Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Notability (books)/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3→Archive 5

Academic publications

I'm not sure what crieteria to use but I think we need a qualifier in here regarding academic publications/textbooks.--Fuhghettaboutit 02:27, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

This definitely needs to be addressed. Many specialty academic text books will never come close to the 100,000 copy mark, and yet they set the knowledge precedent for their fields...and ultimately may even be cited as references for WP articles! I may be considered a little biased, since I once edited a textbook on helicopter aerodynamics, but it does provide a good example...though the book is still in print, only 2000 copies have been produced. And yet it is still notable, because it was written by one of the world's foremost authorities on the subject, and is the principle text where ever the highly specialized science of helicopter aerodynamics is taught. Same goes for some medical texts...they set the benchmark in their particular niche, and though they won't ever see the NY Times Best Sellers list, you darn well better hope the neurosurgeon who's gonna operate on your brain has read them! Akradecki 20:23, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
I agree which is why I flagged this again later herein in more detail. I plan on submitting this for a straw poll at some point in the future but I don't think it is appropriate until academic texts are either addressed, or we state they are not covered (and I think they should be covered). So my request of you (and anyone else reading this) is: any specific suggestions/language for an academic criteria section? I imagine the standard should be more based on the citation of the work, its "influence," the academic fame of the academic who wrote the work, etc. --Fuhghettaboutit 20:32, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
It's a tricky question and not something I know a lot about, but the first thing that springs to mind: is there anything like Impact factor for books rather than journal articles?
We can also say, of course, that academic texts are covered by the reputable publisher thing: anything published by the OUP or Blackwell's or many other publishers would in my opinion count positively (c.f. the line publication by a major publishing house is indicia, but not determinative of notability). --JennyRad 23:11, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
I have drafted the section. Take a look. I highlighted the reputable publisher issue, and footnoted that for academic books, a reputable publisher is more relevant than for commercial books because of the nature of academic presses. Some actual academics, and who have published, can likely shed more light on the issue.--Fuhghettaboutit 01:38, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
It looks real good. The only thing I think might be also considered is usage: if at least one reputable institute of higher learning uses the book as a text, that should qualify it as notable. Akradecki 16:36, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the endorsement. I added in your suggestion as an additional inquiry.--Fuhghettaboutit 17:01, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

The book is fiction and has verifiably sold more than 500,000 copies[3]. The book is nonfiction and has verifiably sold more than 250,000 copies

Both the above are totally laughable. A GOOD first novel might sell 30,000 copies, at least in genre fiction. Granted mega-sellers might see 100,000 copies if one is named Grisham or Clancy, but by and large most 'good sellers' never see 50,000. Publishers are happy if something sells 15,000 or so. // FrankB 23:42, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Great work Fuhghettaboutit

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)

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)
I found an interesting bit of info about sales number [1]. 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)

Looks good

Looks good! Some suggestions:

  • The "predecessor" (the Wikipedia:Naming conventions (books)#Note on notability criteria section) was explicit on including e-books in the guideline. Here that is less clear. For me it's equal whether notability of e-books is assessed by Wikipedia:Notability (books) or by Wikipedia:Notability (web), but the guidelines should be explicit which one of the two applies (or both...) - also, at least one of the two should be clear about what happens if a book has both a notable "web" appearance and a notable "ink" appearance (God's Debris and The Cathedral and the Bazaar spring to mind, but there are or will be probably a few others, more on the notable/non-notable borderline).
  • I'm not too shure whether all this works fine for works from Antiquity. I suppose it does. But maybe the criteria are not so easy to "deploy" for books like The Pumpkinification of Claudius (uncertainty about the author), Augustan History (doesn't seem to have an ISBN, but is available from web resources),... These works from antiquity usually don't include specific "why is this notable" assertions in the article text (nor should they I suppose, their notability is taken for granted afaik)
  • Similarly for librettos: L'Olimpiade is defined as a "book" in the naming conventions guideline on books. Afaik it doesn't have an ISBN (despite that some 50 composers used the text for composing an opera) - generally, today, such "libretto" text is not printed in a separate "book" with an ISBN number. This is also related to "song texts" I suppose, so I suppose there is or should be some relation to the "song" notability proposal here: Wikipedia:WikiProject Music/Notability and Music Guidelines/Songs.
  • Periodicals: I propose the notability of periodicals would also (explicitly) be covered by the "books" guideline.
  • Comic strips: are also "books" I suppose: is their notability subject to Wikipedia:Notability (books) or Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) or both? Or would some Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics involvement be advised to sort that out?
  • "sold more than 150,000 copies" - a cookbook with average notability can do that I suppose, which in the "predecessor" recommendations would mean: not notable enough to warrant a separate Wikipedia article. Not too shure whether this "copies sold" criterion works too well.
  • Catalogued at Library of Congress and/or British Library - don't know the policies of these venerable institutions, but isn't this in danger of creating an Anglo-American focus (which is something to avoid according to Wikipedia's NPOV policy)? Other countries have similar institutions, and if a book is well known accross the globe, and cited/discussed in numerous languages, I don't see why registration in a similar institute in France or Italy etc. wouldn't be enough.

--Francis Schonken 09:30, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Great suggestions/issues raised. I do not know how to address them all and they will require some thought, but in the meantime I have added a section on ancient books.--Fuhghettaboutit 18:39, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
Okay, I have added an exclusion note at the beginning to define what the article does not cover (at least at present), addressing a number of your notes above, and rewrote the "Library of Congress section" to remove the anglo bias.--Fuhghettaboutit

Examples

I've added an examples section. Note that my choice of examples is pretty random and it might be better to find examples of books which are not as obviously notable. Actually, I kind of like the Chicken soup and Oprah entries which I think are nice illustrations of popular books. Also, I think it's important to have examples which are not too english-language centered for the sake of diversity. Similarly, the list of AfD just consists of the first few half-instructive examples but I'm sure there are better ones out there, so feel free to update with better ideas. Pascal.Tesson 05:09, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I will paste here part of a note I left on User:Fuhghettaboutit's talk page which is in fact more suited for this page.

I think the tricky thing is to find examples of articles that have been deleted but have an AfD debate that suitably explains what the book was and why it got deleted! One option to better organize the examples is to list for each notability criteria or non-notability indicia a list of, respectively, articles meeting these criteria and AfD pages where the argument centered against one of these.

Pascal.Tesson 05:19, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Vote date for "kept" book: I mentioned the vote date to make clear (in the future) that this vote was prior to this "notability" guideline (proposal). And because as far as I can see (on the surface, don't know much about the book) it wouldn't pass the current criteria. So maybe some kind of invitation to re-examine the "notability" of that book on the basis of the newly proposed criteria - or alternatively check the currently proposed criteria against a prior "keep" vote.
Indeed, for the "deleted" ones an indication of the time of vote would be welcome too. But less so than for the "keep" ones. If one of the now "deleted" ones gets re-inserted in Wikipedia (because it has become notable for some or other reason), then again, best to give the date when that decision was taken. IMHO. --Francis Schonken 16:47, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

about examples of kept

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)

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)
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)
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)

Good idea to add debate summaries! Anyway, for finding examples I went at it the other way around: the "Nazi connection" I knew about (it was at hand when we were writing the books naming conventions proposal), and further I went to look to a few places that might be on the notable/non-notable border, but for which I was surprised to find that they hadn't gone through a AfD cycle:

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)

My strategy to find them is not so good either but I ended up getting some examples by searching the wikipedia namespace for deletion and book. If the examples I put in look random it's because... well because they are! Just the first few interesting ones I could find. Maybe some future editor who was involved in a particularly relevant debate (like you were) can add these down the road. Pascal.Tesson 18:25, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Also, not that this is really the place to debate it, but of the three you just listed I think only the spaghetti monster one is really on the borderline of notability under the proposed criteria. In fact, arguing that the last two are notable might be a more enlightning addition to the examples section. After all, (and remember I wrote this) who would even begin to argue that Madame Bovary is not notable? Pascal.Tesson 18:33, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

