744:
as there are only a limited amount of outlets that fit a book's topic and would have the space in the given issue to review a work. I've seen books by notable academics and put out by notable publishers get zero reviews from the scholarly/academic world. It doesn't mean that the books or authors are wrong or bad, just that there were too many books and too few outlets willing to review them. Basically, if an outlet only publishes quarterly and can only review 10-15 books out of the 100 that were published in their field each quarter, well... it means that on average 85-90 of those books won't be reviewed. Depending on the field, the number of books is probably far larger. Now if we extend this beyond the academic and scholarly world, the number of outlets willing to review and books for review go up, but there will still be an astronomic amount of books that will never get reviewed - even if we only limit it to those put out through mainstream publishers like
Penguin and HarperCollins.
752:
outlets should or shouldn't be seen as reliable sources, by which I mean that individual sources are discussed and either deemed reliable and in-depth or not. We can't judge all of the sources by the same standard, as brevity in say, an academic and scholarly source is not the same as brevity in a trade publication like
Publisher's Weekly. An academic review has the capability to be in-depth with just a handful of sentences whereas PW's reviews are weak water with the same amount. This is not a discussion to be had in an AfD and eliminating reviews entirely as a source of notability would just be shooting ourselves in the foot.
738:. Reviews count towards notability as long as they are from a reliable source and are reasonably in-depth. Saying that reviews shouldn't count towards notability is honestly a fairly slippery slope. There are thousands upon thousands (if not millions) of non-book articles that are reliant upon reviews to establish notability. By proclaiming reviews to be unusable to establish notability we throw the notability of all of these other articles into question as well. This is not something that should be approached lightly.
778:
reviewed on multiple occasions and will not go on to make an objectively
Knowledge-worthy contribution to a particular field. In any case, we can deal with particular academics far better by addressing their (individually non-notable) works on a (notable) biography page which can deal with the subject more sensibly. The argument that we should have low notability standards to favour minority writers (on no evidence, I would add) is, frankly, bizarre are clearly not relevant to this particular AfD. —
818:
reviews count towards notability or they don't. We can't give them "half notability". They're not like say, awards where we can point towards large awards like the Nobel Prize or the Hugo and say that those are major awards that can establish notability on that basis alone, whereas an award from a notable but relatively minor festival would only count towards notability without giving notability for that alone. There's a huge difference between major award granting institutions and news outlets.
721:-- The book did get several reviews, but these are likely to arise as part of the publisher's marketing. Google scholar records 202 citations. However the book provided a look from its time in 2001 towards the future as to how Russian politics might develop. I do not know the book, but guess that (apart from its new analysis as to what fascism is) it will be somewhat dated.
821:
My point is this - reviews are a necessary way of proving notability for books because books typically do not gain the coverage or in the same way that other types of media would. While yes, I do think that the number of reviews required to establish notability could be a tick higher AND I think that
817:
Also, if we argue that book reviews aren't enough on their own to establish notability then we're basically arguing that they cannot be used to establish notability. No one is arguing that a single review would be inadequate to establish notability, however multiple reviews can establish this. Either
747:
The other issue that can come up if we were to see reviews as unusable or routine is that it could have a detrimental impact on our coverage of women and minority authors and works. Things have gotten better, but it's still pretty common for a minority author to fly solidly under the radar as far as
411:
Eh, it's still harder to pass than you'd think. On average the typical book needs to have about 3-5 good sources to establish notability. Most books, especially academic and scholarly ones, are unlikely to have this level of coverage. I know that the rules say 2, but they would have to be reviews in
794:
What do you propose that book articles should base notability on? Non-review coverage? If so, then the vast majority of books will not pass, as they almost never gain the coverage that a mainstream film or person would. That would pretty much limit us to the authors who do gain this coverage, which
751:
I do think that there's an argument to be made for increasing the amount of reviews needed to establish notability (increasing it to 3 reviews would likely halve the amount of books and authors that gain articles each year) but I think a more important discussion needs to be made about which review
743:
Most of these outlets - even the ones that seemingly review everything - are actually pretty selective. As someone who has worked on and created multiple book and author articles, only a very small portion actually gain any sort of reviews. Academic and scholarly outlets are particularly selective,
637:
might apply (and, in passing, companies). SUSTAINED is not saying that sustained coverage is required for notability in all instances, it's summarising the other guidelines we have which require sustained coverage in particular contexts. If there was a consensus that SUSTAINED applied in any way to
985:
Finally, I must note that the reviews were published between the years of 2001-2005, which goes against the argument that they were all put out after its initial publication. This isn't super common, although it is a bit more common in academic/scholarly outlets than it would be for popular press.
