Wikipedia talk:Notability (books)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
WikiProject iconBooks Project‑class
WikiProject icon
ProjectThis page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

NBOOK#4

Has anyone ever seen an AfD where a book article is kept based solely on this criterion? I'm unconvinced that this ever works successfully in practice. -- asilvering (talk) 16:18, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have. It was one I nominated -- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sweet Sixteen Novel. The article today (Sweet Sixteen (Abdullahi novel)) demonstrates notability through other criteria, but that was what got it through. I tend to think it's one of those "shortcut for when coverage will clearly exist" situations that are easier for some people to assess when they might not know where to look for certain sources, but it's weaker in that than, say, NPROF5 is. Vaticidalprophet 16:21, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hm, it looks to me more that the cincher was those sources added after the relist in this case... but it does look like the "it's on the JAMB" was sufficiently persuasive as an argument that it wasn't laughed out of the discussion, at least. -- asilvering (talk) 16:35, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

May I ask here...? Regarding the criterion: 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 - what is the necessity of the word 'particular' in this sentence? If the word were removed, would it make any difference? Connoissaur (talk) 16:31, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Connoissaur, well, that wording has been there for at least 18 years so it doesn't seem to have caused a problem. I think the overall wording is ambiguous: is it (two schools in a particular country) or (two schools)(either school may be in any country)? The criterion might be sufficient as The book is, or has been, the subject of instruction at two or more schools, colleges, universities or post-graduate programs. Schazjmd (talk) 16:46, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What does the whole phrase "in any particular country" contribute here? Would the meaning change if it were removed? —David Eppstein (talk) 17:11, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The way I read it, this does not count books that have been taught at two or more schools globally but not in the same country. ie, if a book was taught once in France, once in Canada, and once in Haiti, it's no good, but twice in France qualifies. I'm not sure this is a relevant distinction. -- asilvering (talk) 18:38, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see why we should be making that distinction. If it's taught in scattered schools internationally, surely that's evidence of greater notability than being taught in a local cluster of schools. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:56, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Previous discussions on this criterion (oldest first): [1][2][3][4][5] Schazjmd (talk) 18:58, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for digging those up. It looks like no one's been all that excited about this criterion for ages. I don't think that's in itself a good reason to remove it (no one's come up with any serious problems with it), but it doesn't inspire confidence in me that we need it, either. -- asilvering (talk) 19:09, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@David Eppstein I guess the idea was that "individually, in multiple countries" could just be two profs with unusual curriculum ideas, but the local cluster implied by "multiple in one country" suggested broader notability than "two people who happen to be profs liked it". Either way I don't think it's a very useful yardstick. -- asilvering (talk) 19:14, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've read "any particular country" as meaning that any country will do - I would be happy with the formulation that @Schazjmd suggests (just drop the "any particular country"). But I'm fine with keeping it. I think this criteria is sometimes useful as support to other criteria, especially for literary works not published by conventional publishers. For example, the fact that the digital poem Böhmische Dörfer has been taught at French high schools helps convince me that the work is notable. It has also has been discussed in peer-reviewed articles, so gets notability from that anyway, but if it hadn't been for NBOOK4 I probably wouldn't have searched to see if it was taught in schools - and I think that's useful information. Lijil (talk) 11:38, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, it was Tramway (digital poem) that was taught in high schools. This work has less of the other notability criteria. Lijil (talk) 11:40, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ironic institutionalization of "highbrow" sources

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)[reply]

Should NBOOK cover series or just individual books?

Right now there is a discussion at AfD for the series Safehold.

The status of the article at this point in time is that some of the books in the series pass notability guidelines per NBOOK by way of reviews and placement in the main NYT Bestseller list (hardcover fiction).

The nominator, Orchastrattor, is arguing that the series is non-notable because there is little to no coverage for the series itself and as such, there should only be pages for those books that pass notability guidelines. Any other information should be on the page for those books (or just the first book) and that the series page should redirect to that main book or to Weber's bibliography, where the series is listed. Orchastrattor further argues that there is no specific criteria for series and, if I'm understanding correctly, it should be judged based on GNG and that NOTINHERITED should apply.

My argument against this is that series should qualify under NBOOK as the individual novels make up a single whole. None of the books were written to be standalone pieces, although the first could be read by itself. This is a case where notability for the individual parts make up notability for the whole, so NOTINHERITED is not intended to apply here. Furthermore, I think that putting this all in the article for the first book would result in one of two scenarios: the series is either given undue weight (making a spinoff page a necessity) or it would result in us covering the series less than we could in a properly sourced and written series page (where the notability type coverage is more for the reviews and NYT listings). This is also beneficial in cases where there are multiple sources for the individual books where we could create a good series page, but not really enough to establish notability for the individual books. (IE, a series has 4-5 books. Each book manages about 1-3 reviews, there's 1-2 sources about the series as a whole, and a plethora of primary sources discussing the book's development and release. Enough to where we could establish notability for the author, but the series is their only notable work and people would more want coverage for the series, not the author.)

I'm worried that this could be detrimental to overall coverage on Wikipedia, as it's kind of the norm for us to have a single, stronger page for a series rather than lackluster articles for single books. It could also go beyond books and into other forms of media, like films, music, and so on. It's not something I think should be handled lightly.

So my question is this: would the individual books count towards overall notability in this case? If so, do we need to update NBOOK to cover this? (And if that's yes, then we may need to consider what is required for series notability, but that's another discussion.) If an update is not required, what part of NBOOK would cover this?

