Wikipedia talk:Notability (books)

Vanity press

The article repeatedly expends effort targeting vanity-press and self-published books as not getting notability on the basis of their publication, when the requirements for their notability are no different than books published by any non-academic press (and I raise an eyebrow even at that exception.) Currently, the part about online bookstores reads A book's listing at online bookstores Barnes & Noble.com and Amazon.com is not an indication of notability because the websites include large numbers of vanity press publications. A listing at any other online bookstore that includes large numbers of vanity press publications should be treated in the same way. That's a bunch of nonsense, because we would not set notability to a book for being carried by these places even if they carried no vanity press books; being carried at any bookstore is not a sign of notability, and that goes double for sites that are essentially taking the distributor's database and putting it online. Having this language creates the implication that publication through Dorling Kindersley or About Comics (to pick a publisher I've been published by and then a publisher I am, so consider the COI flag raised) does carry weight in notability, which it does not. It may be possible that there is some bookstore that carries such a specifically curated set of books that we would consider the mere carrying a sign of notability, but if so, there is no indication in the article that that is true. So I suggest we replace this with the following wording:

• A book's listing at large online bookstores such as Barnes & Noble's bn.com and Amazon.com is not an indication of notability, as such websites carry most books available through distributors with little discernment. Sales rankings at these sites do not indicate notability, both because sales in general do not indicate notability and in particular because some of these sites generate many sales charts for very small categories and are easily manipulated.

There is an entire section on self-publishing that focuses on such things as that an ISBN or listing at a bookstore doesn't make a book notable... all facts which hold true for traditionally-published works as well. I suggest that we replace this with a section called "published status", which reads:

• With the limited exception of books from academic presses and works from authors who are topics of courses at a university level, the mere publication of a book does not confer notability. The normal trappings of book publication (such as that it has been assigned an ISBN number, has been listed in a national library, may be found through a Google Books search, and may be sold at large online book retailers) do not provide indications of notability. This is true whether the work is offered by a major mainstream publisher, a small niche publisher, a vanity press, or self-publication.

Thoughts? -- Nat Gertler (talk) 17:17, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

I don't think books from academic presses should get a pass. They are usually notable through multiple published reviews, anyway, but I think they need the reviews to be notable. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:27, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

I do not disagree. I merely had academic press wording in here because they existing text gives deference to it, and I wanted to focus on the "vanity press" concerns. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 21:39, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Honestly, while I agree that your rewording is better than the current wording, I'm not sure we need any "because" wording in here. -- asilvering (talk) 17:25, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Would you be fine with "Sales rankings at these sites (as with sales figures in general) do not indicate notability." I'd like to have something in there connecting it to larger policy, as many have used silly Amazon rankings and I'd like the sentence to have a convincing bit of the "why" in there for people who are directed to it. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 17:59, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Yes, that's basically what I had in mind when I said there isn't really a need for a "because". To be clear, I don't feel particularly strongly, since I think "sales figures don't indicate notability" is the core issue, and even the current wording gets that across. If I ever saw people actually trying to use the implied loophole that you observed in the current wording, I'd feel otherwise. In general I prefer direct and concise because I think that's easier to read and less attractive for wikilawyering. -- asilvering (talk) 21:32, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

If you want to keep some "because" language, then I'd suggest replacing "because sales in general do not indicate notability" with something like "because sales rankings do not correlate with the availability of independent reliable sources". WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:24, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

That just sounds more confusing to me. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 05:39, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

The real reason sales figures do not provide notability is that notability (in this case and most cases) is based on in-depth published reliable sources, and even if reliably published sales figures are not in-depth. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:34, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I understand what he is saying, I'm just saying that we can get to the point rather than indicating in more words that this is based on some intermediate point that we assume the reader either already understands or needs to seek out. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 14:50, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

I agree. It's more precisely correct, but I don't think that it's more helpful. -- asilvering (talk) 23:49, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

This is already somewhat covered via the note about bestseller lists

Bestseller lists in retailer or e-commerce sources like Amazon or self-published sources like personal websites, blogs, bulletin boards, wikis, and similar media are not considered reliable.

That said, I do think that there could be some explanation somewhere about why these lists (and by extension sales figures) are not reliable. It's just figuring out how to explain it in the easiest way possible. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 15:27, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose as written. Sales in general do correlate (albeit imperfectly) with notability. That is why criteria 1 takes into account bestseller lists. A book that sells an exceptionally large number of copies is likely to be reviewed and to satisfy GNG. Likewise, a historic book that sells for an exceptionally high price at auction is likely to satisfy GNG, and there are likely to be entire periodical articles about the auction sale itself. James500 (talk) 19:25, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Does this page need more criteria for science books?

