Wikipedia talk:Notability (publishing)

This was originally an essay. The last such version was this revision of 5 September 2014. James500 (talk) 21:16, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Should this become a guideline?[edit]

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The proposal, whatever it was, was unanimously rejected, and was withdrawn by the proposer. Just archiving the thread. Kraxler (talk) 22:09, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The community is asked to promote this proposal to a guideline, or, if they do not support its present form, state what changes they would like to see. James500 (talk) 17:15, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Request withdrawn at the suggestion of User:Neonorange. Too much opposition. Too little support. No suggestions for improvement offered for some time. Unlikely to be fixed during the course of the RfC. Further feedback will be needed if this is to be improved. James500 (talk) 00:10, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support[edit]

Support as proposer. This is essentially WP:AUTHOR applied to publishers. It would be inconsistent with that not to allow publishers to 'inherit' notability from their books in a way equivalent to the way that authors do. Has published a notable book or otherwise received enough book reviews (for books not independently notable) to satisfy GNG is the obvious criteria. A more restrictive criteria would deprive valid articles on notable books of the context (which I think necessary) of an article on their publisher, and might prevent some books with a single review being discussed anywhere (bearing in mind the current rubric of NBOOK), both of which would be undesirable outcomes. I regard this not so much as a separate criteria that is a new head of notability, but rather as a restatement of GNG itself that would clarify that coverage of a book is coverage of its original publisher. James500 (talk) 16:37, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose[edit]

Oppose, speedy reject as failed- manifestly inadequate. This is less than 100 words, about a tenth of the size of a real SNG, and has had no input or comments from anyone except its author. It's not mature as a proposal and is both vague and erroneous from beginning to end. The content provides no useful guidance, and seems intended to indiscriminately bestow notability on everything within its area of applicability. Suggest userfying or deletion at MfD. Reyk _YO! 14:18, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Its length is irrelevant, and it is not intended to, or capable of, indiscriminately bestowing notability on anything, even if it may be far too broad in its present form, which can be modified. It has now had input and comment from several people. Userfication is not an option because it would require my consent, and deletion at MfD would be an abuse of process. James500 (talk) 22:07, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your relentless badgering of opposers is getting really tedious. Reyk _YO! 05:59, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No one is badgering anyone. James500 (talk) 12:33, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, concur speedy - The result of this would be a publisher is notable if a single book they published gets two reviews. (The standard for notability in WP:NBOOKS) This is an ill conceived proposal by a single editor who wants to gut Wikipedia's notability standards. Compare with his other proposals Wikipedia:Notability (history) and his version of Wikipedia:Notability (bilateral relations). All of these seem to have been written to be used by the author in specific AfD discussions. None follow or express current consensus. Jbh ^Talk 15:19, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

They were not written for any such purpose. I don't see how this can "gut" Wikipedia's notability standards when it is basically just a restatement of AUTHOR and GNG, and it was written with the object of answering a single, very narrow question. My opinion is that the result proposed here could be achieved with the existing text of GNG, and that that is the correct interpretation of GNG. All the AfDs that I have seen support this view. This is so straightforward that it should not be controversial. James500 (talk) 17:30, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If it is a restatement then why have it? It, however is not. What is written gives publishers greater notability than authors because it says a publisher with a notable book is itself notable. You are saying no coverage of a publisher in independent reliable sources is required at all but the publisher is still notable because they happen to have published a book that garnered two reviews. If that is not gutting the notability standards I do not know what is.
What are you going to have, an article that says
Bob's Publishers Published Marginal Book by John Q Unknown. Bunch promotional marketing tripe that is shoehorned in using WP:ABOUTSELF. Maybe a list of completely unknown authors and books that are brought in because they are from a "notable" publisher.
Utter tripe. The notability guidelines are already loose enough and it is already hard enough to keep out promotional material and link-spam. This would make it so much worse. Jbh ^Talk 19:36, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Per your idea that "...allow publishers to 'inherit' notability from their books in a way equivalent to the way that authors do. Authors write the books. The publisher is not the creator of the material. It would be more legitimate to say copy-editors inherit notability from the books they edit or proof-readers. There is also WP:NOTINHERITED which has a solid consensus behind it. Jbh ^Talk 19:42, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