I'm not looking for anyone to come to the AfD, just that this is something that could have some longer reaching implications. If the consensus is that individual books don't establish notability for their parent series, then we need to update NBOOK (and potentially NOTINHERITED) to cover that and discuss how this could impact other articles. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 20:37, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I also wanted to add this from the AfD - from a deletionist type viewpoint, having a series page would cut down on the amount of useless pages and reduce the amount of information that is scattered over multiple pages that technically pass notability guidelines, instead condensing it into one place and making it less likely that people will try to create individual pages for the books - or at least giving us a reason to argue against them doing so. I personally prefer series pages to individual book articles unless there's a ton of coverage to justify scattering the information at this point, honestly. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 21:04, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agree that series-spanning articles are more helpful than what the AfD nom is proposing (an article only for some books in the series and not for the series). I simply don't think it makes sense to have articles for, say, 3/5 books in a clear set, but not the series itself, and I think it will keep prompting editors to write articles for the missing two books, only to have them AfD'd. What readers are we helping by not having a series page? -- asilvering (talk) 01:08, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting question. Until you brought it up, I didn't realize that NBOOK doesn't even mention "series". I do think that NBOOK should provide some level of guidance on notability for a book series article. Some are clearly notable, such as when the series itself wins a major award (such as Hugo Award for Best Series) or when a series is regularly examined as a whole (such as Future History (Heinlein) and The Wheel of Time). Whether awards and reviews for individual books in the series contribute to notability of the series...I have to think about that for a bit. Schazjmd (talk) 21:12, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Two points I was going to go into on the AFD but would be more useful to get the discussion started here:
1. I at one point compared it to
WP:NALBUM and do not inherit one from the other so it would make sense for an equivalent policy on literature to function accordingly; The idea is that there are things that go into the creation of an album that do not go into the creation of an arbitrary collection of single songs, the same way that there are things that went into Tolkien's legendarium
that would not have gone into it had he and Christopher instead published The Hobbit, LOTR, and The Simlarillion as three separate epic stories across three separate settings.
2. If inheriting N from constituent books is to be applied as an actual policy then it will need some very strict minimum requirements; If you're trying to add something on a new series to WP but only the first one or two books have had any significant discussion in RS then you obviously shouldn't publish an article on the whole series, you would publish independently notable articles on however many entries is appropriate and then briefly mention the rest elsewhere as part of a bibliography. Orchastrattor (talk) 22:41, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For human beings, we expect them to be involved in two notable things, otherwise we consider that
Leonard Wibberly's Grand Fenwick series -- a five novel series of which the first and third get the bulk of the attention -- should suffice for an article. (We may need to clarify what a "series" is in this context; it may not apply to, say, The Complete Idiot's Guides, which have a uniform format and tone but not author and subject.) -- Nat Gertler (talk) 23:34, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
Well on the other hand, what about Morrison's
Dollars trilogy, which neither the author nor the RS describe as an intentional trilogy but are still covered as such because the concept of a shared chronology between the three constituent works is popular enough to generate notability regardless. Orchastrattor (talk) 23:57, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
For a rather less cerebral example,
40K redirect to their respective flagship game lines. All three are fully standalone IPs covering dozens of games and hundreds of novels and stories, however one has been demonstrated to pass notability outside of its primary work where the others haven't. Orchastrattor (talk) 04:40, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
There is a differentiation between "series" and "universe" that is comfortable to those of us in the comics realm (Action Comics and Detective Comics are separate series in the same universe) and can be found in prose (Stephen King's The Dark Tower books are a series; many other books are in the same universe.) Whether we need to make that distinction is a separate question, but it is an option open to us.
Also, having something sufficiently notable for a page does not mean we need to have a page for it; it may be more conveniently covered by a placement within another page. For a two-book series in which they are both notable, it may be easiest to put the content in one of the two articles; that's a different situation from three books in a thirteen book series being notable, which a reasonable run-down of the entries would overwhelm any one entry. There are already cases where a notable books unnotable sequels are described on the book's page. We have different ways of looking at a serialized larger work -- we have entries for the three individual books that make up The Lord of the Rings but not the six books that served as the original edition of The Green Mile. There are times when a series may be best covered as part of an author's bibliography. We are allowed to be flexible. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 16:20, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My thought on this is basically we have the following criteria:
A collection of books is considered a series IF one or more of the following criteria is met:
  • The publisher and/or author explicitly or officially identifies the collection as a named series on multiple occasions. (Ex: Sweet Valley High, Outlander, Dark Tower, A Game of Thrones, etc.)
  • An exception can be made for those cases where a collection of books has been explicitly identified as a series in reliable, independent sources and has received coverage for the books as a series, but has never been explicitly identified as a series by the publisher or author.
To be honest, I've never come across a case where the unofficial name for a book/novel collection has been proven notable enough for its own article. Toni Morrison's books are probably the closest, but even then the coverage for them as a collection is still too informal. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 16:21, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have some twitches around the term "series" in certain examples. An earlier poster referred to a set of encyclopedias as a series, but to me, a series requires some sort of sequence, either in release (and an encyclopedia is generally released and purchased in a single go) or in content (having read volume A no more helps you with volume B than the other way 'round). To me, an encyclopedia is generally a book set rather than a series. (But then, I have no problem with referring to, say, all 12 episodes of an anthology show being dumped on Netflix simultaneously as a "TV series"... and I would have a problem with it being called a "TV set".)
This is not to say that the guidelines we are developing for book series should not also apply to book sets, it's just me being weird on terminology. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 16:40, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
About the genre-specific aspect, in re distinguish between WP:NSONG versus WP:NALBUM and do not inherit one from the other:
I don't think this is a relevant or appropriate comparison. Songs are not books. A song (
usually) has a songwriter, who wrote the words, but a song is embodied in the singing. If you sing it one way, and I sing it another way, it's still the same song. If I change the tune, it's still the same song. If I add or subtract words from it – even a quite substantial number of words, as has happened in the case of songs such as "How Can I Keep from Singing?", which acquired an extra 33% in lyrics about 80 years after the original, or "Deutschlandlied
", which has officially lost two-thirds of its lyrics – it's still the same song.
A book has an author, who wrote the words. That's where the similarities end. A book is much more like a music album: the same things, rearranged in a different order, is a new thing. That's because making significant changes to a book, even if all you're doing is re-ordering the chapters (which is totally possible in a book of short stories) or adding or subtracting parts of it makes it a different book – but (in the case of fiction) it doesn't make it a different tale. The equivalent of the ever-adaptable song is the ever-adaptable tale. Cinderella is still Cinderella, regardless of whether you're talking about the French version by Perrault or the German version in the Grimm Brothers' Fairy Tales or the 1950 Disney film.
The principle behind NSONG is that we should merge up: instead of separate articles for the original notable "How Can I Keep from Singing?, and Pete Seeger's notable version, and Enya's notable version, plus all the non-notable versions, we should have one article for all of the versions. To me, the obvious takeaway here is: we should merge up, which means gently preferring a reasonably complete article about an entire book series over separate articles on whichever bits and pieces of the series that an editor believed were notable and took the time to write about. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:22, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While I support strict notability criteria, I do think that we should be open to having articles on book series where 2+ book in the series are notable. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:13, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've got a few concerns about mandating that 2+ of the books must be individually notable in a series. My thought here is basically that there are series out there where the individual books have maybe 1-3 notability-granting sources. Individually these are perhaps not enough to establish notability for the books, but cumulatively there is a lot of coverage.
My personal recommendation is that we allow NBOOK to cover series. We allow cumulative coverage to establish notability, but double or triple the minimum amount of sources needed to establish notability. So rather than a 2 source minimum people have to supply 4-6 RS (or show that one of the books has received a major award or is the subject of instruction and so on, I suppose). Series would also have to be labeled as such by the publisher or author. A primary source could be used for this last part.
For an example, let's say Merlin's Magic is a 4 book series. The series has received a cumulative total of 6 sources that can grant notability. Individually the sourcing could maybe justify an article for one of the books, but it would be weak. There are also additional issues. The series section has enough sourcing to where even basic coverage would overwhelm the rest of the article. Sections on themes and development are either minimal or nonexistent because there is not enough info on these as it applies to the main book - but there is coverage for some of the other books, adding to the issue of the series section overwhelming the rest of the article.
Then let's add a new wrench into the issue: only book 2 passes notability guidelines. So rather than a series page, we have an entry on the second book in the series where the content for that book is bare bones but we have a far more robust series section.
Limiting it to the sole book severely limits what we can have in the article. It would also run the risk of eating up more editor time because we'd potentially have to keep explaining why the series isn't notable and why there can't be more series information in the article. We'd also have to explain why themes and development for the later books can't be covered in the applicable sections for book 2.
To be honest, I think we'd come across as looking pretty silly or at worst, far too exclusionary. Especially when you consider for larger, ongoing series (10+ books) we might have 20-30 sources but only enough coverage to establish notability for the first book. I'm worried for smaller articles but I'm also worried about cases like say, we have popular, long running series where establishing individual book notability is difficult or impossible. For example, let's say that LA Bank's The Vampire Huntress Legend Series fails notability guidelines because only 1 of the books is notable - but the 11 books have about 15-20 cumulative sources. The page is put up for deletion. The fanbase discovers that the page has been deleted and replaced with a subpar article for the first book. We then have to explain why those 15-20 other sources weren't enough for an article.
Let's also go one step further here as well. Let's say that the fanbase makes enough of a fuss that the media picks up on this. Then we have to explain why 15-20 sources weren't enough to justify a series page. People bring up the Donna Strickland affair and comparisons are drawn, as the now-deceased author was a woman.
I know, I know - it's entirely possible that none of that could happen but I must emphasize that this could have long reaching impacts and this could look very, very bad. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 15:55, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This seems reasonable and the issue of NBOOK "skipping" an entry or more in a series was also something I was concerned about on the AFD, however I think your reasoning is rather biased towards episodic SFF fiction rather than anything with actual literary significance - Strickland was a major political figure, I don't think some pulp series about teenagers fighting vampires would be quite as impactful on Wikipedia's reputation in comparison. Orchastrattor (talk) 16:17, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Eh.. you'd be surprised. LA Banks has gone on to influence more writers than you'd think. Even before her death she was seen as a pioneer in the UF genre, as the genre has and still pretty much is dominated by white authors. You see more on the shelf now, but when she was alive and publishing her most well known series she was basically the only black author on the shelf in the chain bookstores in my area.