569:
have offered vague speculations about the reviewers' motivations, and have not cast doubt on any of the reviews in particular. I can say from my own personal experience looking for reviews to establish notability of books that finding five reviews in notable journals, even for an academic book, is
825:
However this is a moot point in a deletion discussion. This is not the avenue to argue that reviews alone cannot establish notability - you need to argue that at the notability guidelines page for books and to be honest, I don't think that such a measure would pass. You'd be better off trying to
777:
relevant but are not sufficient in their own right. Also, I think you are way too kind about the reviewing processes. There are a huge number of specialist peer-review journals around. Literally every book published by any university press - there will be literally thousands each year - will be
541:
are two random examples that come to mind). This is a book which has not even gone to a second edition and does not appear to have had a notable impact. I have recently written two reviews myself for peer-reviewed journals notable enough to have their own
Knowledge articles and can tell you from
85:
955:
put out large amounts of work, this just hammers home my point earlier that only a small fraction of this work actually receive reviews. As such, if only a small fraction receive coverage then reviews shouldn't be seen as routine coverage. Routine means that it's extremely
1022:, has been clearly shown to exist. The nominator's rationale is based on an argument about what they think the latter guideline ought to say, rather than what it actually says. Their repeated claim that no second edition was published appears to be simply false. –
683:
coverage of the book since then. As noted above, it never even made it into a second edition. The number of citations is, with respect, entirely irrelevant because they can just as well be citing facts from the book as discussing it and so can hardly count as
217:
965:
done here. If a search was done and improvement was attempted, then it would have been fairly easy to discover that
Routledge put out a second edition in 2015. They also would have discovered that a fairly well respected and notable scholar in the field
811:
with gaining coverage. As far as peer-review journals go, there are still far fewer of them than there are books needing review and only a portion of each journal entry will focus on book reviews, assuming that they have a review section at all. Not all
257:
80:
463:
Do you really expect a book to have consistent coverage over time? Books get reviews when they're published, and then they are cited afterwards; they don't appear in newspapers every couple months, like notable people often do. This book has
826:
lobby for specific sources to be seen as unusable for notability granting purposes than you would for a measure that would effectively remove them as notability granting sources. As it stands this book meets notability guidelines.
1043:
from respected academic journals. One review could be a outlier, but all four of these plus others is strong evidence of notability. M. E. Sharpe is a reputable academic publisher as evidenced by it being purchased by
Routledge.
151:
146:
155:
211:
138:
822:
we need to more firmly establish what outlets are usable, I think that eliminating them as notability granting would just cause irreparable harm to both
Knowledge's coverage of books and women/minorities.
531:
I don't think it's unreasonable in principle. There are plenty of scholarly books, even articles, which become notable in their own right because of the effect they have on particular areas of debate ("
542:
personal experience that the motivation to write a review usually has more to do with a free copy being presented to the journal by the publisher rather than its own worthiness. Besides,
796:
260:
deletion discussion in 2007 in which no further evidence was provided. Book itself appears to have been produced by a non-notable publisher/imprint and to have run only to one edition. —
142:
579:
is both (1) an explanatory supplement to GNG (which I have demonstrated by showing significant coverage in multiple, independent reliable sources); and (2) quite equivocal—it says
1080:
1059:
1031:
1000:
946:
924:
896:
869:
840:
789:
766:
730:
703:
651:
608:
557:
518:
485:
458:
426:
402:
337:
315:
293:
271:
65:
982:. It could probably be seen as dated, but the point is that it's still seen as important enough to bring up even if the person were to bring it up to showcase its shortcomings.
178:
134:
71:
932:
lists it as a second edition and it's printed on the cover. We have to go by what information the publisher has released, hence as far as we know it's a second edition.
498:
232:
929:
199:
301:
279:
323:
979:
879:
125:
193:
110:
800:
189:
602:
512:
479:
396:
565:, I stand by my original assessment. I have offered two objective indicators of notability: five reviews and a large number of citations. You and
239:
961:
As far as the publisher part goes, I wasn't making that point to establish notability, but rather to show that there was a general lack of
808:
971:
465:
205:
105:
98:
17:
804:
748:
non-review coverage goes but still gain reviews from major RS outlets. This is also the case in other non-book areas as well.
