volume in a notable multi-volume book, is not independently notable, it should be merged to the series or multi-volume work. Editors may use their discretion to merge a book into the series of books of which the book is part, in cases where the level of coverage the book, and the rest of the series, has received is such that the book can be conveniently covered in the parent article, without the parent article becoming unbalanced or too large. Editors may use their discretion to merge a volume into the multi-volume book of which the volume is part, in cases where the level of coverage the volume, and the rest of the multi-volume book, has received is such that the volume can be conveniently covered in the parent article, without the parent article becoming unbalanced or too large."
*:If a series has two books, and each of those has one review: that is entirely equivalent to one book with two reviews. We have to allow such a series to satisfy NBOOK to avoid indiscriminate exclusion of topics. I should point out that, while criteria 1 of NBOOK can be satisfied by two or more reviews, these reviews must contain "non-trivial treatment" which is more than "nonsubstantive detail treatment" (see footnote 1 to criteria 1). That means the two or more reviews must contain "significant coverage" within the meaning of GNG, or at least something equivalent or very similar. If, for example, the two reviews are both ten pages long, that twenty pages of coverage easily passes GNG and NBOOK. James500 (talk) 02:48, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposal 3: two book-level sources are a series-level NBOOK pass

message: Add this statement: "Sources addressing individual works in a series may be treated as sources 'on' the series for WP:GNG, allowing for series articles even where no individual book meets NBOOK." For example, if there are seven books and each book has one review, this criteria would likely allow a series article.
Support
* Support: I think this would be good as one of the aspects of a NSERIES section. I don't know that this should be a criteria per se - but I'm not opposed to it. I think that this should be one of the footnotes, like mentioning this as a common sense thing to keep in mind while looking for sourcing so that we don't have people arguing that a review for a book can't establish notability for the series. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 13:11, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposal 4: several book-level sources allow a series article

message: Add this statement: "When books are in a series, it is usually more useful for the article to begin at the series level. Articles for any individually notable books can be split out from the series article when there is sufficient material to require it, in keeping with WP:SUMMARY."
Support
* This is really just advice rather than guidance on notability but I think it's good advice and might be useful to have stated explicitly.~ L 🌸 (talk) 03:06, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposal 5: actively suggest beginning with series-level articles

message: Add this statement: "Where there is series-level coverage sufficient for WP:NLIST, individually notable books are not required."
Support
* PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:43, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposal 6: if a series passes NLIST it's ok if its entries don't pass NBOOK

message: Add the following wording to NBOOK:
:"This guideline applies to series of books, and to multi-volume books, as well as to single-volume books. Where a source contains coverage of one of the books in a series of books, this coverage is deemed to be coverage of the series of books, in addition to being coverage of that book. Where a source contains coverage of one of the volumes in a multi-volume book, this coverage is deemed to be coverage of the multi-volume book, in addition to being coverage of that volume. Where a book in a notable series of books, or a volume in a notable multi-volume book, is not independently notable, it should be merged to the series or multi-volume work. Editors may use their discretion to merge a book into the series of books of which the book is part, in cases where the level of coverage the book, and the rest of the series, has received is such that the book can be conveniently covered in the parent article, without the parent article becoming unbalanced or too large. Editors may use their discretion to merge a volume into the multi-volume book of which the volume is part, in cases where the level of coverage the volume, and the rest of the multi-volume book, has received is such that the volume can be conveniently covered in the parent article, without the parent article becoming unbalanced or too large. The general notability guideline, in its application to series of books, and to multi-volume books, shall be interpretated in accordance with this paragraph."
Support
*As proposer, per the reasoning I have given above in this discussion, and because this is status quo. I belive this drafting is completely watertight. James500 (talk) 03:00, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I agree. I "monograph series" and "novel series" are plainly different, but I don't really see how that has relevance for whether and how NBOOK applies. -- asilvering (talk) 21:40, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

text: Maybe more notable, but that would still need to be demonstrated by in-depth coverage of the series in reliable sources. I do not think that, in such cases, coverage of individual books can be used as coverage of the series, because such coverage is not likely to say much or anything about the series the book is published in. Also, no, LNCS is not a magazine. It is not an academic journal. It is a book series. Book series may have ISSNs. That does not make them magazines. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:43, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposal 7: Add wording that simply confirms what NBOOK and GNG already say and already mean

message: at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ATLAS of Finite Groups: "The notability criteria for books are insane in my mind because they are clearly written by people who had absolutely not thought about the very existence of science books: the criterion “the book has been considered by reliable sources to have made a significant contribution to a notable or significant motion picture, or other art form, or event or political or religious movement” for example, clearly fails to take into account the possibility that the book made a significant contribution to a scientific field (the words “science” or “scientific” don't even appear in the criteria)". Apokrif (talk) 21:40, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: The usual way of passing NBOOKS for science books is through NBOOKS #1 and through having multiple in-depth sources about it (same as WP:GNG), often reliably published book reviews. In the case you mention, this appears to have been demonstrated both in reviews linked in the AfD and in the current references of the article. I agree, though, that #3 is suspiciously specific, and should probably be changed. I imagine what it was really intended for is some kind of inherited notability: if a book is adapted into a notable motion picture, then the book should also be notable. The parts about "other art form, or event or political or religious movement" seem tacked-on and maybe applicable to only a very small number of cases. There are books that have made (rather than merely documented) significant contributions to science and technology; whether there are any that do not also pass #1 is a different question. The Mythical Man-Month might be one; at least, its current sourcing is not convincing, but I am certain that it would pass a STEM-oriented version of #3. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:03, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd be up for amending/modifying #3 for clarity's sake. XOR'easter (talk) 16:54, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Does this page need more criteria for science books?