In any case, part of ensuring that the more high brow literature and such gets kept means ensuring that the more "common" stuff gets kept as well. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 19:05, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll also add this: if my nightmare situation occurs and a series like LA Banks's comes up to AfD, then the media outlets will assume the worst of Wikipedia. I brought up Strickland because some outlets incorrectly assumed that the decline was a result of gender bias on the part of Wikipedia and the editor. The focused on that, rather than the article needing more work - and the issues women scientists face when it comes to gaining attention/coverage.
Now imagine what some of those same outlets would do in a situation where people are arguing that a well loved series written is non-notable, particularly if the author is part of a minority group. They'll point towards those 10-15 sources for the other books and ask why those aren't enough to establish notability. It would honestly be a PR nightmare for Wikipedia. I know that this isn't always a guarantee that such a nightmare situation would happen, but it's not like it's an impossible scenario. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 19:23, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe the news outlets were correct to be concerned about the Strickland deletion, since the article needing more work isn't evidence of non-notability. We have a long-standing rule that says #Article content does not determine notability, so anyone arguing for deletion because the article needing more work is wrong. (In that instance, I suspect the real problem is that nobody knew enough about the specific subfield to understand whether, e.g., being president of Optica (society) was evidence of anything.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:43, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We can say that "two notable books is sufficient for proving series notability" without saying that that is the sole possible criteria. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 16:25, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think it would be good as one of the criteria, just not the sole criteria. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 19:35, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've been considering the articles for different book series that I'm familiar with. Some have book + series articles (but not an article on every book). Some just have book articles. One just has a series article and one only has an author article. And I think all of those choices make sense for their specific subjects, but I haven't been able to generalize those choices in a consistent way that could be applied to other series. I think an article about a series that contains notable books is often useful for readers when there is information about the series as a whole, but before I wrote one, I'd want at least one source that discusses the series itself. Schazjmd (talk) 19:44, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My comment on this is that it represents a fairly typical example of what happens when "AfD thinking" (based on WP:N) is applied to what is really a
WP:PAGEDECIDE
question.
By Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, all reliably sourced content that is relevant to an encyclopaedia is to be included in article space in a proportionate manner and following the best available sources on a topic. There is no question that books passing NBOOK are to be included. The question, then, is in each case what is the most encyclopaedic treatment - it seems to me that if particularly "jagged" edges occur where some books in a series (or albums by a band, or installments in a games series) are clearly notable and others may not be, the encyclopaedic treatment will sometimes mean creating a page for the series (or band or whatever) that includes all reliably sourced entries, whether they are independently notable or not. By contrast, the question "is the series notable independent from its parts" only really comes up in cases like A Nomad of the Time Streams where the series may, or may not, be covered and analyzed apart from the individual parts, so articles may be appropaiate at both levels of analysis.
Also, in passing, I don't think editors' views of actual literary significance versus episodic SFF fiction are especially relevant to any of this. For example, dividing the work of, say, Doris Lessing based on what is or isn't episodic and SFF and then stigmatizing one part or another of that oeuvre isn't going to help improve the content of an encyclopaedia. Newimpartial (talk) 16:44, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
^ This.
The thinking here is:
  • A is notable
  • B is notable
  • C is notable
  • D is maybe not notable
  • – but don't you dare create a single article about the ABCD series, because the series per se isn't proven to be notable!
WP:N says, right up at the top that Editors may use their discretion to merge or group two or more related topics into a single article. Telling editors that they can't have an article about a book series if that article would mention any books that aren't separately notable goes completely against both the letter and the spirit of this long-standing rule. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:46, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for bringing up
WP:PAGEDECIDE
. I feel pretty strongly that series pages are useful for readers and a sensible organization of encyclopedic material even when there is not necessarily coverage of the series as a series, and I think WP:PAGEDECIDE offers support for creating series articles via a slightly different logic than lists.
As asilvering notes, having seven stubs for a seven-book series is annoying. And I'd say that having four stubs for only the four notable books in a seven-book series is even worse. I think James500 is on the right track too with the idea that writing can usually start at the series level and only spin out to individual books when there is enough content to merit a fork.
I think two books is the right threshold for logistical reasons: if only one book in a series is notable, OK, we have one article on that book and a section that says 'there was more in this series (but no one cared)'. Once two books are notable, it's much less clear where to stash series-level information.
So, I support adding a mention of series to NBOOK. Something like, "A book series is presumed to be notable if at least two books in the series are notable. Non-notable books in a series may be covered at the series article." We could even explicitly say "An article on a book series is not a WP:LIST and does not require series-level coverage as long as at least two books are independently notable." -- if others think this is appropriate. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 00:11, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If a non-fiction "series" has fifty volumes (and I will not even use the word "book" to describe volumes that are about equivalent to a large article in a periodical), and each volume has one review, then that series is very notable with fifty reviews, notwithstanding that the individual volumes are not. It would illogical and inconsistent to create a situation where fifty reviews of fifty volumes produces no article, but two reviews of a single volume produces an article, as a result of a technicality. That outcome would be the exact opposite of notability based on coverage, and would be so arbitrary as to be indiscriminate. James500 (talk) 04:45, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I agree with this, @James500. I think perhaps it would be helpful to have two separate points about book series articles. "A book series is presumed to be notable if at least two books in the series are notable" is a decent rule of thumb to keep, but we may also want something like "The notability of a book series can be established based on coverage of individual books in the series, and does not necessarily require coverage of the entire series as a unit." But I'm hoping someone will workshop that, since the wording is a bit dreadful. -- asilvering (talk) 00:59, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am generally in favor of finding ways to cover topics more fully in a more limited number of articles. This way we still serve the information needs of our editors while also increasing the chance that vandalism and misinformation is found rather than stay buried on some page no editor discovers. So yes to series pages for me and sometimes I'd be in favor, as an editorial decision rather than a strict NBOOK notability decision, of having that even when 3+ entries could justify their own pages. Others have explained the advantages that these series pages have above and I agree with them. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:53, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you, and I think that it would help if NBOOK mentioned series, particularly to cover:
  • The navigational value of lists (if all/most the books are notable) [NB: Navigational lists are not restricted to notable subjects; we are officially allowed to have not only the List of lists of lists but also "List of books by..." pages.]
  • The circumstances under which merging most/all books into a single article would be preferable to having separate articles (e.g., uneven coverage of different parts of the series by reliable sources; reducing redundant content; giving readers full context and information).
WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:53, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Another food for thought. While as I am said I remain favorable to developing an inclusionist-flavoured policy about book series, currently I have trouble justifying why we should have articles about a topic (here, book series) that fails
WP:SIGCOV - i.e. in situations where we have some notable book in the series, but there is no coverage of the series itself outside passing mentions that it exists and is composed of such and such books. Perhaps a solution would be as simple as a list of book in a series? A list does not have to be purely navigational, it can have reasonably detailed entries on each entity (see WP:Featured lists...). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 00:52, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
I wonder if this analogy illustrates the "better to have the main article" feeling:
  • Hands are notable, faces are notable, feet are notable – but don't make an article about the whole body; only the individual body parts qualify for an article
  • Computer monitors are notable, keyboards are notable, CPUs are notable – but don't make an article about the whole computer; only the isolated computer components qualify for an article
  • Oceans are notable, continents are notable, rivers are notable – but don't make an article about the whole planet; only the constituent pieces qualify for an article
  • The company's headquarters is notable, the factory is notable, the CEO is notable, the labor union is notable, the product is notable – but don't make an article about the whole business; only the separate pieces are notable.
In some cases, it makes sense to have an article about the whole plus sub-articles about all the pieces (e.g., Human body plus all the related anatomy articles). In other cases, it makes sense to have an article about the whole instead of the individual pieces (thousands of television programs, rather than millions of individual episodes). But I can't really think of a situation in which it makes sense to have individual articles about every single part of a large-ish whole (or even almost every single part of it), and not have an article about the whole. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:10, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well books primarily generate notability from reviews, not from scientific research as is the case with anatomy or geography, or business news as is the case with consumer electronics or incorporated organizations. A book will not exist except as a text, if a given text distinguishes between itself and another text then it's a distinct object, that's what the entire concept and format of reviews is founded upon. It's not infinitely subdividable like a multicellular body or physical landmass. Narrative texts will also be written to take place one after another on a shared chronology, they are not co-present like the components of a machine or organization, in which context an single book is indeed closer to a song than an album. Orchastrattor (talk) 05:39, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know now accurate this framing is, frankly. I am thinking for example of the writings of JRR Tolkein or of Antonio Gramsci, published posthumously. When the amount of work published during one's lifetime is "outweighed" by that published posthumously (definitely the case with Gramsci) then there aren't "given" texts in the sense you describe: more of an oeuvre. I recognize that reviews accrue to books as they are published (even published posthumously) but as far as the writings themselves are concerned, they may be more "rhizomatic" than you are crediting here. Newimpartial (talk) 11:20, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Orchastrattor that books are not infinitely subdividable, but some of them can be divided into potentially hundreds or even thousands of notable parts: The
Hebrew Scriptures, which contain the Psalms, which contain Psalm 1
.
So if we interpret your comments as only applying to specific implementations of a narrative, then I might agree. It seems to me that Perrault's version of Cinderella is closer to Enya's recording of that song than to an album. The fairy tale itself (=all the versions, by all the authors) seems to match up better with the song (=all the versions, by all the composers and performers).
We usually merge up the individual versions of songs (e.g., Enya's recording) into a broader article (e.g., How Can I Keep from Singing?), so I am inclined to merge up individual books (books 1, 2, and 3 in a series) into a broader article (the series), too. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:51, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry,
Person from Porlock. I think WhatamIdoing is right that it would usually be unhelpful to have articles on all the sub-parts without an article on the whole. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 07:48, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