NOTINHERITED is an essay. There is no consensus there. It also says that it doesn't apply to creative works. I was under the impression that publishers have some control over the content of a book (they certainly choose the title) and they do control what books get published. I was under the impression that the reputation of a publisher would depend on the quality of their books. James500 (talk) 21:05, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Publishers are companies and fall under WP:NCORP. They are not 'creative works' nor are they 'creative professionals'. As to "NOTINHERITED is an essay." please see Arguments to Avoid - WP:ONLYESSAY. Jbh ^Talk 21:34, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That is only generally true, if at all, in modern times. At one time all publishers were individuals, indeed English law once placed severe restrictions on incorporation. I am under the impression that the Dictionary of Printers, for example, is all about individuals. Publications are 'creative works' and publishers ... publish them. I know that, for example, they sometimes change, or request changes to, what the author has written. The American and Argentinian editions of Orwell's 1984 would be examples involving the publisher censoring or wanting to censor the work (eg changing expressions like "thick negroid" to "protuberant" for social reasons or asking for the removal of [140 lines of text containing] sex references that apparently sounded worse in Spanish, which is cruder than English). You could call these changes "creative". James500 (talk) 00:34, 9 July 2015 (UTC) Words in square brackets added. James500 (talk) 02:02, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, No, a thousand times no. None of those changes are considered 'creative changes' else copyright would attach. If they rise to the point of 'creative changes' that is something the author is involved in and, barring contractual or legal requirements, has final say over. There are, of course, edge cases such as censorship in certain times and places but to claim, in the case of book publishers, that they are the creative artist is absurd. You will not convince me otherwise. If you still feel strongly about it your guideline should discuss how and under what circumstances a publisher should be considered a 'creative artist'. Otherwise, continuing this thread serves no real use and it has likely reached a natural conclusion. Jbh ^Talk 01:26, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Copyright law may not be the only standard by which creativity can be measured. I would hesitate to exclusively rely on a definition of creativity that was framed with the economic objectives of copyright in mind. James500 (talk) 15:05, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So if the publisher is a corporation WP:NCORP applies, and if it is an individual then WP:BIO applies. In neither case do we require a new notability guideline, particularly one that is vague, fallacious, badly written, and sets the inclusion bar unacceptably low. Reyk _YO! 06:28, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
ORG is a complete mess that might potentially be demoted and the additional criteria of BIO are incomplete. In any event, what you are saying is actually an argument for merger, which would mean that we would have to repeat the publisher criteria twice. You might as well argue that we don't need PROF because we have BIO. A proposal cannot meaningfully be described as "fallacious", and any problems can potentially be fixed. James500 (talk) 13:47, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, I'm not arguing to merge this anywhere. There's nothing of value in it. Reyk _YO! 14:55, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think I should mention that the two editors above came to this from an MfD were the possibility of an RfC for this proposal was first mentioned. I think it would be seriously inappropriate to speedy reject this proposal on the basis only of !votes from people coming from that MfD (most of whom got to that MfD from a single AfD and its DRV), and not the wider community. I can see no harm in leaving the thing open for the full thirty days, or at least till it has been commented on by significant numbers of editors who are not coming from that MfD. James500 (talk) 17:45, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - Seems more an exercise in point-making than a genuine attempt at a new notability guide, based on the discussion noted above, at the MfD. The WP:GNG is sufficient for publishers. Tarc (talk) 19:50, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, the object is to get a guideline, and you know it. James500 (talk) 20:55, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose proposal in current form (with no comment on the proposer): stricter criteria than this are needed. By the current standards expressed by the proposal, far too many publishers would be notable and there just wouldn't be anything to say about them other than "Publisher published Barely Notable Book". I don't see an inherent problem with allowing publishers to gain notability from notable books, but it would have to be a substantial number of notable books. — Bilorv_(talk)^(c)(e) 19:58, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Bilorv: How many notable books would you like exactly? Can you give me a number? James500 (talk) 20:55, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I can't give you an exact number because I don't want to pluck one out of thin air. But "dozens" is a rough answer. — Bilorv_(talk)^(c)(e) 20:59, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Starting with "Critical appraisal of a publication is critical appraisal of those responsible for it."—no, just no, in so many ways. Of a publication: a newspaper—difficult to find critical appraisals—perhaps you should rethink your definitions. Self-published books-on-demand? Who's the publisher? Publishers are rarely mentioned in a critical review other than in identifying the book (or in publisher's puff pieces). The definitions as stated would include an obscure reprinter of a work—even of an out-of-copyright work. So "A publisher is notable if they have published a notable individual publication" fails also, and weak disclaimers do not make for good policy. — Neonorange (talk) 20:27, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The notes would have been better placed in-line. — Neonorange (talk) 20:32, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Neonorange. Actually this was only meant to apply to the original publisher of the book, not a mere reprint. The definitions are a bit hazy because I was not sure how to handle anthologies, second editions that contain substantial changes and so forth. James500 (talk) 20:55, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarification. I have two more comments—generally RfC's work better when the initiator lets the proposal speak for itself, with only a supporter's !vote, not a reply to nearly every opposing !vote—and you might want to work on expanding and improving the proposal, withdrawing it for now to avoid a WP:Snow. — Neonorange (talk) 21:42, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In my experience, RfCs work better when participants talk to each other as much as possible, and explain themselves as fully as possible, as RfC is not a vote. The more feedback is obtained, from as many people as possible, the easier it will be to expand and improve the proposal, so the second question of the RfC should remain open as long as possible. I don't see any immediate prospect of SNOW, as only two !votes have come here otherwise than in response to a notice at one MfD, which has nothing to do with publishing, where there should probably not have been a notice, and they could be a statistical blip, and I don't see how the second question could be closed as SNOW since it is open ended. James500 (talk) 01:30, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Clarification of the notability of a publisher would be a good idea, but this would include self-published authors under this guideline even if they would not qualify under WP:AUTHOR. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 04:45, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
oppose this is far too low a threshold for a publisher to get automatic notability. And importantly this proposal does not originate from any established community consensus. LibStar (talk) 11:38, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@LibStar: I think you intended to say "does not" above rather than "does". Jbh ^Talk 13:00, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Correct. Thanks. LibStar (talk) 13:25, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - I think the basic standards for determining notability that are set out at WP:GNG and WP:ORG are enough to cover publishers... to summarize: if there are reliable sources that are independent of the publishing company that discuss the company in reasonable depth, we can consider the company notable... if not, we shouldn't. There is no need to say more. Blueboar (talk) 12:25, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strongest oppose and delete to avoid confusion: This guideline is too lax. If I authored book A, self-published it with publication "company" A, hope that it will get two reviews (if I advertise it enough and submit press releases everywhere, it probably will), under this guideline, publication "company" A is notable. Of course, there won't be much to write on it except:

Publication Company A is a publisher based on <city X>.^{[citation needed]} It published Book A in 2015.

Notability is not inherited - the topic itself has to have coverage, not another topic affiliated with it - so coverage of a book itself is not coverage of the actual publisher.

Esquivalience ^t 17:23, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is no possibility of confusion. No one who can read English could be confused about a proposal marked as such or marked as "failed". Anyone who does not understand what Template:Proposal or Template:Failed means lacks the competence to contribute to deletion discussions. In any event, it is always possible that this proposal could be completely rewritten. I've already come to the conclusion that self publication needs to be positively excluded. That is a just a drafting error that can be fixed. In fact, in view of the level of criticism, I think there is positive consensus to make that change right now. James500 (talk) 21:13, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The notion that there won't be much to write about such a publisher is basically wrong. The could be coverage in independent reliable secondary sources that falls just short (perhaps by a single word) of being "significant". There may also be coverage in reliable primary sources or in non-independent sources we admit under ABOUTSELF. That could potentially be a very large amount of information. And we can always include a list of their books. The proposal could in any event be modified to specifically require other coverage.
@User: Arthur Rubin and User:Esquivalience: I have positively wholly excluded self-publication from the scope of this guideline with this edit. Are there any other changes you would like to see? James500 (talk) 21:44, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I hardly see the need behind a subject-specific guideline for publishers. They are so rarely nominated for deletion that it's best to just do simple WP:CORP source search and discretion in such cases. If, suddenly, many "publishers" run from garages create trashy articles, then it would be suitable, but that's a story for another time. Esquivalience ^t 21:55, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's not my only objection. If a "vanity publisher" happens to find a best-seller, it still doesn't mean the publisher should have an article. I do not believe we need to weaken WP:GNG for puvlishers. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:42, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Upon reading Vanity press and our article on self publishing, I find suggestions that there is a difference between publication through a vanity press and self publication. I have therefore made this edit to positively exclude them from the scope of the proposal since there seems to be consensus for that. James500 (talk) 12:10, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose because notability isn't inherited. Just plain wrong. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:24, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Tag {{failed}}. Notability based on products is going in completely the wrong direction to notability based upon third party coverage of the subject. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:34, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, speedy notability not inherited. There are I'm sure many books of history that we have no idea who published nor should we care. --ℕ ℱ 20:50, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This proposal, in its present form, applies to publishers of notable or reviewed books. It does not apply to publishers of non-notable un-reviewed history books. James500 (talk) 00:10, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments[edit]

Notices of this RfC have been placed on Wikipedia talk:Notability, Wikipedia talk:Notability (books), Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Books and Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). James500 (talk) 21:21, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have also placed a notice at Wikipedia talk:Notability (organizations and companies). Jbh ^Talk 21:42, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A further notice has been placed at Wikipedia talk:Notability (people), as some publishers are individuals, as explained above. James500 (talk) 01:02, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

comment this discussion looks like heading to a pretty clear oppose consensus. LibStar (talk) 11:31, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You may be correct. I see four opposes that have not come from the MfD. If there are more such !votes, I may withdraw the first question of the MfD altogether. The issue of self published authors raised above seems to require modification of the guideline. James500 (talk) 15:28, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'd suggest a SNOW close, followed by removal of the RfC notice and an addition of {{Failed proposal}} to the project page. There are now 11 opposes against only the proposer's support, and every single one of those opposes (including the two which you claim "came from the MfD") are valid. — Bilorv_(talk)^(c)(e) 20:17, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually 5 !votes seem to have come from the MfD for Wikipedia:Notability (bilateral relations) (Reyk, Jbhunley, Tarc, LibStar, and SmokeyJoe). All of them !voted there first, and came here after this proposal was mentioned there. I think the mentioning of this page and the possibility of this RfC in that MfD, in a not particularly neutral fashion, in a not particularly neutral venue, is somewhat problematic. James500 (talk) 23:56, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You're actually trying to invalidate peoples' opinions based on where they heard about this RfC? Reyk _YO! 01:00, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, that would be correct if the effect was that the RfC was advertised more prominently to people whom one would expect to oppose it. I think that an RfC should be as close to a representative sample as possible. You would not, for example, expect me to advertise an RfC to the Association of Inclusionist Wikipedians, without also advertising it to the deletionist association. James500 (talk) 01:29, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion: Withdraw the proposal, work on it, and try again. Fixing it piecemeal is not going to work. This RfC is not a group discussion—it's just a series of oppose !votes with a reply from the proposer, with an occasional modification to the guideline from the originator. This process is not moving forward, and has become a waste of time. More work at the front end makes for a useful group discussion—something to keep in mind for next time. — Neonorange (talk) 23:32, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am inclined to agree. James500 (talk) 23:56, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
James500, let me know when you submit this again. I get the gist of what you're suggesting here and I think that this would be a good policy to have. It needs to be worked on, but I like the idea behind this. At the very least I think that if a book has won a major, notable award and it was originally published by a specific publisher, that should count towards a little something. Publishers do have some input on a book, albeit limited, and many publishers will insist that authors work with their specific editor instead of the author's own editor. This means that while the author is ultimately the main person who would gain notability for their work, publishers should be given at least partial credit for a notable book. A good way to somewhat limit this from getting a little too inclusive is to say that a publisher can gain notability from a book if the book is notable enough to pass NBOOK and have an article. This is a little more strict than NAUTHOR, but since many publishers can potentially put out dozens or hundreds of books a year, this keeps it from being a little too exclusive since the odds are high that at least 2-3 of those books will gain enough coverage to warrant an article. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:17, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

