This article is within the scope of WikiProject Scotland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Scotland and Scotland-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ScotlandWikipedia:WikiProject ScotlandTemplate:WikiProject ScotlandScotland articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Politics of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Politics of the United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomPolitics of the United Kingdom articles
I can see no justification for either of the notices at the top of this page. Kindly explain. AlanLertreader (talk) 14:29, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the sources are from the WBB site itself, or from its publisher (Stuart Campbell / Wings over Scotland). You need to provide third party reliable sources to verify the publication and to establish its notability. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 14:39, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No they're not. As far as I can see NONE of the sources are from Wings Over Scotland, except the link TO Wings Over Scotland and to the book itself. AlanLertreader (talk) 15:32, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The National and ABC (albeit in Spanish) are fair enough sources. The others are all self-published. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 15:36, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've no idea what your point is. Those links aren't to establish notability, merely to support the statement that such things existed. Take them out if you've got a problem with that, but I'm not sure what you'd imagine that would add to the entry. AlanLertreader (talk) 16:06, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, you've established that it existed (WP:V). The problem is that a wikipedia article must also satisfy the notability rules (WP:N). Otherwise it is liable to be deleted. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 19:42, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You seem terribly keen to delete this entry for some reason. The National and ABC stories demonstrate notability. The links to the OTHER versions were purely demonstrative. The book has been referenced in numerous other newspapers and websites:
Some of those sources are blogs. The reliable sources listed there only mention this book in passing. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 13:57, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So what? Those which are are very prominent and widely-read blogs, far outstripping the readership of many newspapers. The others ARE newspapers, in addition to those already cited in the entry. If being nominated as one of the Books Of The Year by the Herald - the oldest continually-published newspaper in the world - doesn't count as "notable", clearly nothing is going to satisfy you. AlanLertreader (talk) 14:13, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So what? The point is that it does not satisfy WP:NBOOK, the notability guideline for books. Has it been subject to at least two non-trivial works in independent sources? No. Has it won a major literary award? No. Is it considered by independent sources to have made a significant contribution to a political movement? No. Is it taught in schools? No. Is the book's author especially notable? No. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 14:20, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
According to your personal interpretation. Other people's differ. If you'd like a very long list of coverage of the *author* in the press to establish their notability, I can certainly help you. But you could start with his own entry on Wikipedia. And since that, of course, wouldn't be there at all if he wasn't acceptably notable, you'd be pretty scuppered already. AlanLertreader (talk) 15:15, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You have clearly not read WP:NBOOK. The point about an "especially notable author" is that in some cases, you may have a very famous writer who has a lesser known work that does not satisfy the other guidelines. With all due respect, Stuart Campbell does not qualify as "so historically significant that any of the author's written works may be considered notable" (to quote the guideline fully). As the guideline goes on to say, the fact that Stuart Campbell is personally notable by Wikipedia's standards is not relevant. Instead, the point is that the book's author is of "exceptional significance and the author's life and body of written work would be a common subject of academic study" Again, Mr Campbell does not qualify on this basis. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 15:22, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I did read it. This bit seemed pertinent: "The book has been considered by reliable sources to have made a significant contribution to a notable or significant motion picture, or other art form, or event or POLITICAL or religious movement." (My caps.) Numerous "reliable sources" have been listed to that effect. A million copies distributed among an electorate of just 4m is plainly significant by itself, even before considering the content. Your unexplained animosity is blinding you. AlanLertreader (talk) 16:59, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have copied the last part of this discussion to the AfD page. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 17:19, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The comment that Kevin Hague is not notable and therefore his opinions are not notable is fatuous at best. There is no reason to discuss Mr Hague's notability despite the fact he is regularly on Scottish TV, radio and regularly writes for the Daily Record. Irrespective of the fact the critique is relevant. If you can show errors in the critique that invalidate it then it would be reasonable to take it down until then can we stop treating this as a promotional piece for the WBB and recognise the controversy, on both sides of the debate, of the publication. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.97.201.149 (talk) 14:53, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You don't appear to understand Wiki's rules. The opinion of a random Joe Bloggs is not eligible for inclusion, or every Wiki entry would be full of comments like "But my mate Dave thinks this is total rubbish". You need to demonstrate notability of the source for the criticism itself to be notable. As a broad rule of thumb, if the source doesn't have their own Wiki entry, then by definition they're not notable. The people cited in the entry, Lesley Riddoch and Chris Dolan, both do, and therefore their opinion IS notable.
Whether I or anyone else agree or not with the "critique", or can prove or disprove it, is neither here nor there - the entry, as required by Wikipedia, makes no judgement on whether the content of the WBB is accurate or not, but the tone of your original copy is wildly non-neutral and your POV is clear. It's not Wikipedia's purpose to arbitrate on disputes, and it's certainly not its purpose to serve as an advertisement for Mr Hague's blog. Anna Lertreader (talk) 17:24, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's quite clear that Wikipedia is not required to act as a promotional piece for a book by a video games reviewer. Applying your own criteria can you demonstrate the regular columns that Stuart Campbell has in a Scottish national newspaper? The purpose of Wikipedia is to provide a view bringing in all opinions which can be justified. You have repeatedly failed to demonstrate how or why the critique is unfair or imbalanced and simply have decided to attack the individual. That shows you don't actually have an argument and are simply unhappy that genuine and evidenced criticism of the Wee Blue Book has been brought to the attention of what was a puff piece for a discretited publication. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.204.51.162 (talk) 07:33, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia's notability criteria are clear. Stuart Campbell has satisfied them, as evidenced by the fact that he has an entry. Kevin Hague has not, as evidenced by the fact that he does not. "The purpose of Wikipedia is to provide a view bringing in all opinions which can be justified" is simply absolute rot. That is NOT what Wiki - or any encyclopedia - is for. It is the OPPOSITE of a directory of opinions. It's a repository of sourced, peer-reviewed facts. The debate about whether the book merits an entry according to Wiki's criteria has already been held - see here: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/The_Wee_Blue_Book - and the consensus view was that it did, so your evident personal anger and hostility towards it is irrelevant. Anna Lertreader (talk) 08:24, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
.svg){kind=small}
