Talk:Sourcery
This page was reduced to a redirect, but it does meet Wiki notability guidelines. The book is catalogued in the British Library,[1] and as a work by one of Britain's most well known fantasy authors it merits inclusion. It has its own article on English Wikipedia. --JonnyDKeen (talk) 10:14, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
- ↑ http://explore.bl.uk/primo_library/libweb/action/display.do?frbrVersion=3&tabs=moreTab&ct=display&fn=search&doc=BLLSA1241565&indx=1&recIds=BLLSA1241565&recIdxs=0&elementId=0&renderMode=poppedOut&displayMode=full&frbrVersion=3&frbg=&&vl(488279563UI0)=any&dscnt=0&scp.scps=scope%3A%28BLCONTENT%29&tb=t&vid=BLVU1&mode=Basic&srt=rank&tab=local_tab&dum=true&vl(freeText0)=Sourcery&dstmp=1534931503646
- I don't think any of those demonstrate notability according to Wikipedia's definition of notability.
- "As a legal deposit library, the British Library receives copies of all books produced in the United Kingdom and Ireland, including a significant proportion of overseas titles distributed in the UK" (quote from en:British Library). Since they have all the books, a book being there doesn't make the book notable. en:WP:NBOOK even says that inclusion there does not imply notability.
- Notability is not inherited. A book is not independently notable just because the author is, or because it's in a notable series. A notable author can write a non-notable book.
- Having an article on another Wikipedia doesn't mean the book deserves an article here. Notability has to be shown in the article here. Besides that, I note that the enwiki article has been tagged as needing more sources, so someone there may have thought notability wasn't sufficiently demonstrated there, either.
- Note that I am not saying that the book isn't notable. I'm just saying I don't think notability is shown in the article as written. Since you feel the article should stay, I will take this to RfD. --Auntof6 (talk) 11:32, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
I've made some changes which I hope prove notability. The book has received plenty of coverage from secondary sources, and I have added some reviews to the main article. As mentioned The book was covered by major publications like the Guardian and the Daily Mail. It was also reviewed by The Times, Time Out, The Irish Times and Publishers Weekly. Please advise if further changes required to meet the criteria. --JonnyDKeen (talk) 08:03, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
- @JonnyDKeen: I replied on the RfD page. --Auntof6 (talk) 09:35, 24 August 2018 (UTC)