Well then I would argue a work of literary research is inherently more "significant" than a review, if people are breaking down a work into minute parts as is the case here or with Whatamidoing's example of Bible passages that usually implies that the original overarching work has already been looked over enough to provide basis for this level of detail, otherwise if you had a collection of sonnets and only one generates any significant coverage it would be perfectly reasonable to only have a page on that one sonnet and redirect the collection there or to the author. Orchastrattor (talk) 18:35, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. But that's an editorial decision (see
WP:PAGEDECIDE), not a notability issue. -- asilvering (talk) 22:31, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
Again, this is mostly going to affect episodic genre fiction rather than scripture or the sort of classical lit L is describing. They're all very different regions of the literary market, it makes sense that differing trends will arise in how they can or cannot establish notability, hence Reader's question of how those trends should be codified in the guidelines for future reference. Orchastrattor (talk) 22:40, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Are you familiar with PAGEDECIDE? It's part of the main notability guideline. It basically says that editors should use their best judgment and common sense when deciding whether Wikipedia should have:
  • one article on three books in a three-book series,
  • three articles on three books in a three-book series, or
  • one or two articles about just part of the series.
PAGEDECIDE is the opposite of mindless rule-following, or of editors proclaiming that because this particular SNG does not "codify" acceptance of book series, then such pages are banned unless separately notable from their constituent parts. Nothing about PAGEDECIDE is a case of
everything which is not allowed is forbidden. Everything about PAGEDECIDE is about editors making case-by-case judgement calls to do what's right by the encyclopedia and its readers. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:01, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
Orchastrattor, I feel like I still don’t follow; I can’t mentally connect your observations to a proposed application of NBOOK. Can you spell your position out for me more explicitly? Do you take issue with the proposition that 2+ notable books in a series should allow for a series-level article? ~ L 🌸 (talk) 01:15, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't decided on a clean Support/Oppose yet, it is just that a lot of the arguments being made in favor don't jive with my intuition as a regular contributor on AFC. I do not see how PAGEDECIDE is relevant here if we're discussing an NG, my point was that the types of literature you are discussing will usually have their notability obvious from the start but we can't make the sorts of pages Reader is proposing without deviating from the format of how the RS discuss the subject. Orchastrattor (talk) 05:29, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia should not automatically follow the "format of how the RS discuss the subject" because Wikipedia is not Wikisource. Wikipedia should be "encyclopedic" in the sense that Wikipedia articles should have something not entirely disimilar to the kind of (logical and convenient) scope and organisation that one would expect to find in an encyclopedia. Wikipedia should not automatically follow the format of periodicals, because their organisation, and the scope of their articles, is not necessarily encyclopedic. The fact that a monthly periodical issue published in December 1975 has to review books published in 1975, and cannot review the other books in the series published from 1970 to 1974 (either (a) because they have already been reviewed in earlier issues (ie when they came out) or (b) because there was no room for a review in the relevant number and it is now considered "too late" to publish one) and 1976 to 1985 (because it is impossible to review something that will be published in the future), does not mean that we should automatically have an article for Series entry published in November 1975 (using just the reviews published in December 1975) instead of Series published from 1970 to 1985 (using all the reviews). I feel this entire discussion (and the AfD nomination that led to it) is based on a complete misunderstanding of what periodicals are, namely, they are periodical. And also, on a complete misunderstanding of what Wikipedia is, namely, we are not periodical. James500 (talk) 21:07, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
PAGEDECIDE (exactly like NRVE, NEXIST, WHYN, and many other sections at WP:N) applies to all subjects, not just subjects for which most editors would apply GNG. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:13, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree it does, but I don't understand how it relates to my comment. James500 (talk) 21:25, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't. It relates to Orchestrattor's comment that "I do not see how PAGEDECIDE is relevant here if we're discussing an NG". My comment is in chronological order. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:57, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Then you should have indented it just one level more than the comment you're atually responding to. See Help:Talk_pages#Indentation for more information. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 15:10, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Since the advent of the Reply tool, that style has become somewhat more popular. However, it's a departure from our long-standing practices. Our traditional approach is better in one respect: Having multiple comments visually aligned makes it more difficult for people reading the comments to notice that a long block of text is multiple replies from multiple people, instead of one reply from one person. The tendency to prioritize "which single comment is this a reply to?" has the downside that editors occasionally mistakenly attribute the whole long block of multiple replies to whichever editor's name appears last in the list. Look above for a comment about the Warhammer Fantasy; depending on your screen width, that could look like just part of your own subsequent comment, especially if an editor is just skimming through.
I think the solution is for editors to use some common sense and basic communication skills, which means that if the comment in question is "under" yours but (a) is not obviously relevant to your comment and (b) is relevant to a prior comment, then you should assume that it isn't about your comment. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:35, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is not a departure from long-standing practice. I've been editing here since 2006, and while I've seen people miss the boat at times, I've seen more of placing the response one indent more than what one is responding to more often than not. It is also the method that has been recommended since at least 2006. I too think editors should use common sense, I just disagree with what is common sense in this regard. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 18:49, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@WhatamIdoing The problem with such analogies is that they cut both ways. Multiple anime conventions in country XYZ are notable - does it mean we should have an article about it? Having recently looked into a literature on this particular field (specifically, anime and manga fandom in Poland, which I need to translate to en...) I am reasonably sure that this the topic may be notable for some countries, but I am sure it is not for others, ex. Category:Anime conventions in Malaysia (i.e. I expect Anime conventions in Malaysia to not be a notable topic). I am sure we can find a zillion similar examples where a category is justified by a main article is not. Errrr, Category:Songs about cities in the United States - the odds are this (Songs about cities in the United States) is not a notable topic. Etc. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:49, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It might be better to have a single article on Anime conventions in Poland than to have multiple short articles on individual anime conventions.
(Songs about cities in the United States probably is a notable subject; see, e.g., City Songs and American Life, 1900-1950.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:58, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is the wrong way to think about coverage. As an editorial decision we can say that our readers are better served by grouping multiple topics, which could have their own article, into a single article precisely because it allows us to include information that, on its own, would fail SIGCOV but which passes Verifiability. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:59, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. I think we too often end up forgetting that the purpose of the encyclopedia is to serve its readers. -- asilvering (talk) 01:31, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, the guideline should apply to series. There is no difference between a series of books; the volumes of a multi-volume book; and the chapters of a book. Saying that we should have separate articles for notable individual "books" instead of an article for the notable "series" is like saying that we should have separate articles for notable individual "chapters" instead of an article for the notable "book". Subdivisions of topics like "volume", "book", "chapter", and so on, don't necessarily have any importance, significance or meaning whatsoever. They are sometimes arbitrary. In most cases, it is far better to have an article on a parent topic (which would be the "series") than to have multiple random orphaned articles on subtopics (the individual subdivisions of the "series"). You don't want a stack of articles like volume 7 of 1911 edition of Britannica etc, but with no articles for volumes 3, 6, 8 or 12, and none for the 19YY edition, etc, instead of an article on the Britannica as a whole. That would drive readers and editors crazy. The result would be an incomprehensible mess that would be impossible to navigate or make sense of. And since individual volumes of works like Britannica do get separately reviewed, that is exactly the kind of mess you could end up with if you decide that a "series" is not a book. A series should be considered a type of "book" for the purpose of this guideline. A lot of "series" of non-fiction books are very large, very uniform and do resemble an encyclopedia. We do not, for example, want to divide the "for dummies" books or the "eyewitness guides" into their separate volumes, with no parent article. James500 (talk) 22:47, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It sounds like you're advocating for not having any articles on books that are part of a series but only for the series itself. Am I reading you correctly? Schazjmd (talk) 22:55, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I am suggesting you should start with the series article, and then split that as and when appropriate. Some items in a series may demand a separate article due to the sheer number of reviews they have, and the fact the parent article is too long (WP:TOOBIG), etc. James500 (talk) 23:05, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I agree with this. There's no point in having seven individual stubs on a seven-book series. An article on the series will do. If one of the books is notable in its own right, and someone wants to write a full article for it, great! Then we just turn one of those redirects into a full article. -- asilvering (talk) 01:35, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    James500's comparison of a multi-book series to a multi-volume book feels sound to me. The distinction between the two can be pure marketing, rather than anything significant. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:46, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think it should apply to series. There's a few book articles I was working on where the first and fourth book fulfilled NBOOK - but none of the others, or they barely scraped by, which had one or two reviews each. Even then, it's more cohesive and better to cover it as a series when there isn't particularly extensive reception. I think it should maybe be an either or situation with less popular series, either an article on the series and maybe the most notable book, or just individual ones. IMO you can often create better articles working from a series format. PARAKANYAA (talk) 06:31, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that it's usually better for the readers to have a little bit of information on the whole series instead of a lot information on one part and no information at all on other parts. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:44, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is a specific instance where thinking hierarchically a la
WP:NINI is a semi-coherent, contradictory mess. Of course series' notability derives from the individual books' notability, and even if it weren't, a series article is a great way to containerize either entirely notable entries, or a mix of notable and NN entries. Obviously if no all entries are NN, it's entirely pointless, and two notable books in a series seems like a good benchmark, per the above, from which we an work. Jclemens (talk) 07:43, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
I do not understand what you mean by "a great way containerize either entirely notable entries, or a mix of notable and NN entries. Obviously if no entries are NN, it's entirely pointless". "Containerize either entirely notable entries" seems to mean that it is acceptable for all the entries to be notable, but "obviously if no entries are NN, it's entirely pointless" seems to mean that it is not acceptable for all the entries to be notable. I assume that one of these two clauses must contain a typo. I wrote a comment about whether the number of notable entries is relevant, but I had to remove it because, after reading your comment more carefully, I am not sure what your comment means now. James500 (talk) 18:46, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You're right to be confused--that was an error on my part. I meant to have said, "if all entries are NN it's entirely pointless." My bad. Jclemens (talk) 21:10, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would add: WP:NINI also doesn't get read. It says "four of the notability guidelines, for
WP:Nobody reads the directions, most of us never learn that it's an essay with advice (IMO most of it good advice), rather than an enforceable rule, and even people who do click through rarely scroll past the examples to see the ten paragraphs of explanations, exceptions, and limitations. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:29, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

