Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/English Electric Canberra (book)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. v/r - T P 02:21, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

English Electric Canberra (book)[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Both of these books were prodded in the past, with the prods contested by stating "the book is referenced and both author and publisher are notable". However, notability is not inherited. Although these books have received good reviews, from experts in the field, there is no breadth of coverage, and they have made no cultural impact outside of the aviation history community (and very little impact there either), and have no significance sufficent to establish notability. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:28, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:30, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I don’t see the point of this Afd, the Wikipedia is not some elitist place otherwise many articles would be removed and for Wikipedia:WikiProject Books it’s fine as it meets Notability. If you read notability is not inherited, you would see that the exception is Books, Film and Music, these need reviews.This is all about a source of information and the wikipedia is a global project. The important thing for an article is that there are references to back up the information and both these articles have those from good sources. The Lightning book shows that it was a best seller in Grimsby, therefore already being of interest. Just because those in another Wikipedia project are not happy doesn’t mean it is not important to others. What next? The removal of The Berlin Raids (book)? I will be working on this book at some stage and giving it what is required, which is independent third party references. --BSTemple (talk) 10:17, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not particularly notable books, lots of aircraft books and monographs have been produced and a rarely notable, appear to part of a series of promotional articles on the books of Bruce Barrymore Halpenny being an author notable enough (?) for an article doesnt make the books notable. Although not the same author you are right perhaps The Berlin Raids (book) should also be nominated for deletion. MilborneOne (talk) 13:37, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment But it meets the criteria for inclusion in the Wikipedia books. The aviation side is immaterial, the main point is that it has been reviewed and these reviews can be used to create the article. Any book, Film or music that has been reviewed can be included. And no The Berlin Raids (book) should not be deleted.--BSTemple (talk) 15:54, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTDIRECTORY would seem to apply here - there is no need to include book after book after non-fiction book just because it has been reviewed. This is Wikipedia, not Amazon.com. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:36, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTDIRECTORY does nor apply here. We are on about Wikipedia:Notability (books) where clearly the books are meeting notability and what has Amazon got to do with it? Amazon is not a reliable source for articles. You are applying criteria for other articles that do not apply to that of Books, Film and Music.--BSTemple (talk) 19:07, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My point was that if we say "This book was reviewed by signifcant, reliable source X, that review is enough to have an article", we will soon have an article on virtually every book ever printed that says "Book X is about Y and was favourably reviewed by Z". In the case of a fiction book or film that is sufficent, but in the case of a book about a real-world thing that already has its own article, I'm not sure that that is what Wikipedia is for. If the book makes a best-seller list that is one thing; simply existing is another. But if the Book Rules say otherwise, the AfD can be withdrawn. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:18, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(comment) The book notability think is only a guideline it doesnt trump the general notability requirements and common sense. MilborneOne (talk) 19:26, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Book articles are often put to Afds because they fail to provide third party reliable sources, in other words Reviews. It's the reviews that are used to build the article, not publishers blurb etc. These articles meet that criteria well, with Reviews that are independent of the book itself.--BSTemple (talk) 19:36, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but I don't see how they establish notability per the WP:GNG. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:58, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I’m not sure your point? We seem to be going around in circles here. You give the GNG, where it states: "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content. That is a Review that I have been pointing out. The Wikipedia is quite clear on all this. If you look on Wikipedia:Notability on the right in the box under Notability - Subject specific guidelines – go down to the one that says “Books”. There you will see it clearly states: This page in a nutshell: A book is generally notable if it verifiably meets through reliable sources, one or more of the following criteria… and number 1 is: The book has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the book itself. These are the Reviews.