Talk:The New Anti-Catholicism

Notability
Is it usual to have individual articles on books? I guess the case might be made if the work were seminal or signiifcant, but this is neither. Otherwise I fear we'll end up with wikipedia stuffed with articles covering millions of books. Contaldo80 (talk) 15:28, 8 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I note some of the amendments made, but a couple of reviews in the Catholic press is not sufficient to make the work notable. My original comments till stand. Contaldo80 (talk) 09:52, 10 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Actually it is common to have individual articles on books. Jenkins is a notable author and this is a notable book. It was reviewed widely in the secular press and sold much more than many other books that have articles here. This doesn't seem to be a meritorious claim of nonnotability. Mamalujo (talk) 00:05, 5 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Articles are only permitted for significant or seminal books. You'd need to produce some supporting evidence that this book has had a significant impact. If you can provide some then we can consider whether or not the article needs deletion. Contaldo80 (talk) 18:22, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I think you are trying to apply a higher bar than is typically applied to books here. There are myriad articles on much less notable books. This book was covered widely in the national and international press, is widely cited by scholars. It returned 109 citations on Google scholar and 767 on Google books. That, my friend, is notable. Mamalujo (talk) 20:06, 5 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I think we must simply apply the criteria set under WP:Notability requirements. A number of citations does not demonstrate its notability or seminal nature - not unless those citations themselves are significant. A book is generally notable if it verifiably meets through reliable sources, one or more of the following criteria:


 * 1. The book has been the subject[1] of multiple, non-trivial[2] published works whose sources are independent of the book itself,[3] with at least some of these works serving a general audience. This includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries and reviews. Some of these works should contain sufficient critical commentary to allow the article to grow past a simple plot summary. This excludes media re-prints of press releases, flap copy, or other publications where the author, its publisher, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the book.[4]
 * 2. The book has won a major literary award.
 * 3. The book has been considered by reliable sources to have made a significant contribution to a notable motion picture, or other art form, or event or political or religious movement.
 * 4. The book is the subject of instruction at multiple elementary schools, secondary schools, colleges/universities or post-graduate programs in any particular country.[5]
 * 5. The book's author is so historically significant that any of his or her written works may be considered notable. This does not simply mean that the book's author is him/herself notable by Wikipedia's standards; rather, the book's author is of exceptional significance and the author's life and body of work would be a common study subject in literature classes.

Does the book meet one of these criteria? Contaldo80 (talk) 20:01, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

I've suggested this as an article for deletion as it does not meet the criteria set out above. Contaldo80 (talk) 20:09, 17 May 2011 (UTC)