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)

Academic standards

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)

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)

time for a little self-congratulation

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)

^5?:-)--Fuhghettaboutit 19:29, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Two points

  1. I still think at least e-books should be covered by this guideline (proposal). Or at least a clear statement that e-books are covered by wikipedia:notability (web). And a statement about what happens if books have both a web-presence and an ink presence (in that case: do both "web" and "books" notability guidelines apply, or one of the two?). I mean, we could dispense of many other related topics (like periodicals, etc.) for the time being, but not e-books: these are covered by the "preliminary" version of this notability guideline (which is a section of an active guideline, wikipedia:naming conventions (books)#Note on notability criteria): leaving e-books out of the more elaborate guideline would be a step backwards, I think.
  2. I'm not too fond of the last paragraph of the intro:

    Also, please keep in mind that the article in question must actually document that any criterion cited from here is actually true. It is not enough to make vague claims in the article or rant about a book's importance on a talk page or at its AfD page—the article itself must document notability.

    apart from the use of the word "true", which is defendable in the context, but somehow superficially contrary to WP:V's verifiability, not truth, my major problem is that the paragraph seems to suggest that all articles need in the article text statements where the "importance" of the topic is weighed. I refer to an addition to the Tacitus article I reverted this morning: the additions I reverted first changed Tacitus form being an "important" historian to the "most important", and then referenced that "most important" to the 1911 Britannica.[2] For me these are silly additions, it suggests some "notability" competition (Livy is also an important historian, and in the Renaissance this historian seems to have been preferred above Tacitus, see Tacitean studies); all this "importance" speech diverts from the real topic, which is "Tacitus" and not his popularity in all kinds of polls; and I also firmly believe in "let the article speak for itself, and let the reader decide for him/herself how 'important' that makes the topic."
    In short, I think these explicit elaborations going in detail over the "notability" aspect of topics in the article itself are not needed in most cases, maybe only needed for topics that came to prominence in the last decade or so, and whose "importance" wouldn't be established as self-evident in that period. Yeah in that case, making an explicit mentioning of the "why" of the topic's notability, with an external reference might be useful, but even then I'd avoid too much elaboration of that in the intro paragraph. Describing a topic in a few words in the intro, is more important than its "notability" proof (which is rather the internal workings of Wikipedia, so such "proof" is sometimes in danger of becoming a sort of self-reference).
    Still in other words, I think "the article itself must document notability." way too absolute as a formulation. Of course, if "notability" of a topic is an "issue", then there's no exception to WP:V whatsoever, but I think for 90% of Wikipedia's articles "notability" is not really an issue. Or should articles like Julius Caesar, for instance, contain "proof" of his notability? I don't think so, one wouldn't be finished with giving the most relevant references for that even if tripling the size of the article with footnotes. Does De Gaulle's article contain elaborated proof & references of his notability? I don't think so, and that would be a waste of space as far as I'm concerned. If an article, in general, is compliant to WP:V notability should be self-evident from that, and in most cases doesn't need explicit notability-related talk in the article. --Francis Schonken 09:13, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
I got about three words into your second point and already agreed with you 100%. I pasted that paragraph from another guideline and hadn't properly thought out the implications. It is now specific to the deletion debate, rather than to the article. Tell me what you think. With regard to the first point, I am mulling the criteria to suggest. I certainly wouldn't want to go back to the vague standards that were listed previously. --Fuhghettaboutit 10:28, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
tx! I'd still replace "actually true" by ''[[Wikipedia:Verifiability|Verifiable]]'' for greater conformity with established policy (that policy further also explains that "verifiability" is understood as against reliable sources: an expression in the sense of "I know it's actually true while I read about it in blog xyz" doesn't count, and I suppose that's the point to be made here). No further remarks on this paragraph :)
A next step could be that now I suppose we can shorten the paragraph about books from antiquity, I mean, the major distinction was that recent books needed to "assert" notability in the article, while the old books were supposed to have "axiomatic" notability. I suppose there's less difference now. Besides, the "antiquity" books paragraph draws the line too sharp IMHO, I wouldn't want to foster all the rubbish that was written in the Middle ages and Renaissance (and those words have an "Occidental" focus also, I have no idea whether the 1750 discriminator makes any sense in Chinese of Japanese litterature, for instance ...). And if you're unaware that there's much pre-1750 rubbish that survived to today, well, I think, you really aren't "missing" anything, much of it isn't worth mentioning & and only fit to be ignored, and that's what's usually done by scholars (so the impression it "doesn't exist" is easily explained from there).
My prior comment above to give separate attention to books from antiquity really only derived from the implied "need to defend notability in the article" that has now been removed from the proposal. I think notability applies to works from antiquity on the same grounds as the notability of more recent works, the only difference being that usually if a work from antiquity is still generally remembered today, notability is not an issue, and for works that only recently acquired notability, it might be needed to explain the "why" of the notability (while such "recent" knowledge might need some time to spread accross the globe).
So I'd reduce the "antiquity" section (if it still needs a separate section) to something in the vein of:

Books which are older than a few decades, and which are still widely available today, that is republished in several countries, or with recently published translations, or still cited as reference work in dozens of recent scholarly works, etc., have an assumed notability, not needed to be stated expressly in the article on the book. Only if the notability of the book is doubted, and not self-evident from the external reliable references provided in the book article, specific references to reliable sources relating to the book's notability should be given."

Note that in this way we also get rid of "average" cookbooks that sell 250.001 copies (...supposing that cookbooks are "non-fiction"), but usually are forgotten, and not re-printed ten years later, while by then there's a new best-seller cookbook.
What d'you think? --Francis Schonken 11:24, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
About Francis' second point. I made some changes which go a bit further than Fuhgh's initial edits. Let me know if you now feel it's too radical but I think a simple reminder of WP:V is indeed sufficient to make the point. To balance that, I added another WP:V reference just before the list of criteria. This seems to be standard in other guidelines. Pascal.Tesson 12:07, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
I've also tried to adress the e-book case. Basically, the same criteria should be used. The only problem is for books which are only published electronically and for which sales figures will either be non-existent (if the book is freely accessible) or impossible to verify. In that case, we can fall back on WP:WEB. Pascal.Tesson 12:18, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
Looks good--I added in the bit about Project Gutenberg and one more criteria in the main section.--Fuhghettaboutit 20:08, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Antiquity

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)

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)


Oppose the "importance scale"

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)

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)
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)