59:
532:
596:
506:
473:
390:
52:. Consensus is that the book is notable. Discussion about changing book notability guidelines can take place elsewhere.
119:
115:
633:
has a very limited scope, dealing only with events, people involved in events, and other topics in relation to which
1039:: Reviews in Europe-Asia Studies, Slavic Review, Science & Society, Journal of Peace Research (plus others) are
1027:
675:, I don't deny at all that reviews are a factor to consider. However, we also need to accept that there has been a
647:
1097:
993:
939:
889:
862:
833:
759:
419:
40:
909:
is a publisher which produces some highly notable works but also a huge number of very specialist studies with
1068:
920:
785:
726:
699:
672:
592:
553:
528:
502:
469:
454:
386:
333:
311:
289:
267:
1093:
1053:
379:
372:
36:
1023:
643:
987:
975:
933:
883:
856:
827:
753:
413:
630:
576:
543:
444:
225:
905:
I don't think that's true. It seems to have issued a reprint, not a second edition. And, frankly,
1076:
915:
780:
722:
694:
566:
562:
548:
537:
449:
349:
328:
306:
284:
262:
634:
94:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
1092:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
1048:
1040:
962:
432:
364:
356:
799:
to begin with, so it's not surprising that they have issues gaining coverage of any type,
253:
86:
Articles for deletion/Russian
Fascism: Traditions, Tendencies, Movements (2nd nomination)
967:
1072:
1015:
689:
436:
249:
53:
570:
actually quite unusual, so my own anecdotal evidence weighs in favour of notability.
1019:
639:
348:. Passes the (rather low) threshold for book notability per the following reviews:
172:
382:
375:
412:
very major publications to really make the average editor see that as enough.
906:
852:
368:
352:
81:
Articles for deletion/Russian
Fascism: Traditions, Tendencies, Movements
360:
1014:: significant coverage in reliable sources, sufficient to satisfy
591:(emphasis added). I hang my hat on the reviews and the citations.
797:
people of color already have a hard enough time getting published
585:
sufficiently demonstrate notability. However, sustained coverage
443:
indicates a book warrants an article.") There is a clear lack of
951:
I also wanted to point out that while outlets such as
Routledge
1088:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
974:
isn't a reliable source, it's still being cited even in
638:
books one would expect it to be mentioned somewhere in
168:
164:
160:
468:
on Scholar, indicating sustained scholarly attention.
224:
986:
This shows a depth of coverage as far as time goes.
135:Russian Fascism: Traditions, Tendencies, Movements
72:Russian Fascism: Traditions, Tendencies, Movements
43:). No further edits should be made to this page.
1100:). No further edits should be made to this page.
497:Note: This discussion has been included in the
322:Note: This discussion has been included in the
300:Note: This discussion has been included in the
278:Note: This discussion has been included in the
499:list of Literature-related deletion discussions
302:list of Politics-related deletion discussions
238:
8:
280:list of History-related deletion discussions
126:Help, my article got nominated for deletion!
773:You misunderstand my argument. Reviews are
324:list of Russia-related deletion discussions
795:are predominantly white and male. I mean,
496:
435:is only a SNG and is not a substitute for
321:
299:
277:
686:address the topic directly and in detail
970:) called the work pioneering and while
439:("Satisfying this notability guideline
78:
882:republished a second edition in 2015.
685:
580:
855:is far from a non-notable publisher!
256:. Unsourced since 2005 in spite of a
7:
24:
111:Introduction to deletion process
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
581:Brief bursts of news coverage
1:
1081:01:55, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
1060:11:52, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
1032:15:20, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
1001:11:27, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
947:10:53, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
925:10:12, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
897:05:14, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
870:04:56, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
841:03:54, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
790:10:12, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
767:04:55, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
731:20:38, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
704:09:57, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
652:15:27, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
609:21:02, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
558:19:34, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
533:The Imperialism of Free Trade
519:20:46, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
486:16:20, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
459:16:06, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
427:08:47, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
403:20:08, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
338:18:45, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
316:18:45, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
294:18:45, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
272:18:45, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
66:02:30, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
101:(AfD)? Read these primers!
1117:
1071:show this book is notable
629:I'd also add to this that
930:The publisher page itself
1090:Please do not modify it.