@ReaderofthePack, Asilvering, Schazjmd, Orchastrattor, NatGertler, WhatamIdoing, Piotrus, Newimpartial, James500, Barkeep49, PARAKANYAA, Jclemens, and Aquillion: since there has been a good bit of discussion I thought it would be useful to start identifying concrete proposals to adopt. I have outlined below the key ideas that I have seen suggested above. I think all of the following language is flexible and can be refined through discussion. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 03:05, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Since the idea seems to be to change NBOOK, this should really get the RfC tag and perhaps even be on CENT. I will return to this when I have some more time to participate because 6 proposals is more than I can handle at the moment. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:28, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think the general feeling here is that we are just spelling out what NBOOK already means, rather than changing the criteria itself. I'm not really familiar/comfortable with the process for a wider consensus conversation, so if that seems warranted I'd appreciate if any more experienced editor reading this would tag/advertise this conversation appropriately. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 19:52, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All of these proposals desperately need clarification that they are talking about single-author book series, like Tolkein's Lord of the Rings series, and that they are not talking about publisher book series, the kind that would be represented by the |series= parameter of a {{cite book}} citation, such as Lecture Notes in Computer Science, a series that has thousands of individual books by individual authors in it (most of which are not individually notable). For an example in fiction, see the Ace Doubles series of Ace Books, which again included large numbers of books unrelated except in format, genre, and publisher. For a large publisher book series, notability of individual books does not reflect on notability of the series, notability of the series does not reflect on notability of the books, and there is no reason to prefer one order or the other for article creation. I cannot support any of these proposals if they are worded so generally as to appear to apply to publisher book series. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:37, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Specifying a "single-author book series" will invite wikilawyering over whether The Hardy Boys was written by a "single author", or if the series changes authors partway through (e.g., due to the death of the original author), whether the series stops being notable.
I assume that you are thinking about series that are connected primarily because the publisher says so, such as the "Books that Changed the World" series by
Atlantic Monthly Press
some years back. This series appears to involve:
In such cases, we would presumably think that neither the authorship (all unrelated, if individually famous, authors) nor the subject matter (all unrelated, if individually famous, books) are connected enough to make them a "series" in the sense that we are thinking about here. Instead, we would usually prefer handling this information through other means, including:
  • separate articles for each book (it's possible that all of these books are individually notable; they could be connected through a category)
  • incorporating the information in the relevant articles (e.g., "In O'Rourke's book On The Wealth of Nations, he criticized Smith's idea that...")
  • adding information to the author's article (e.g., adding an entry for "* On the Wealth of Nations, Atlantic Monthly Press, 2007" to a list of ==Books==.)
I think that "series" could be defined appropriately to distinguish between a series that has continuity in subject matter vs one that doesn't. It's also possible that most of the problem could be avoided by specifying that this is only for fiction.
That said, the main risk is: what if the most sensible thing to do is to merge everything about this series into a single article? Do we really want to define that as being a bad thing? WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:29, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose that the other risk would be editors over-interpreting it, and then we end up with the Little Golden Books series at AFD. In that case, few of the individual books are notable, but the series itself is notable (for being an innovative publishing juggernaut). WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:44, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I know this is a niche concern, but there really are cases that fall "between" the single-author series and the publisher-fabricated series. Wild Cards is one example; Marx-Engels-Gesamtausgabe is another; and I assume that many more exist "in the wild". Neither of the examples I gave are in any danger of failing WP:N, but presumably other collaborative projects exist that are also betwixt and between, so it is worth a bit of thought IMO how we would prefer to handle such cases. Newimpartial (talk) 22:48, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@David Eppstein is right that we need to define a book series. We have a (crappy) article on this. Note, for example, "reprint series" discussed there as well as the concept of a Monographic series. Many publishing houses have numerous "series", reprinting notable works, but the series themselves are not important (notable). Sometimes those series can be as vanilla as A Kids Book Series, Springer Biographies or Hameray Biography Series. Some of them may be notable, but most are not and we should make sure that our guideline does not open a gateway for someone spamming listicles about such collections. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:45, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think anyone here is arguing for basing the notability of reprint series on the books reprinted. How about adding the following words to the end of proposal 7: "The preceding paragraph does not apply to reprint series, but does apply to coverage of original translations, or other original material, not [otherwise] previously published, in a series of previously published books. For example, the Penguin Classics is notable because, amongst other reasons, the series includes original translations, and there is significant coverage of those original translations (such as coverage discussing the merits of the original translations). A list of the books in a reprint series may be a valid navigation list if it satisfies the navigation list criteria of WP:LIST." James500 (talk) 20:39, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think we're seeing the problem of definition here; is "Penguin Classics" a series, or is in an imprint? --Nat Gertler (talk) 20:44, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you do not like that particular example, it can be omitted or replaced with an example that we all accept is a series. I have struck those words and added the word "otherwise", for the time being, because the rest of the wording is sound and should not be delayed by disputes about the classification of the example. I should point out that that the Penguin Classics was "A Library of New Translations"; it had an editor; the imprint that was named on the title page was "Penguin Books" (not Penguin Classics); the printer's imprint on the reverse of the title page was neither; and there are a very large number of books in Google Books that refer to the "Penguin Classics series" using those words exactly. I can also see sources refering to "Penguin Classics imprint". I do not profess to know why this is. Perhaps there is an overlap between "series" and "imprint". Perhaps the series changed into an imprint. James500 (talk) 11:42, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This wasn't meant to be so much a criticism of this particular example as a reflection that "series" is poorly defined. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 16:18, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Penguin Classics is notable b/c it meets regular GNG (ex. coverage in Guardian). But a similar series that would not get a coverage, from a wannabee less famous publisher - should our rules cover it? IMHO such a series should not be notable, unless it meets GNG. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:49, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Guardian article does not cover Penguin Classics published after 2013, and is actually primarily about Morrisey's autobiography. If we followed the interpretation of NOTINHERITED, we would get an articles on Penguin Classics published before 13 October 2013 (the date of the Guardian article), Morrisey's autobiography, Rieu's translation of the Oddessy (which has at least six reviews: Times Literary Supplement, Sunday Times, Reynold's News, The Listener, Time and Tide, Tribune) and etc, but we could not have an article on Penguin Classics while the series is still publishing new entries, because no-one can review a book that will not be published until next year or until whenever in the future. The interpretation of NOTINHERITED fails to understand the difference between a periodical and an encyclopedia, and is mistaken in suggesting that the scope of periodical articles should automatically determine the scope of encyclopedia articles. James500 (talk) 13:52, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
PS. I've seen "bad" AFD votes on such topics (series similar to PClassic above) with rationale "it is notable because notable books were published in it/notable authors are included", which obviously violates
WP:NOTINHERITED. I don't think we should have to revisit such discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:51, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
NOTINHERITED is an essay. It is not a policy or guideline and, as far as I am aware, there has never been an RfC on it. It is *not* consensus and therefore cannot be "violated". I have seen "bad" AfD votes on such topics with the rationale of "it is not notable because the essay NOTINHERITED says so". I don't think we should have to revisit such discussions, in the absence of an RfC on NOTINHERITED, which would be the minimum step necessary to establish consensus for something as drastic as that. Further, the particular interpretation of NOTINHERITED in question is an unsound interpretation, because nothing is actually being "inherited" in the "series and its books" case, which bears absolutely no resemblence whatsoever to the famous relative (eg "X is not notable just because his uncle was notable") case on which NOTINHERITED was supposed to be based. And the interpretation opens the door to arguments along the lines of "There is coverage of George Washington's left foot, lets have an article on George Washington's left foot instead of George Washington". And that (metaphorically) is the kind of article the interpretation gets you. James500 (talk) 11:26, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A fairly extreme version of NOTINHERITED might be reflected in the scope of the article Everyman's Library, which surprised me on first reading because it contains almost no discussion of what works were actually published in the series, even though this information is readily available in RS. The article takes the form, essentially, of George Washington's body without mentioning any of the body parts (perhaps in fear of giving offense). (Obviously NOTINHERITED would never apply to article content as such, but I'm talking about a way of thinking about topic notability, scope and significance.) Newimpartial (talk) 15:13, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
NOTDIRECTORY can also cause this problem. —David Eppstein (talk) 15:39, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal 1: in principle, series articles do not need series-specific coverage