note on sales

I added a note to mention that these sales numbers are for books in english. I'm not that happy with the result but I think something like this should be stated if we ever hope that this proposal receives consensual approval. Pascal.Tesson 23:57, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Having just read the footnote, now I'm really confused. Isn't it more notable if a book in a language with far fewer speakers than English sells large numbers? I have this sneaking suspicion I am interpreting it the opposite of how you intend, but reading it again, it still seems to add an incredible anglo bias and make it more onerous for foreign language books. Please correct me if this is wrong--my reading is that, if a nonfiction book in Tagalog for instance, sold 250,000 copies, but was never translated into English, or was but didn't sell 250,000 copies in English, it would not meet the criterion.--Fuhghettaboutit 00:04, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
Well I guess I'll just have to rewrite that note! :-) Here's my intention: a book that has sold like mad in, say, the Czech Republic, might not reach 500,000 copies if only because there are 10 million inhabitants... Come to think of it, there probably has never been a book that sold 500 000 copies in its Czech edition. But a best-selling Czech novel should still be notable for Wikipedia's english version since we want to avoid systemic bias. In practice there are probably very few Czech novels which will ever be the subject of AfD debates but just in case I think we should have something in the criteria that says: here's the standard for books in english (which will be the focus of most debates anyway) and note that if the book is not originally in english then other standards should apply. See what I mean? Pascal.Tesson 00:48, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
Suggested change: I now think I know what you mean but I also think placing English right up front in the standard suggests and will be interpeted as an anglo bias and I still think the intent is not clear. I suggest taking out the addition to the criterion, keeping the footnote, but revising it to something like: These sales numbers were primarily drafted for books in English, as the majority of Wikipedia book articles are not for foreign language texts. For other languages with fewer speakers than English, an appropriate lower number should be considered on a common sense basis, taking into account the number of speakers of that other language.--Fuhghettaboutit 00:47, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
Excellent suggestion. Pascal.Tesson 00:49, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
One possible problem with the 500,000 number is that it affects some English-speaking countries with small populations, such as South Africa, Australia & New Zealand. I doubt the average best-seller in any one of those countries sells that many copies in a year! I'm probably being overly worried about ill-intentioned wikilawyers here (& creating an opening for the troublesome category of "regional best-sellers"), but I think a clause that would cover a national best-seller would solve this problem -- as well as the problem of a Czech best-seller translated into English. -- llywrch 16:13, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
Maybe you are overly worried but why take a chance? I think this can be handled in the note so that there is no undue weight given in the guideline for this arguably exceptional case while still leaving the door open. Pascal.Tesson 16:31, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
Just updated the note. Let me know what you think. In any case, a book that has sold massively outside the US would inevitably get sufficient media coverage to satisfy the other criteria. Pascal.Tesson 16:35, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
I found the change in footnote 2. (BTW, any reason not to use the new <ref></ref> style?) I guess what bothers me is that the required sales numbers best apply to the US, & probably also to the UK markets; if a book sells well in either, it'll doubtlessly make it past the post thus inadvertently we are creating a systemic Anglo-American systemic bias. Your wording addresses this problem as well as anything I could write, but I'm still not quite happy with it. I guess the best thing is to remind anyone applying these rules that some English-speaking markets may not fit them, & to apply their intent to these edge cases rather than a rigid exclusionist & literal interpretation.
By writing the above, I assume that we all agree that the point of these guidelines is not to create a test with which someone can specificly include or exclude any books without further thought or argument. I see them as defining a line where if a given book falls to one side then the burden of proof rests on the person arguing to delete the article, & if it falls on the other then the burden rests on the person arguing to keep the article. Trying to establish a rigid basis for inclusion or exclusion will only get us bogged down in trivia & encourage other Wikipedians to ignore all of Pascal's hard work. -- llywrch 20:01, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
Possibly I need to go back and make that clear in one or two more ways, but I included notes to that effect in the introduction ("rule of thumb"), in the footnotes ("case-by-case basis; don't be inflexible; not set on stone"), and in the text where I say (paraphrasing), "failing to meet the criteria does not automatically mean an article must be deleted..." Do you think this needs more highlighting? --Fuhghettaboutit 20:16, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
Okay, in addition to the previous notes, I added a separate section ("Flexibility") further defining the criteria as not rigid (this may already be overkill; anything further would be gilding the lily I think).--Fuhghettaboutit 01:46, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

food for thought on sales numbers

I thought I would post a few links that might help in determining what the thresholds for the "bestelling criterion". I will add more as I continue the research but feel free to add others. I'm pretty sure that we should at least have the threshold for fiction be below (if not way below) the non-fiction threshold.