--BSTemple (talk) 20:16, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Then this needs to be changed. Wikipeida does not need an article on every book ever reviewed. And personally, I would consider reviews "trivial". - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:42, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That is your opinion, but the Wikipedia is a global project bringing millions of people together through online collaboration and interaction from around the world. The aim of the Wikipedia is to create a summary of all human knowledge in the form of an online encyclopaedia. Since it has virtually unlimited disk space, it can have far more topics than can be covered by any conventional print encyclopaedias. It also contains materials that some people may find objectionable, offensive, or pornographic, are you suggesting this material is removed? I don’t work on these or even like some of them, but I would never seek to have them removed just because I don’t like them. And one has to ask, who are you to decide what is and is not acceptable on the Wikipedia? This is a matter for all. I fear you have lost the meaning and spirit of the Wikipedia.--BSTemple (talk) 10:16, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See below: I will never use a WP:ILIKEIT or WP:IDONTLIKEIT vote. Please do not assume bad faith on the part of other editors. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:34, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:33, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:34, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep 3 independent reliable sources = GNG met. Jclemens (talk) 22:33, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete neither are sufficiently notable in their own right. Buckshot06 (talk) 17:18, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The GNG has been met as has the Notability guidelines for books. So the only reason someone is giving to delete, is because they don’t like it. That can be applied to any article and therefore makes having any guidelines pointless. The main reason for an Afd is to see if an article has met the guidelines set and these have. --BSTemple (talk) 18:08, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not my argument here. My argument is that book reviews are routine coverage and do not confer notability. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:32, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I understand what you are saying, but you are wrong in trying to apply these to the book articles as book reviews are what are required for the Book articles. They meet Notability for Wikipedia:WikiProject Books as well as WP:GNG. All books are included as long as they meet this criteria. The links you have always given are either not related to the topic (ie a book article) or else has only reaffirmed what I have been saying. You give the link to WP:ROUTINE, this is generally about news items and single events (Sammy lost his dog so someone creates an article about it just because a newspaper ran the story). These are not reviews, but even here it confirms yet again what I am saying, such as WP:DIVERSE. I am not assuming bad faith on your part, just trying to show you that you are wrong on an Afd for a book article when it is meeting the criteria for an article. This is the Wikipedia policy, not mine alone. There can be an article on any and all books as long as independent reviews are used. I do not agree with you that book reviews are routine coverage and you will note they were not mentioned in WP:ROUTINE. --BSTemple (talk) 23:37, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, given that the policy fits, ~~we must acquit~~I'll withdraw the AfD and see about arguing possible changes to the policy in the proper places at a later date. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:03, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Reviews establish notability for books. English Electric Canberra, as referenced in the article, has been reviewed in Lincolnshire Echo and FlyPast; English Electric/BAC Lightning has been reviewed in Grimsby Telegraph. AfD is not the proper venue for amending notability guidelines. Goodvac (talk) 00:53, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The book appears to be fairly obscure. The reviews provided are from regional newspapers and a specialist magazine, and so aren't very useful in establishing notability. Moreover, according to its Google Books record, the book was published by Pen & Sword Aviation; this company specialises in works by semi-amateur and amateur historians on specialist topics and few of their new books are reviewed in major publications (eg, a national or major city newspaper) or cited in other works (note that the company does sometimes reprint prominent books which other companies originally published). As such, the amount of coverage available on this book seems to be insufficient to establish notability, and it can't be assumed that further coverage exists or that the book has been referenced by other writers. Nick-D (talk) 04:45, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I note you conveniently missed a few points. So Osprey Publishing also deals with semi-amateur and amateur historians? And are you saying the Daily Mail United Kingdom's second biggest-selling daily newspaper after The Sun is a regional newspaper? And FlyPast is Britain's top-selling aviation magazine. But in any case a review from any independent source is what is required for book articles, which these are. --BSTemple (talk) 08:42, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What's the relevance of Osprey books? I doubt that many (any?) of them are notable either as they're also rarely reviewed. I also don't understand why you're referring to the Daily Mail - it hasn't been identified as having reviewed the book in the article or the above discussion - has it actually published a review of it? The Flypast review seems to be the best of those on