One issue with publishers gaining notability from their published books is that it is OR. If no independent reliable source comments on the publisher being significant than who are we to say so? For recent publishers there are several recognized publishing awards and trade publications where we can get information to document notability. For historical publishers it is a little tougher to and we would likely be relying on books and academic articles about the history of publishing. Again just checking the cover page of a bunch of notable old books and finding out who published them and then deciding if they are notable would be us doing original research. Jbh ^Talk 12:18, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Forgot: Pinging @Tokyogirl79: Jbh ^Talk 12:19, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Most notability criteria are OR, including GNG itself (exceptions to this are definitions of "notable" in N and BIO that have been sourced from dictionaries), or require us to engage in OR when deciding whether a topic satisfies them, including GNG itself. That is one of the principal objections to having a requirement for notability. Books are normally notable because they have received two or more book reviews. Since book reviews normally name the publisher, we will not normally need to look at cover pages. James500 (talk) 06:32, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Post closure[edit]

"A publisher is notable if they have published a notable individual publication or a series of publications that are collectively notable."?!? Notability is not inherited, and certainly not by work-role "osmosis". Every work no longer subject to copyright can be published by anyone, but me running off new printings of Shakespeare wouldn't magically make my publishing "company" notable.

"Reviews of publications count towards the notability of the publisher."?!? See above. If I'm the landlord or electrician for a notable restaurant, does that magically make me notable, too? This is seriously the #1 worst notability proposal I've ever seen on WP. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 14:18, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your first criticism relates to a drafting error. The proposal was only meant to apply to the original publisher of a notable book or a notable new edition of a book. Publication of a substantially revised new edition of a notable book, where the revision has been done by the original author or an editor authorised by the original author, is a grey area that I am undecided on. In practice, such revised editions tend to get new reviews. It was definitely not intended to apply to the publisher of a non-notable verbatim reprint of a notable public domain book. At some point I will fix the drafting error.
Your second criticism is based on a false analogy. The publisher controls what is published and can even insist on changes to the content of a book. The landlord or electrician of a notable restaurant exercises no control or influence over the sort of food that is served there. A landlord just collects rent; he does not tell the chef what to put in his meals. A publisher can tell an author what to put in his book. Also the money is going in a different direction: the publisher pays the author. A better analogy would be to the relationship between a notable restaurant and the company that manages/runs/controls it. They are in control of it and coverage of it is coverage of them.
This is not the worst notability proposal on Wikipedia. Some of the deletionist SNG are full of absolutely bizarre nonsense. James500 (talk) 16:49, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kraxler's comment at the top of the archived thread is not accurate. Tokyogirl79 said that she supported the proposal in principle in the section headed "comments". She just arrived shortly after the RfC had been withdrawn. Frankly, a large proportion of the !votes in the RfC could have been legitimately rejected on grounds that they were canvassed. The further effect of the thing being pounced on by a large number of canvassed editors was to shut down discussion prematurely. So, in my frank opinion, the result is worthless. (For the avoidance of doubt, I accept the canvassing was an honest mistake). James500 (talk) 16:49, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]