Pascal.Tesson 23:27, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Pascal, I suggest you add in a more realistic number as a placeholder until it can be better pinned down. There appears to be some consensus that the numbers are outrageously high.--Fuhghettaboutit 00:45, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
Ok, done. Placeholders are now 100K for fiction, 150K for non-fiction but that does not mean that these numbers and their relevance are beyond discussion. One possibility would be to completely remove them but actually, these might come in handy for books that meet the criteria via the "smaller market" footnote. Pascal.Tesson 03:45, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
Non-fiction should be much, much lower. Non-fiction doesn't sell as well as fiction at all, the threshol shouldn't be higher than fiction. --badlydrawnjeff talk 10:39, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
Thinking about it, the numbers have to be very high or we have to get rid of them. I’m not sure why but there seems to be an inability to analyze this standard in the disjunctive. If we leave it very high, people will keep crowing how unrealistic it is, if we get rid of it, it will have the same function as if it was way too high with respect to books that would have failed it—i.e. no effect at all (and such books then may meet any one of the other criterion as they could with it or without it, but people can’t seem to get past that OR. The problem with making it low is, as Francis pointed out in the beginning, that there are certain classes of books that may still be non-notable though they sell large numbers, such as bygone cookbooks. The only way we get rid of that loophole is making it higher than its loophole exceptions and since those numbers make people crazy, I propose it be nixed entirely.--Fuhghettaboutit 13:57, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm in full agreement. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:13, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
Overall I agree with Fuhgh but how about deleting only for non-fiction? The problem with cookbooks is avoided but the "small market" footnote still allows for big hits in small countries and everyone is happy (or at least I am). Pascal.Tesson 14:20, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
Sales numbers are, again, a horrid criteria to use. Are you really going to hold mystery fiction to the same as romance to the same as general to the same as science fiction? Books can be perfectly notable without reaching a sales threshold, especially in niche genres. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:57, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
Last time I mention this. We keep saying how does it matter if it's too stringent if it has no exlcusionary teeth but only inclusionary as it's in the disjunctive and no one addresses that but just keeps saying it's too high. Ever see Spinal Tap? This reminds me of the "this one goes to eleven" conversation. Anyway, let's get rid of it.--Fuhghettaboutit 15:12, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
The problem is that this has too many exclusionary teeth. I'm trying to combat that. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:20, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
No it has no exclusionary teeth. The only purpose that can be served by getting rid of it is to lose one basis under which a book can be kept. What is it about "any one" that is not registering. If we keep it, a book which fits no other criteria but the sales figures gets kept if the standard is applied. That same book, if it fits no criteria but book sales, in the absence of it, does not get kept. A book which meets any other criteria doesn't need the criterion at all since if it meets any one it meets the standard. Is that clear? Let me put it another way--If we make the standard that a book must verifiably have sold 17 quadrillion copies. This would be the same thing as getting rid of the standard since no book could ever meet this criterion; it would simply have no effect just as if it wasn't there, since meeting any one criterion is enough. No book can ever not be kept, that meets any one criterion, because it doesn't meet another. That is the (I thought axiomatic) nature of having the criteria in the disjunctive. The only reason I have no problem with getting rid of it, though by doing so we only get rid of an inclusionary basis, is that it's not likely that a book which sells 250,000 copies wouldn't likely already fit under multiple other bases (though I can imagine exceptions) so it won't have too much of an affect either way. But the fact remains that the only effect it can have is to change the standard so some books that would otherwise be kept, will not now be.--Fuhghettaboutit 16:33, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
So on one side, you say that it's not exclusionary, and then you say that "the only effect if can have is to change the standard so some books that would otherwise be kept will not be." Thus, it's exclusionary. In fact, it's *too* exclusionary, even with the sales numbers taken out. The threshold for theatrical release numbers is too high, for example. Are you really aware of how many children's books that this would affect in its current state? Meanwhile, you still haven't addressed how it would apply to niche genres, for example. Translated into 10 or more languages? Outside of Harry Potter and the major classics, how many books can honestly meet that? 1 translation should be fine, if we even need that as a criteria at all.
And don't even get me going on the older books. From top to bottom, it's way too exclusionary, and it will be invariably difficult to find any worthwhile sources due to the nature of printing 100 years ago and the nature of the internet as a research resource. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:10, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm really not sure that I can explain it any better. You statement above shows you're simply not grocking me. "The only effect it can have is to change the standard so some books that would otherwise be kept will not be". YES, IF WE REMOVE THE STANDARD ENTIRELY! The point is that including it never excludes a book because the standards are disjunctive; taking it away could possibly for the unusual book that sold up to the present standard we're discussing removing, but fails to meet any other criterion.--Fuhghettaboutit 20:11, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

re: "taught at multiple ... schools"

