Talk:Dictionary of Received Ideas

	Books portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate in the project, please visit its page, where you can join the project and discuss matters related to book articles. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the relevant guideline for the type of work.BooksWikipedia:WikiProject BooksTemplate:WikiProject BooksBook articles
	This article is supported by the Reference works task force.
	This article has been marked as needing an infobox.

France Low‑importance

	France portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject France, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of France on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FranceWikipedia:WikiProject FranceTemplate:WikiProject FranceFrance articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Notability

Mikeblas is not convinced of the notability of this book.

From Wikipedia:Notability (books) (after removal of footnotes):

A book is notable, and generally merits an article, if it verifiably meets through reliable sources, one or more of the following criteria:

The book has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the book itself. This includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries and reviews. 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.
The book has won a major literary award.
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.
The book is, or has been, the subject of instruction at two or more schools, colleges, universities or post-graduate programs in any particular country.
The book's author is so historically significant that any of his written works may be considered notable. This does not simply mean that the book's author is notable by Wikipedia's standards; rather, the book's author is of exceptional significance and the author's life and body of written work would be a common subject of academic study.

The first among these: Google quickly brings:

Stanley Hoffmann, "Battling Clichés", French Historical Studies 19 (1995), pp. 321-329. (JSTOR)
Anne Green, "Flaubert, Salgues et le Dictionnaire des idées reçues", Revue d'Histoire littéraire de la France 80 (1980), pp. 773-777. (JSTOR)
Andreas Mahler, "Der satiriker Flaubert-Beobachtungen zum Dictionnaire des idées reçues und zu Bouvard et Pécuchet", Zeitschrift für französische Sprache und Literatur 105 (1995), pp. 26-53. (JSTOR)

The fifth among these: the book is by a bloke named Flaubert, whose life and body of written work is a common subject of academic study. Admittedly not at the level of Shakespeare, but pretty intensive all the same.

I'd also point out that the last 20 years have seen editions of this work (by itself, not as part of Bouvard et Pécuchet) in French, English, Dutch, German, Chinese, Slovenian, Italian, Spanish, Romanian, Portuguese and Finnish: somewhat unusual for a work written in the 1870s. But Wikipedia:Notability (books) is uninterested in this. -- Hoary (talk) 23:36, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's obviously notable by criterion 5 because it (a) was among Flaubert's papers, (b) provides important information about his work. That tagging was a clear mistake, probably caused by the meagreness of the references (which I cannot fix right now). Xanthoxyl ^< 12:41, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And more. "Petit catalogue des opinions chics" (Le Monde) -- or what we can see without payment -- and "Dictionnaire des idées reçues" (Libération) suggest that the book is so well known among educated francophones that it's a point of reference when commenting on economic and environmental discussion. The book seems fairly well known in the anglosphere too: see for example how it appears in the Guardian/Observer. -- Hoary (talk) 14:00, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

These would be great references for you to add to the article. As it stands, the article is poorly referenced, leaving it inconclusive and un-authoritative. The "Purpose" section is uncertain and full of speculation: "unclear", "some of his notes" (which ones? What did they say?), "it seems" (to whom and why?), and so on. It also contains statements which can't be true: a spoof encyclopedia certainly didn't fascinate the author as an infant; yet the article claims "all his life". The article quotes the author twice without providing a source for those quote. -- Mikeblas (talk) 14:28, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing about the book is "obviously" notable; Wikipedia tells us that notability must be established by references. The intention of the tag is to spur this research and invite editors to enhance referencing in the article. (Note that referenced material is required by Wikipedia, as well.) The notability tag says as much, quite clearly: "Please help to establish notability by adding reliable, secondary sources about the topic." -- Mikeblas (talk) 14:21, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the article (in common with tens, even hundreds of thousands of others) was and is terrible. But here's what the notability tag actually said (before its very recent removal): The topic of this article may not meet Wikipedia's notability guideline for books. -- Hoary (talk) 03:07, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]