2001:41D0:FE6F:4800:0:0:0:1 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)

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)

I'd be up for amending/modifying #3 for clarity's sake. XOR'easter (talk) 16:54, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

I agree that criteria 3 should be amended to include books that have made a significant contribution to any of the sciences, humanities or arts, including the whole of STEM. I think that a significant contribution to the arts should be capable of including something like a treatise on architecture that has made a significant contribution to that art, and should not be confined to the book being adapted into a theatre play or opera. For example, "The Seven Lamps of Architecture" appears to have made a significant contribution to what is sometimes called "Ruskinian Gothic": [1]. Since everyone agrees that "science" should be added to criteria 3, I am going to add that now. James500 (talk) 22:04, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

If no-one objects before the end of Friday (12 midnight BST), I will add the humanities and the arts to criteria 3. I don't think it would be consistent to include the disciplines taught and researched in a university Faculty of Sciences but not those studied in a Faculty of Humanities and/or the Arts. I do not think the word "science" is sufficient to include the humanities and the arts. James500 (talk) 18:24, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

@James500 No objections here. PARAKANYAA (talk) 04:25, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Since other people have expressed support for this addition to criteria 3, and no-one has objected, I am going to go ahead and make the addition now, to save time. James500 (talk) 09:00, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

While we are at it, the expression "motion picture, or other art form" in criteria 3 could do with being rewritten. I think it is clear that the reference to "other art form" means the book is adapted into art form other than a motion picture. However, it occurs to me that a non-fiction book could be adapted into a documentary film, television documentary or other non-fiction work. I do not think there is any reason why the adaptation should need to be "artistic" if it is notable. It suggest the text "motion picture, or other art form" be replaced with "motion picture, opera, ballet or other work". I think the addition of opera and ballet is reasonable, as the coverage notes say that "music-specific publications" are not books for the purpose of this guideline, and it would make it easier to understand what "other work" means. James500 (talk) 09:16, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Does a pass of WP:TBK confer notability when there is absolutely no sigcov?

I've nominated a few book articles for deletion where there was no coverage of them at all, no reviews or commentary, and they were kept purely due to high citation counts (though, in all cases, there was only one other contributor to the discussion). This idea is similar in some ways to WP:NACADEMIC, however I don't think the same reasons for this guideline apply to books - it is impossible to write a satisfactory book article given only the content of the book. Wikipedia is not a place for just the summaries of works. My interpretation of WP:TBK is that it was a reason to recognize it may be harder to find coverage of technical books so relax a bit on that front, but not an excuse for literally no coverage. Thoughts? PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:08, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

I share your concern. I suppose the counterargument is that some of the many citations ought to include information about the book they’re citing? It strikes me as possible that citations could be sufficiently informative, but that would require investigation, and if they’re all passing references then WP:NOTPLOT would apply and point to deletion.

I also seriously question the idea that academic books and textbooks “naturally” get less coverage— it’s quite common for monographs to be reviewed in the relevant academic journals, and instructional textbooks in library and pedagogical magazines. A notable book ought to have those kinds of reviews. So I’d say the better guidance would be to point people to these more specialized and potentially paywalled venues when there’s no newspaper coverage, rather than suggesting that such books don’t need coverage. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 15:51, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Yeah I kind of dispute the fact that they get less coverage too - I mean, certainly less coverage of the kind that you would usually find in a Google search, but if you know where to look it's not hard to find and for most academic/technical books I've checked where notability is questioned there usually are reviews, not any less than novels or such. But that's what the guideline says. And yes, a few especially detailed citations may in some way count as sigcov if the book is discussed, but at that point that's just discussion of it in the text and is quite uncommon. I don't think that's the reason behind the idea, I think it's supposed to be more along the lines of NACADEMIC where it's trying to measure "importance", which kind of works for academics but doesn't work so well for books. PARAKANYAA (talk) 15:57, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

I guess that "common sense should prevail" is intended to do a lot of heavy lifting. -- asilvering (talk) 16:14, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