I think this proposal is very well done and will support it. I have a question about one of the bullets in the "Modern era" criteria. Bullet 5 reads "The book is taught at multiple grade schools, high schools, universities or post-graduate programs in any particular country." I am assuming the intent of the word "multiple" in that line to mean that if the book has been evaluated and purchased by several independent people for academic use, that's a pretty good indicator of notability.

In the US, school books are often selected at the school district level and pushed down to schools. This criterion could be read to mean that any book selected by a single district staff member and issued to both the elementary schools in the district should be included in the encyclopedia. Is that the intent or is the intent to consider "books taught at multiple school districts, universities or post-graduate programs"? Rossami (talk) 04:57, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't mind the current phrasing if only because other countries will not necessarily have schools organized by districts. Although I understand your concern I don't think this will be a problem in practice. Pascal.Tesson 05:09, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Your point is well taken. We could get rid of this as a loophole by a footnote or making it a specific number of schools, but I'm more and more of the opinion that it's problematic to define any specific numbers as I did in the past--sales numbers, number of translated languages or...schools; It is necessarily arbitrary. "So how did you come up with five schools, 4 translated languages, sales of 50,000; not six...or eight...or 60,000"? I think we need to leave in flexibility and where that also leaves in a hypothetical loophole that may be rarely taken advantage of, in practice, those who are in a deletion debate will not apply the standards inflexibly (as warned against in multiple places) and recognize a specious use of the criteria that technically meets a criterion, for what it is. Do you have way we can word this to better address the problem without the need for these measures?---Fuhghettaboutit 12:29, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
The fact that you speak of "loopholes" already indicates that you're thinking of these as laws rather than guidelines. I have to say, while I think the examples of things that make a book notable are pretty good, I think the most useful part of this proposal as it stands is the list of precedents.
Unfortunately, that's all these types of things end up being. The stricter the guideline, the more reliant on loopholes we have to be. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:55, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
It's probably best to tend towards the vague, to discourage wikilawyering -- and "multiple schools" is therefore an example of good wording -- and to rely on examples of precedents to illustrate cases where, for example, Wikipedians have decided to keep an article on a book because it is used in schools. — Haeleth Talk 17:32, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure if there's a way to accurately quantify it, anyway. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:55, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Modern era

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)

Entirely sensible. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:57, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Exam Books

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)

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)

Is modern era criterion #2 necessary?

From the notability criteria:

  1. The book is authored by a person meeting Wikipedia's notability criteria for people.
  2. 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)

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)
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)

Best seller

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)


   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 Fuhghettaboutit 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. // FrankB 18:24, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
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)

Book stats for ref

As Jeff says, there's lots of broad agreement. So I'm just adding this data in case we need some perspective on how notable a random title is, compared to the fate of the masses. (Apologies for choice of countries - this is what I could get my hands on quickly: please augment if wished.)

  • In 1996 there were more than 800 000 books published worldwide[3], as stated above.
  • UK: 206,000 (2005) [4]
  • US: 172,000 (2005) [5]
  • Canada: 16,776 (2004) [6]

In the US, mass market books are intended to have a shelf-life of one to three months (similar to that of magazines). [7] [8] [9] They are then destroyed.[10] Trade paperbacks have a shelf-life of six to nine months.[11] A popular hardback has a shelf-life measured in months. [12]

Most US books of any kind go out of print within three months; best-sellers may go out of print in two years.[13] In 2003, there were 118 US mass market titles which sold more than 500,000 copies.[14]

In Canada, 60% of mass market books are pulped (60% of copies, not titles) [15]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(books)/Archive_1&oldid=1034482434"