Talk:Joris of the Rock

Notability Doubts

Is this book generally notable? The article does not seem to me to provide any evidence of meeting our suggested criteria: Wikipedia:Notability (books). Perhaps it should be adjusted to show which it might meet as I suspect the only reference - an ISBDB entry for Joris of the Rock - can hardly be deemed sufficient.

A summary of the criteria are:

1. The book has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the book itself, 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.
   • The immediately preceding criterion 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.
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 grade schools, high schools, universities or post-graduate programs in any particular country.
5. The book's author is so historically significant that any of his or her written works may be considered notable.

Superficially - none of these seem to apply.

Best wishes (Msrasnw (talk) 10:13, 30 November 2009 (UTC))

I have searched for something about this book - I have found a mention - but no reference to a review in the NY times - but still nothing to indicate notability. (Msrasnw (talk) 17:58, 30 November 2009 (UTC))

The Neustrian cycle has long been recognised as a classic of the heroic fantasy genre. I have put in some references. They should suffice. Others can be found. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:22, 30 November 2009 (UTC).

Dear Xxanthippe, Hi. from what I can see neither of the two references indicates that Joris of the Rock or the Neustrian cycle is notable. Perhaps we need some reputable source that says that Joris is a classic of the high fantasy genre. I think there might be a problem with the ref: Xenograffiti: essays on fantastic literature as it is published by Borgo Press which is a publisher owned by the author being quoted Robert Reginald. I think if we can only find something about the cycle then perhaps we should just have one article with the three books in that. And we might need more reliable sources. What do you think? (Msrasnw (talk) 23:33, 30 November 2009 (UTC))

The de Camp reference actually does provide the indication you desire, as does Lin Carter's Imaginary Worlds. Will extract and add the relevant quotes when I have the time. Also, the self-publication notwithstanding, Reginald is a recognized authority in the field. (However, you might still look askance at citing him, as he was also one of the editors behind the 1970s republication of Joris to begin with!) BPK (talk) 00:38, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

There really doesn't seem much to warrant notability in the de Camp reference. I guess what we want to meet is "No.1"

1. "The book has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the book itself, 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".

But "these works serving a general audience" and this last bit about "sufficient critical commentary to allow the article to grow past a simple plot summary" might be hard to meet. It seems the works that mention Joris arent serving a general audience, don't offer much by way of critical comment and just tell us what is in it a plot summary and that these do not really establish its notability. Is the author notable?

I think in WP:PLOT it is suggested we treat "fiction in an encyclopedic manner, discussing the reception and significance of notable works." "Merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. Wikipedia articles should not be Plot-only description(s) of fictional works." (Msrasnw (talk) 02:29, 1 December 2009 (UTC))

With three books now identified as discussing the work and one newspaper book review (see article for the last), I think the article now meets criterion 1, and since it only needs to meet one of the five criteria, that ought to settle the question of notability. Of course, the opinions of the first three should be summarized, preferably with quotations from them. Again, I'll add these when I have the opportunity. BPK (talk) 18:55, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

L. Sprague de Camp and Lin Carter are giants in the field and are reliable sources par excellence. Although, as you note, Robert Reginald is the owner of Burgo Press, his essay on the Neustrian Cycle (really ought to be called Trilogy) has better plot synopses and biographical material about Barringer than presently in WP and well deserves to be cited. It also contains a charming essay on his life as a professional librarian. The fact that the trilogy has been republished twice (1976, 1980), fifty years after it started is more evidence of notability. 23:23, 1 December 2009 (UTC).

Do the comments from de Camp and Carter involve much more than statements of existence and plot summaries? The Guardian review which I have read doesn't seem to add much more either. Notability doesn't seem to be convincingly established according to our stated criteria - but perhaps it is best not to interpret things too strictly. Articles like this one and the Barringer one - interesting information in a niche area and one of the few places one can find this information easily - are in my view part of what makes Wikipedia so nice. I am more familiar with our debates on academics and their notability or otherwise and there the criteria for notability that some editors seem to me to be using is far less tolerant than in this area. Anyway best wishes (Msrasnw (talk) 00:43, 2 December 2009 (UTC))