offer, yet it's titled 'Aviation Showcase', which suggests that the review was small and/or part of a review of multiple books and Flypast is a specialist magazine with (I suspect) a fairly limited circulation. Nick-D (talk) 10:09, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think the confusion is due to two books being put on this Afd. I was refering to English Electric/BAC Lightning (book) regarding the Daily Mail. But the main point is that Reviews establish notability for books and these reviews can be from any source as long as they are independent of the book. That means all books and all reviews. The point of the Wikipedia is to make it a Global Encyclopedia about many subjects, not just the same old ones that every Encyclopedia has. These articles meet the criteria set by the Wikipedia and as such this Afd should never have been made. --BSTemple (talk) 10:25, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I missed that English Electric/BAC Lightning (book) had been included in this nomination. The Daily Mail review gets that one across the notability threshold, though the prose of the article is spammy (as is the prose of the article on the Canberra book). WP:NBOOKS is only a guideline so it doesn't need to be followed, and an argument that that a couple of reviews in local newspapers and what's probably a brief review in a specialist magazine establishes notability is inconsistent with the normal interpretation of notability criteria (which requires that the level of coverage be significant and that the sources be reliable). Nick-D (talk) 10:36, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)I wasn't aware of the Books standard being so different from the rest of Wikipedia at the time I created the AfD. One 3x6 column in a magazine about anything else (person, aircraft, doohickey) doesn't establish notability under the WP:GNG, whereas for books, it is apparently considered that it does. I'm still stunned at there being such a hole in the notability requirements, one big enough to fly a Concorde through, but consensus is consensus I guess... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 10:38, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bear in mind that as a guideline WP:NBOOKS is "best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply" (to quote WP:GUIDES). A person or organisation with the kind of coverage available here would almost certainly not be considered notable, so common sense points towards the books not being notable either. Nick-D (talk) 10:46, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It clearly states for WP:NBOOKS: "The book has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the book itself. This includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries and reviews." Which the articles have, but I cannot see that as only a guideline so it doesn't need to be followed otherwise why create the guidline? That will put many articles out of line and the WP:NBOOKS says This includes published works in all forms. Editors have to have something to work to and those that work on book articles work to these. That is why Wikipedia clearly points to Books being a seperate Notability area and the creation of WP:NBOOKS. And by the way guys, I'm not trying to be confrontational or funny, just putting forward the case :) --BSTemple (talk) 11:01, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Until about July that guideline required that at least some of the references serve a "general audience". I think that this discussion is illustrating that removing that criteria without any kind of replacement is problematical. While editors do obviously need references to use, they also shouldn't be working on articles on topics which aren't notable, and these articles appear to have been created to advertise the books judging from the spammy prose and use of obscure offline references. Nick-D (talk) 11:09, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot see that these articles have been created to advertise the books as one of the books, the Lightning one, is I think out of print. I have been all around the Wikipedia and keep coming back to the same points that show under the guidelines these book articles have been met. This does have an impact on many many more book articles other than just these two. --BSTemple (talk) 11:20, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the nominator's declaration that "these books have received good reviews, from experts in the field," which appears to acknowledge that the GNG is satisfied. Arguing that books on aviation history have no impact beyond the field of aviation history is like arguing that Taylor Swift fails WP:PROF. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 04:49, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into the article for the author. Obvious solution. The reviews in the article are not sufficient. If NBOOKS is interpreted that liberally as suggested here, almost any non-fiction book will be notable. And for any book, we have consistently said the local reviews don't count, because in essence they are indiscriminate for local authors. And even for non-local authors, at least a few of the many places any author speaks at on a book tour will happen to attract a reporter. I agree that the articles basically are advertising, but there's nothing wrong with a redirect to the article on the author. NBOOKS had the ordinary run of fiction in mind--any specialist book will be reviewed, But requiring general reviews was also wrong, because almost no specialist book will ever have them. DGG ( talk ) 00:29, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge/redirect would be OK from here. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:32, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.