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)[reply]
  • also support, for the reasons I gave above. PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:43, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • With editing: "series-level sources" should be "independent reliable sources covering the series" Jclemens (talk) 04:24, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as one of the criteria for series notability. It would get a bit squiffy if it were the sole criteria but I think it would be good as one of several options ala NBOOK. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 12:43, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure if the following makes me a support or oppose but reliable sources may be used to verify series information even if/when they would not be considered an acceptable source to establish notability. Barkeep49 (talk) 19:58, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  • Oppose unless/until this is clarified to apply only to small (generally single-author) series of closely related books, not to the kind of large general-topic publisher book series represented by the |series= parameter of {{cite book}} references, per my comment under general discussion. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:33, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per David. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:52, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Discuss

  • Jclemens, how about "independent reliable sources covering the series as a whole"? Makes that more explicit. -- asilvering (talk) 04:28, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    How would RS'es cover the series not as a whole? Do sources discussing e.g. A Song of Ice and Fire somehow cease to count for series notability if by some strange circumstance George R.R. Martin actually publishes another volume before he dies? Jclemens (talk) 04:43, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe the story runs like this: "Your first source is only about
    WP:PASSINGMENTION
    that doesn't demonstrate notability for the whole series, separately from the individual components. The individual books are notable, but there should be no overview article about the whole series."
    In this story, a given source (or part of a source) can only demonstrate notability for a single thing. A source (or its parts) must be parsed to determine whether it indicates notability for the author or the series as a whole or an individual book in the series. Except perhaps for sentences that directly mention more than one of these things ("Martin began writing the first book in the series in 1991"), the source only demonstrates notability for one of them.
    This is IMO as sensible as claiming that an excellent source about the treatment of influenza is an argument against having an article about Influenza (instead, according to this story, you may only have an article on the Treatment of influenza), but that seems to be the story. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:25, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, precisely. This entire discussion we're having is precisely because there was an AfD where the nominator was arguing that the series is non-notable because there is little to no coverage for the series itself and as such, there should only be pages for those books that pass notability guidelines. -- asilvering (talk) 07:30, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Please note that my response is in the context of adding "... as a whole" to the edit I proposed. I think "as a whole" introduces more issues than it solves, if that wasn't clear before. Jclemens (talk) 22:36, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The "as a whole" language would probably be wikilawyered to exclude all reliable sources published before the end of the series, as one that only covers the first 75 (out of 76) books in the Sweet Valley High series isn't addressing the "whole" series. Editors will occasionally make up just about anything to claim that their preferred outcome is officially required. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:54, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, yes. People would be welcome to do that, because it wouldn't change the meaning of this clause - that's precisely why I suggested it. -- asilvering (talk) 03:51, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal 2: two notable books allow a series article

