Wikipedia talk:Notability (books)

Is it just me or...

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)

Does major newspaper mention of a book alone qualify the book?

Reading the following and its footnotes:

The book has been the subject[1] of multiple, non-trivial[2] published works whose sources are independent of the book itself.[3] 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.[4]

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)

Opinions sought on notability of academic book

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)

Of those issues, the 3 reviews are the ones enough to assert notability. Sounds like you've met the GNG to me, based on what you've written here. Jclemens (talk) 04:44, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

50 citations also doesn't hurt (and is a pretty decent number), as that can be used to support notability as well. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 06:21, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I've removed the notability notice for now. 'neath the wings (talk) 11:52, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

BKCRIT 3

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)

Author's article

Is a book inherently not notable if the author doesn't have an article? Ryan Vesey Review me! 17:12, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Raising the bar?

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)

"Literature classes"

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)

This has been touched on before, with some valid points made but no real resolution: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(books)/Archive_4#Non-literary_authors Barnabypage (talk) 11:03, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. That discussion seems to have been somewhat derailed before a consensus (or lack thereof) could be found for a wording like "the author's life and body of written work would be a common subject of academic study." I'd be interested in reopening a discussion along those lines. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 15:58, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Best Sellers - continued discussion per RfC closure

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)

As long as we are clear on which bestseller lists are acceptable, then I don't see a problem. The three mentioned by the closer are a good start. Outside of those, however, I don't think we should be using them to establish notability. It might be good to establish something like "Being #1 on an established and trusted bestseller list establishes notability. Remaining on one of those bestseller lists for 5 or more weeks, regardless of initial position, also establishes notability." I think that the # of weeks is negotiable as a book on the list for 3 weeks or more is not a super common occurrence. Thoughts? ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 19:57, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

While I don't disagree, I wonder if it's really worth hashing it out, given that any book that appears on the consensus list of major bestseller lists will undoubtedly have sufficient numbers and depths of Internet-accessible book reviews to meet the GNG. Jclemens (talk) 21:15, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Possibly. Some genres garner less reviews (such as science fiction, fantasy, and horror), however. On another note, it may also be good to limit to appearance in the top 10 on the list (for establishing notability) as some lists show more than that (35 for the hardcover fiction list), while others only list the top 10 (children's chapter books). ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 22:54, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

I think the Top 15 in the New York Times bestsellers lists is a reasonable demarcation. After all, it is the Top 15 that they list by name in the hard copy edition of the newspaper.OnlySwissMiss (talk) 21:45, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Self-published books

According to a new analysis:

Self-publishing is becoming "mainstream", with new figures revealing the number of do-it-yourself books published in the US has exploded, tripling in the last five years to reach almost quarter of a million titles in 2011. "This is no longer just vanity presses at work".. earlier this summer, four self-published authors had seven novels on the New York Times ebook bestseller list. In 2011, America's 148,424 self-published print books accounted for 43% of the total print output.

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)

RfC notification: Expanding A9

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)

Nutshell proposal

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[1] 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 perhaps received 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)