 | This page documents an English Wikipedianotability guideline. Editors should generally follow it, thoughexceptions may apply.Substantive edits to this pageshould reflect consensus. |
 | This page in a nutshell: A book is presumed notable, and to generally merit an article, if itverifiably meets throughreliable sources,one or more of the following criteria:
|
| Notability |
|---|
| General notability guideline |
| Subject-specific guidelines |
| See also |
This guideline provides some additional criteria for use in deciding whether a book should or should not have an article on Wikipedia. Satisfying this notability guideline generally indicates a book warrants an article.
A book that meets either thegeneral notability guideline or the criteria outlined in this or any othersubject-specific notability guideline, and which is not excluded under theWhat Wikipedia is not policy, ispresumed to merit an article.
This is not an absolute guarantee that there will necessarily be a separate, stand-alone article entirely dedicated to that book. Editors may use their discretion tomerge or group two or more related topics into a single article.
Failure to satisfy the criteria outlined in this guideline (or any other notability guideline) isnot acriterion for speedy deletion.
The criteria provided by this guideline arerough criteria. They are not exhaustive. Accordingly, a book may be notable, and merit an article, for reasons not particularized in this or any other notability guideline.
Claims of notability must adhere toWikipedia's policy on verifiability. It is not enough to simply assert that a book meets a criterion. Verifiablereliable sources that substantiate that claim must actually exist.
"Notability" is not a reflection of a book'smerit. A book may be brilliantly written, fascinating and topical, while still not being notable enough to ensure sufficient verifiable source material exists to create an encyclopedia article about that book.
Though the concept of a "book" is widely defined, this guideline does not provide specific notability criteria for the following types of publications:comic books;graphic novels (although it does apply tomanga); magazines; reference works such as dictionaries,thesauruses, encyclopedias, atlases andalmanacs; music-specific publications such as instruction and notation books andlibrettos; instruction manuals; and exam prep books. Specific guidelines may be developed. Until then, this guideline may be instructive by analogy.
The criteria set forth below apply to books in electronic form (e-books) as well as to traditional books. An e-book that does not meet the criteria of this guideline is nevertheless notable if it meets the criteria of thenotability guideline for web-specific content. An e-book that meets the criteria of this guideline does not need to meet the criteria of that guideline in order to be notable.
A book is presumed notable if itverifiably meets, throughreliable sources, at leastone of the following criteria:
The five preceding criteria do not apply tonot-yet-published books.
Wikipedia should not have a standalone article about a book if it is not possible, without includingoriginal research orunverifiable content, to write an article on that book that complies with the policy that Wikipedia articles should not be summary-only descriptions of works, contained in criterion 1 ofWP:INDISCRIMINATE.
Self-publication and/or publication by avanity press do not correlate with notability.[8] Exceptions do exist, such asRobert Gunther'sEarly Science in Oxford andEdgar Allan Poe'sTamerlane, but both of these books would be considered notable by virtue (for instance) of criterion 1.
Many vanity press books are assigned ISBN numbers, may be listed in a national library, may be found through aGoogle Books search, and may be sold at large online book retailers. None of these things is evidence of notability.
That a Wikipedia article on a book has been created by the author of that book or by any other interested party such as an editor or member of the editorial staff of that book has no bearing on whether or not that book is notable, though it does mean the person creating or editing that article has aconflict of interest and is expected to abide by the relevant Wikipedia guideline with regard toconflict-of-interest editing and themandatory disclosure requirements for paid editing by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use. SeeWikipedia:Conflict of interest andWikipedia:Autobiography for more information. Failure to properly disclose a COI may result in theblocking of a user's account, though it is not necessarily a basis for nominating the associated article for deletion.
A book's listing at online bookstoresBarnes & Noble.com andAmazon.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.
Articles about books that are not yet published are accepted only if they are not excluded by theWikipedia is not a crystal ball policy, and only under criteria other than those provided by this guideline, typically because the anticipation of the book is notable in its own right. In such cases there should be independent sources which provide strong evidence that the book will be published, and which include the title of the book and an approximate date of publication.
The vast majority of books whose Wikipedia articles are nominated for deletion, and whose notability could reasonably be called into question, arecontemporary. Nevertheless, the notability of books written or published earlier may occasionally be disputed and the criteria specified above, intended primarily for contemporary books, may be unsuitable because they would be too restrictive and would exclude articles on books that are worthy of notice.
Common sense should prevail. In such cases, possible bases for a finding of notability include, in particular, how widely the book has been cited or written about, the number of editions of the book, whether it has been reprinted, the fame that the book enjoys or enjoyed in the past, its place in thehistory of literature, its value as a historical source and its age.
Textbooks and technical books serve a very different function and come to bepublished through very different processes than other types of books. For these reasons, most of the standards for mainstream books are inapplicable to this kind of book because they would be too restrictive and would exclude articles on books that are worthy of notice. Again, common sense should prevail. In such cases, possible bases for a finding of notability include, in particular, whether the book is published by an academic press,[9] how widely the book is cited by other academic publications or in the media,[10] the number of editions of the book, whether one or more translations of the book have been published, how influential the book is considered to be in its specialty area, or adjunct disciplines, and whether it is, or has been, taught, or required reading, in one or more reputable educational institutions.
Articles on books should not be split and split again into ever more minutiae of detail treatment, with each split normally lowering the level of notability. While a book may be notable, it is not normally advisable to have a separate article on a character or thing from the book, and it is often the case that despite the book being manifestly notable, a derivative article from it is not. Exceptions do exist, especially in the case of very famous books. For example,Charles Dickens'A Christmas Carol clearly warrants aside article on its protagonist,Ebenezer Scrooge. When a book has been split too finely to support the notability of individual subtopics,merging content back into the book's article is appropriate.
In some situations, editorsdecide that a separate article about a book, regardless of whether the book is notable, is not the best choice. The main alternatives includemerging the content about a book to an article about the author, to an article about a book series (if it is part of a series), or to a list.
For example, it may be more appropriate to feature material about the book in theauthor's article, rather than creating a separate article for that book. Similarly, a single article giving an overview of a wholebook series (e.g., theNancy Drew Mystery Stories or theAubrey–Maturin series) may be preferable to having separate articles about individual books in the series. It may also be appropriate to merge an article on a book into an article that is abibliography or list of books (e.g., theList of Oz books). This might, for example, facilitate the inclusion of material on individual anonymous works that, because those works are anonymous, cannot be merged into their authors' articles.
If the book cannot be merged only because no article about the author or list for the series currently exists, consider writing the author's article or the list yourself, orrequest that it be written.
Formerly:
{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)