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)[reply]
  • Seems fair. PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:43, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support. I think this is already the case, and has some element of CREEP in it, but I don't disagree with it. Jclemens (talk) 04:23, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Like Jclemens I think this is already the case, but I don't see any harm in writing it out for clarity. -- asilvering (talk) 04:29, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: This is more than reasonable as one of multiple options to establish notability. It would be good to have this more explicitly stated, although as others have written it was generally assumed to be implied in the past. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 12:44, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  • Oppose unless/until this is clarified to apply only to small (generally single-author) series of closely related books, not to the kind of large general-topic publisher book series represented by the |series= parameter of {{cite book}} references, per my comment under general discussion. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:33, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per David. Would likely support with above clarification. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:53, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think we should do instruction creep and I agree with David's concern. The addition causes more harm than good. Barkeep49 (talk) 20:01, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Discuss

Proposal 3: two book-level sources are a series-level NBOOK pass

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)[reply]

Oppose

  • I propose this for discussion because I felt like it was implied as an option, but I personally think two sources for a whole series feels too low. I prefer Proposal 4 below. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 03:06, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I feel like this is too low to create a comprehensive article for a series. PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:43, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose unless/until this is clarified to apply only to small (generally single-author) series of closely related books, not to the kind of large general-topic publisher book series represented by the |series= parameter of {{cite book}} references, per my comment under general discussion. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:33, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per David. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:53, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not a helpful addition given how we usually apply the notability requirements. Barkeep49 (talk) 20:03, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Discuss