My time here has taught me that my common sense may not be the same as another's, haha PARAKANYAA (talk) 16:15, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Indeed. My own sense suggests to me that this section was added to prevent obviously famous and frequently assigned textbooks from being deleted for lack of obvious sigcov. While I can't remember any in specific, I'm sure I've been in deletion discussions where it was surprisingly difficult to find relevant sigcov for a textbook that was in its 10th edition (or whatever). No textbook is going through that many editions without being assigned to thousands upon thousands of university students. I would hazard a guess that sigcov does exist in these cases. But it can be unexpectedly hard to find, buried under thousands of passing mentions. -- asilvering (talk) 16:24, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Mhm, yeah with actual textbooks I have encountered that problem while trying to find sources. The way this is phrased applies it to all "academic books" though, when I don't think most academic books face the same problem. PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:31, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Yes. It looks to me like that line is 20 years old, and 20 years ago it was indeed much more difficult to find articles on this kind of book. may only be available in specialized libraries and bookstores in particular feels like a relic of a past age. What were these AfDs you mention? I'm surprised to hear they were kept with only one other contributor to the discussion. -- asilvering (talk) 19:38, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

@Asilvering The only one I remember is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Islamic Commercial Law. I can't remember the other. It was closed as "no consensus" actually, I misremembered, which changes things slightly but I still wondered how accepted the argument was. PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:53, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

This discussion, between two experienced, well-intentioned editors is about as No Consensus as you can get. No kidding. I endorse this statement, haha. Regarding the notability of that book in particular, I'd wonder if there wasn't something in an non-English language for coverage. I think you can safely boldly merge that one into the author's article. -- asilvering (talk) 20:01, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Yeah I don't contest the result - just was curious about the idea expressed in that AfD and how applicable it is nowadays. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:10, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

TBK is outdated, in my opinion. If an AfD is relying on that rather than sourcing, it's of line with the general notability guideline. There is a glut of academic publishing and book reviews and the bar for book inclusion is already super low even without TBK. czar 01:43, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

@Czar In all fairness, some SNGs are in conflict with the general notability guideline. As I mentioned, WP:NACADEMIC is purely based on achievement. Theoretically one can pass that with no GNG qualifying sourcing. Or GEOLAND. I assume TBK is trying to be analogous to that - but I don't think it's justified in the case of books, so I agree with you that it is outdated PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:50, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Some SNGs in active use, such as NACADEMIC, are unrelated to the general notability guideline (I would not say "out of line with", any more than any two different guidelines are out of line because they are different). But TBK has more the appearance to me of an outdated relic from a time when notability was less codified. It might be ok as an escape valve for a very widely used textbook (textbooks can be hard to source) but for scholarly monographs I would prefer to go by WP:NBOOK #1: it is notable if it has multiple reliably-published and independent in-depth reviews, whether in newspapers or in academic journals. And for actually notable textbooks, the part about having small print runs makes no sense, because the textbooks that we might want to apply TBK to are the ones that are widely used and do not have small print runs. So if TBK is not to be removed altogether I think it at least needs significant edits to focus on widely-used textbooks for which reviews are scarce (the case for which it makes some sense). —David Eppstein (talk) 04:02, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Fair. PARAKANYAA (talk) 05:17, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

It looks to me like all the participants in this discussion agree that TBK offers more exceptions to the coverage requirements of NBOOK#1 and GNG than are justified in practice, and in that sense it is outdated -- especially for monographs. But it also looks like we agree that some famous and widely-used textbooks should be notable and need an "escape valve". (I would offer the Al-Kitaab series as an example of the vibe.) Right now, NBOOK#4 (The book is, or has been, the subject of instruction at two or more schools...) explicitly excludes textbooks. That exclusion makes sense given that a mere two schools doesn't mean we're looking at our edge case of a famous textbook-- but that exclusion also means that TBK has a gap to fill. What would be a good next step, if we were going to revise TBK to update it and narrow its scope more to this 'influential textbook' case?

As a side note, I think this problem occurs because textbooks get fairly limited reviews when first published, and then spread by word of mouth, and after a textbook is famous there's no need for reviews to show up and recommend them. Whereas literary works and monographs do attract more coverage after they're famous. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 17:28, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

My understanding is that the exclusion of textbooks from #4 is not so much because textbooks would pass more easily, but because #4 is about a different thing: is the book, itself, the main topic of a course? For instance, a literature course on Dante's Divine Comedy is the sort of thing that should count for #4 (not that there is any doubt over whether the Divine Comedy is notable in other ways). A textbook used for a course on a topic is a qualitatively different thing than a book that is itself the subject of study in a course. We need the exclusion to prevent confusion over this distinction. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:42, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

I've made an edit to remove "academic books" from the language and replace it with "textbooks" (I also removed the bit about small print runs). Otherwise it's mostly unchanged. I think what I've done here is in line with what everyone else has been saying so far, but I only made that relatively minor change, and there's probably more we can do to make this helpful for patrollers and AfD participants. -- asilvering (talk) 19:50, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

The notion of a "print run" is probably obsolete anyway, given how many academic books are actually print-on-demand these days. XOR'easter (talk) 20:30, 17 October 2024 (UTC)