546:is pretty unequivocal. —
32:Please do not modify it.
77:AfDs for this article:
991:(formerly Tokyogirl79)
937:(formerly Tokyogirl79)
887:(formerly Tokyogirl79)
860:(formerly Tokyogirl79)
831:(formerly Tokyogirl79)
757:(formerly Tokyogirl79)
417:(formerly Tokyogirl79)
1067:Improvements made by
369:10.1353/imp.2005.0027
99:Articles for deletion
431:I'd also note that
1069:AleatoryPonderings
1056:
1052:
673:AleatoryPonderings
593:AleatoryPonderings
538:Orientalism (book)
529:AleatoryPonderings
503:AleatoryPonderings
470:AleatoryPonderings
387:AleatoryPonderings
1054:
1046:
1024:Arms & Hearts
992:
938:
888:
861:
832:
758:
644:Arms & Hearts
521:
418:
340:
318:
296:
116:Guide to deletion
106:How to contribute
64:
1108:
1058:
997:
990:
943:
936:
893:
886:
866:
859:
837:
830:
763:
756:
423:
416:
243:
242:
228:
176:
158:
96:
56:
34:
1116:
1115:
1111:
1110:
1109:
1107:
1106:
1105:
1104:
1098:deletion review
1045:
995:
988:ReaderofthePack
941:
934:ReaderofthePack
891:
884:ReaderofthePack
864:
857:ReaderofthePack
835:
828:ReaderofthePack
761:
754:ReaderofthePack
688:as required in
587:is an indicator
421:
414:ReaderofthePack
361:10.2307/2697534
185:
149:
133:
130:
93:
90:
75:
62:
48:The result was
41:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1114:
1112:
1103:
1102:
1084:
1083:
1062:
1034:
1008:
1007:
1006:
1005:
1004:
1003:
983:
972:Google Scholar
968:Andreas Umland
958:
957:
949:
927:
900:
899:
873:
872:
848:
847:
846:
845:
844:
843:
823:
819:
814:
813:
809:similar issues
792:
749:
745:
740:
739:
733:
715:
714:
713:
712:
711:
710:
709:
708:
707:
706:
663:
662:
661:
660:
659:
658:
657:
656:
655:
654:
618:
617:
616:
615:
614:
613:
612:
611:
573:
571:
494:
493:
492:
491:
490:
489:
488:
406:
405:
342:
341:
319:
297:
246:
245:
182:
129:
128:
123:
113:
108:
91:
89:
88:
83:
76:
74:
69:
58:
46:
45:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1113:
1101:
1099:
1095:
1091:
1086:
1085:
1082:
1078:
1074:
1070:
1066:
1063:
1061:
1057:
1050:
1042:
1038:
1035:
1033:
1029:
1025:
1021:
1017:
1013:
1010:
1009:
1002:
999:
998:
989:
984:
981:
977:
973:
969:
964:
960:
959:
954:
950:
948:
945:
944:
935:
931:
928:
926:
922:
918:
917:
916:Brigade Piron
913:print runs. —
912:
908:
904:
903:
902:
901:
898:
895:
894:
885:
881:
877:
876:
875:
874:
871:
868:
867:
858:
854:
850:
849:
842:
839:
838:
829:
824:
820:
816:
815:
810:
806:
802:
798:
793:
791:
787:
783:
782:
781:Brigade Piron
776:
772:
771:
770:
769:
768:
765:
764:
755:
750:
746:
742:
741:
737:
734:
732:
728:
724:
723:Peterkingiron
720:
717:
716:
705:
701:
697:
696:
695:Brigade Piron
691:
687:
682:
678:
674:
671:
670:
669:
668:
667:
666:
665:
664:
653:
649:
645:
641:
636:
632:
628:
627:
626:
625:
624:
623:
622:
621:
620:
619:
610:
606:
605:
600:
599:
594:
590:
589:of notability
588:
584:
578:
574:
572:
568:
567:Peterkingiron
564:
563:Brigade Piron
561:
560:
559:
555:
551:
550:
549:Brigade Piron
545:
540:
539:
534:
530:
527:
526:
525:
524:
523:
522:
520:
516:
515:
510:
509:
504:
500:
495:
487:
483:
482:
477:
476:
471:
467:
462:
461:
460:
456:
452:
451:
450:Brigade Piron
446:
442:
438:
434:
430:
429:
428:
425:
424:
415:
410:
409:
408:
407:
404:
400:
399:
394:
393:
388:
384:
381:
377:
374:
370:
366:
362:
358:
354:
351:
347:
344:
343:
339:
335:
331:
330:
329:Brigade Piron
325:
320:
317:
313:
309:
308:
307:Brigade Piron
303:
298:
295:
291:
287:
286:
285:Brigade Piron
281:
276:
275:
274:
273:
269:
265:
264:
263:Brigade Piron
259:
255:
251:
241:
237:
234:
231:
227:
223:
219:
216:
213:
210:
207:
204:
201:
198:
195:
191:
188:
187:Find sources:
183:
180:
174:
170:
166:
162:
157:
153:
148:
144:
140:
136:
132:
131:
127:
124:
121:
117:
114:
112:
109:
107:
104:
103:
102:
100:
95:
87:
84:
82:
79:
73:
70:
68:
67:
63:
61:
55:
51:
44:
42:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
1089:
1087:
1064:
1036:
1011:
994:
952:
940:
914:
910:
890:
878:To clarify,
863:
834:
801:even reviews
779:
774:
760:
735:
719:Very dubious
718:
693:
680:
676:
631:WP:SUSTAINED
603:
597:
586:
582:
577:WP:SUSTAINED
547:
544:WP:SUSTAINED
536:
513:
507:
480:
474:
448:
445:WP:SUSTAINED
440:
420:
397:
391:
345:
327:
305:
283:
261:
258:very cursory
247:
235:
229:
221:
214:
208:
202:
196:
186:
92:
57:
49:
47:
31:
28:
679:absence of
447:coverage. —
212:free images
635:WP:NOTNEWS
575:Moreover,
466:200+ cites
1094:talk page
1041:WP:SIGCOV
963:WP:BEFORE
907:Routledge
880:Routledge
853:Routledge
441:generally
433:WP:NBOOKS
383:196824835
376:213179863
37:talk page
1096:or in a
1073:Spudlace
380:ProQuest
373:ProQuest
353:40404159
254:WP:NBOOK
179:View log
120:glossary
54:Eddie891
39:or in a
1049:Timothy
996:(｡◕‿◕｡)
956:common.
942:(｡◕‿◕｡)
892:(｡◕‿◕｡)
865:(｡◕‿◕｡)
836:(｡◕‿◕｡)
775:clearly
762:(｡◕‿◕｡)
583:may not
422:(｡◕‿◕｡)
218:WP refs
206:scholar
152:protect
147:history
97:New to
1016:WP:GNG
851:Also,
690:WP:GNG
535:" and
437:WP:GNG
250:WP:GNG
248:Fails
190:Google
156:delete
1020:WP:BK
807:have
805:Women
677:total
640:WP:BK
350:JSTOR
233:JSTOR
194:books
173:views
165:watch
161:links
16:<
1077:talk
1065:Keep
1055:talk
1037:Keep
1028:talk
1018:and
1012:Keep
980:2019
978:and
976:2020
921:talk
911:tiny
786:talk
736:Keep
727:talk
700:talk
648:talk
642:. –
554:talk
455:talk
346:Keep
334:talk
312:talk
290:talk
268:talk
252:and
226:FENS
200:news
169:logs
143:talk
139:edit
60:Work
50:keep
1051:::
1047://
812:do.
692:. —
681:any
604:!!!
601:) (
598:???
514:!!!
511:) (
508:???
481:!!!
478:) (
475:???
398:!!!
395:) (
392:???
365:doi
357:doi
326:. —
304:. —
282:. —
240:TWL
177:– (
1079:)
1030:)
953:do
923:)
803:.
788:)
729:)
702:)
650:)
607:)
556:)
517:)
501:.
484:)
457:)
401:)
385:.
378:,
371:,
363:,
355:,
336:)
314:)
292:)
270:)
220:)
171:|
167:|
163:|
159:|
154:|
150:|
145:|
141:|
1075:(
1026:(
966:(
919:(
784:(
725:(
698:(
646:(
595:(
552:(
505:(
472:(
453:(
389:(
367::
359::
332:(
310:(
288:(
266:(
244:)
236:·
230:·
222:·
215:·
209:·
203:·
197:·
192:(
184:(
181:)
175:)
137:(
122:)
118:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.