  • I agree with the others that this is too little. I would recommend setting the bar at 4-6 sources at least. This is going to be for a series rather than an individual book, so as such I'd expect the minimum amount of sourcing to be doubled or tripled. If this is brought up lower than my apologies, I'm running through these as they're listed. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 12:46, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that the example is misleading, as it focuses on the number of sources. What we really need is enough independent sources to write a decent, neutral article. If you can do that with two independent sources (plus whatever non-independent sources may be available and useful), then great; it's notable. But if you can't do that with four independent sources, then please don't create that article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:59, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal 4: several book-level sources allow a series article

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)[reply]
  • I support the principle that coverage of a book is coverage of the series of which it is part for the purpose of GNG, and such coverage may make the series notable, even if none of the individual books are independently notable. I oppose the suggestion that GNG requires several sources. "Multiple" means two or more, not "several". James500 (talk) 14:04, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  • Oppose unless/until this is clarified to apply only to small (generally single-author) series of closely related books, not to the kind of large general-topic publisher book series represented by the |series= parameter of {{cite book}} references, per my comment under general discussion. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:33, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per David. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:53, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Discuss

  • I could go either way on this one. I prefer it to Proposal 3 above but I don't feel strongly. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 03:06, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am unsure. I think there's some modification of this that would be a good idea but as is I feel it's too lax. Maybe one notable book and then some coverage for others? I feel like in that case you can't have both an article on that book and the series, though. PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:43, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If we have a higher minimum threshold (like 4-6 minimum) for sourcing then it would actually be tougher to pass than you'd think. Unless they're very mainstream or become a media darling to some extent, books are kind of ignored and really only covered in places Wikipedia would typically not see as reliable, like random book blogs. It's actually far more common for a series' popularity to never quite translate into coverage in reliable sources - Sunny and her Monere series (Mona Lisa Awakening, Mona Lisa Rising, etc) is a good example of this. The series was fairly popular back in its day, but it never gained any traction in RS. The most it tended to get would be passing mentions in relation to her husband Da Chen ala "Da Chen is here to speak! And oh yeah, his wife Sunny is here to read her book too I guess." ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 13:09, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I also prefer this to Prop 3 but I think Prop 1 covers this situation adequately. -- asilvering (talk) 04:31, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I prefer this as well. As far as prop 1 and this goes, I do think it might be better to have more clarity than less. The vagueness of NBOOK and what is generally expected/implied is kind of what sparked this off, to be honest. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 12:48, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you explain why you think prop 1 doesn't fully fix the issue? -- asilvering (talk) 21:35, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I suppose I'm just confused as to whether it's supposed to be a general statement or a requirement. If it's a requirement then it would need some clarification. If it's a general statement that is then followed up by the requirements for series notability then it's absolutely fine. I guess I just need to imagine it in context? ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 15:31, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    According to the wording, it appears to be a description of possibilities and permission ("may be interpreted" = others might or might not do this; you have permission to do this). In practice, it will be likely be interpreted according to the POV of the person quoting it (either "we have permission to do this, so we must" or "sure, sometimes we might, but not this time, and it only says people sometimes do this, without saying that it's good to do this"). WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:29, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal 5: actively suggest beginning with series-level articles

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)[reply]
  • In most cases, this is the best option to start out with. Not all cases, but as long as it remains a suggestion that is fine. PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:43, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • per LEvalyn. Perhaps we could change the "usually" to "often" to make it more clearly a suggestion? -- asilvering (talk) 04:32, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: I like Asilvering's suggestion for the wording. I think it's a good idea to start with a series article and then branch out as personally, I tend to find series articles more helpful than individual articles - at least when it comes to your average book. That said, it definitely needs to be a recommendation and not a rule. As Jclemens said, series start out with a single book. While in most cases that first book typically won't gain enough notability for a whole article, there are definitely notable examples where that first book gains enough attention for an article so it should be explicitly stated that it's not a hard rule. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 13:15, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with silverwing, perhaps as a footnote, and explicitly disagree with David's small series oppose. Barkeep49 (talk) 20:05, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  • Oppose unless/until this is clarified to apply only to small (generally single-author) series of closely related books, not to the kind of large general-topic publisher book series represented by the |series= parameter of {{cite book}} references, per my comment under general discussion. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:33, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per David. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:53, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Discuss

  • Neutral. Most new series don't start out as series: they start as a single book. Existing series may be currently covered as individual books, as a subsection in a bibliography, or a series article. I don't know that we need to dictate which option is preferred. Jclemens (talk) 04:22, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Jclemens, I think the pattern may be a genre-specific. For example, the Aubrey–Maturin series was meant to be a one-off book that ended up being a series with 20+ books due to reader demand, but I see a lot of mystery novels introduced as "book one in a new series", even from first-time authors. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:06, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • "One book in a new series" is the equivalent of "First annual [whatever]". There's absolutely no guarantee another one is coming, regardless of anticipation and intent. Jclemens (talk) 22:33, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        I agree, but I also think that it indicates "starting out" as a series, even if it turns out later than the series is rather shorter than originally planned. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:42, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Something else came to mind: this could be especially useful for children's books where the first 2-3 books are somewhat set in stone. For example, children's chapter books tend to be released pretty close together. The Animorphs series released their first two books side by side, with the next three later that same year. The books would have to establish notability still, though. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 16:30, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal 6: if a series passes NLIST it's ok if its entries don't pass NBOOK

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)[reply]
  • I think this is a given, but I don't see the harm in writing it out anyway. -- asilvering (talk) 04:33, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree. I support this, but I'm a little worried that this could get confusing, so maybe make this a footnote to one of the other criteria? ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 13:16, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  • This is already the case, and would confuse things. NLIST guidelines don't depend on the notability of elements, full stop. Jclemens (talk) 04:20, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose unless/until this is clarified to apply only to small (generally single-author) series of closely related books, not to the kind of large general-topic publisher book series represented by the |series= parameter of {{cite book}} references, per my comment under general discussion. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:33, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per David. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:53, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Discuss

  • I neither support nor oppose. I think this might be too obvious to need stating, but I don't object. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 03:06, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal 7: Add wording that simply confirms what NBOOK and GNG already say and already mean

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)[reply]
  • I can live with this. Pretty much eviscerates the NOTINHERITED misunderstanding. Jclemens (talk) 03:34, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  • Same as above. We should not treat multi-volume fantasy novels the same as multi-hundred-unrelated-book technical monograph series and this wording makes no distinction between those very different cases.

Discuss

  • "Multi-hundred-unrelated-book technical monograph series" are probably more notable than "multi-volume fantasy novels". The coverage notes presently say that the guideline does not apply (otherwise than by analogy) to the notability of "magazines", and I suspect that Lecture Notes in Computer Science could be excluded on grounds that it has an ISSN. James500 (talk) 14:16, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
That just sounds more confusing to me. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 05:39, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(books)&oldid=1220059711"