주 메뉴 열기

사용자:Altostratus/번역 중/책 저명성

이 문서에서는 위키백과 사용자들이 어떤 서적이 위키백과의 항목으로 등재될 수 있는지 없는지에 대해 판가름하는 일정한 지침을 제공합니다. 이 지침에 따라 어떤 책 문서를 만들었다 하더라도 경우에 따라 반드시 삭제가 되지 않는다는 보장은 없습니다

저명성의 주장은 반드시 위키백과의 정책인 확인 가능 정책에 충실해야 합니다. 신뢰할 수 있는 출처를 제시하여 입증하는 과정 없이 어떤 책이 기준을 충족시킨다고만 주장하기에는 등재 기준에 부합하지 않을 수 있습니다.

이 문서에서 쓰이는 "문서 등재 기준"이란 어떤 책의 "장점"이 있다고 해서 충족되는 것이 아닙니다. 어떤 책이 훌륭하게 쓰였고, 매력적이고 시사성이 있다고 해도 그것이 백과사전의 한 항목으로 등재될 수 있는 충분한 확인할 수 있는 증거임을 보장하지 않습니다.

지침 적용 범위편집

이라는 것의 정의가 비록 넒긴 하지만 이 지침에서는 아직 만화책이나 그래픽 노블, 같은 출판물에는 적용하지 않고 있습니다.does not yet provide specific notability criteria for the following types of publications: comic books; graphic novels (although it does apply to manga); magazines; reference works such as dictionaries, thesauri, encyclopedias, atlases and almanacs; music-specific publications such as instruction and notation books and librettos; instruction manuals, and exam prep books. 구체적인 지침은 차후에 논의될 것 입니다. Until then, this guideline may be instructive by analogy.

이 기준은 set forth below apply to books in electronic form (or e-books). However, the notability of e-books should also be evaluated using the notability criteria for web-specific content, as well as a determination of whether the book is covered by Project Gutenberg or an analogous project.

기준편집

책은 일반적으로 아래의 조항 중 하나 이상을 따라 신뢰할 수 있는 출처를 통해 확인 가능하다면 저명성이 있다고 여겨집니다

  1. 해당 책이 has been the subject[1] of multiple, non-trivial[2] published works whose sources are independent of the book itself.[3] 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. 해당 책이 유명하고 권위있다고 여겨지는 문학상을 받았거나
  3. 해당 책이 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. 해당 책이 특정 국가의 다수의 초중고등학교, 대학교나 조기졸업 프로그램 등지에서 교과 주제로 쓰이고 있거나[5]
  5. 해당 책의 저자가 so historically significant that any of his or her written works may be considered notable. 이것은 단지 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.[6]

These criteria are presented as rules of thumb for easily identifying books that Wikipedia should probably have articles about. In almost all cases, a thorough search for independent, third-party reliable sources will be successful for a book meeting one or more of these criteria. However, meeting these criteria is not an absolute guarantee that Wikipedia should have a separate, stand-alone article entirely dedicated to the book.

기타편집

한계점 기준편집

책은 기본적으로 ISBN (1975년 이후에 출판된 책) 가 있으며 이 책들은 be available at a dozen or more libraries and be catalogued by its country of origin's official or de facto national library. 예를 들어, 미국의 책들은 미국 의회도서관, 영국는 영국 도서관, 호주는 호주 국립도서관, 캐나다 도서관 및 기록보관소에 등록됩니다. 전체 목록을 보고 싶으시다면 국립 도서관 목록 문서를 참조해주세요.

하지만, 이것들은 exclusionary criteria rather than inclusionary; meeting these threshold standards does not imply that a book is notable, whereas a book which does not meet them, most likely is not. There will be exceptions—books that are notable despite not meeting these threshold standards—but they will be rare and good reasons for the notability of such books should be made very clear.

자비 출판편집

이와 관련해, 자비 출판은 특히 언급되야 합니다 self-publication and/or publication by a vanity press indicates, but does not establish non-notability.[7] Exceptions do exist, such as Robert Gunther's Early Science in Oxford or Edgar Allan Poe's Tamerlane. Note however that both of these books would be considered notable by virtue (for instance) of criterion 1.

Taking the preceding threshold section into account, it should be noted that many vanity press books are assigned ISBN numbers, may be listed in a national library, and may be found through a Google Book Search, none of which implies they are notable.

It should always weigh against an article's inclusion if the author or another interested party is the creator of the Wikipedia article. See Wikipedia:Conflict of interest and Wikipedia:Autobiography for more information.

온라인 서점편집

교보문고아마존닷컴과 같은 온라인 서점은 not by itself an indication of notability as both websites are non-exclusionary, including large numbers of vanity press publications. There is no present agreement on how high a book must fall on Amazon's sales rank listing (책의 목록의 상품 상세 정보 부분) 저명성 요건을 충족하는 지 안하는 지를 증명하기 위해.

아직 출판되지 않은 책편집

위키백과는 미래를 예측하는 공간이 아닙니다. 아직 출판되지 않은 책에 대한 문서는 대체적으로 discouraged and such articles are only accepted under criteria other than those provided in this guideline, typically because the anticipation of the book is notable in its own right. 이러한 경우들로 미뤄 there should still be multiple independent sources providing strong evidence that the book will be published, which sources include the title of the book and an approximate date of publication.

현대 서적이 아닌 것편집

The vast majority of books upon which articles are written which invite a notability judgment call and which find their way to articles for deletion, are from the modern era. Nevertheless, the notability of books written or published much earlier may occasionally be disputed and the criteria proposed above intended primarily for modern books may not be as suitable. We suggest instead a more common sense approach which considers whether the book has been widely cited or written about, whether it has been recently reprinted, the fame that the book enjoyed in the past and its place in the history of literature.

학술 혹은 전문서적편집

Academic and technical books serve a very different function and come to be published through very different processes than do books intended for the general public. They are often highly specialized, have small printing runs, and may only be available in specialized libraries and bookstores. For these reasons, most of the standards for mainstream books are inapplicable to the academic bailiwick. Again, common sense should prevail. In such cases, suggested bases for a finding of notability include whether the book is published by an academic press,[8] how widely the book is cited by other academic publications or in the media,[9] how influential the book is considered to be in its specialty area, or adjunct disciplines, and whether it is taught or required reading in a number of reputable educational institutions.

파생 문서편집

현재 위키백과에서의 책에 관한 문서의 총의는 should not be split and split again into ever more minutiae of detail treatment, with each split normally lowering the level of notability. 이는 어떤 한 책이 저명성 요건을 충족하더라도 책 속의 등장 인물이나 그 외 파생된 어떤 것에 적용하는 것은 일반적으로 권장하지 않습니다. 물론 매우 유명한 작품에는 예외가 있을 수 있습니다. 예를 들어 few would argue that Charles Dickens' A Christmas Carol does not warrant a 'subarticle' on its protagonist, Ebenezer Scrooge. When a book has been split too finely to support the notability of individual subtopics, merging content back into the book article is appropriate.

일부 상황에서는, where the book itself does not fit the established criteria for notability, or if the book is notable but the author has an article in Wikipedia, it may be better to feature material about the book in the author's article, rather than creating a separate article for that book.

같이 보기편집

주석편집

  1. The "subject" of a work means non-trivial treatment and excludes mere mention of the book, its author or of its publication, price listings and other nonsubstantive detail treatment.
  2. "Non-trivial" excludes personal websites, blogs, bulletin boards, Usenet posts, wikis and other media that are not themselves reliable. An analysis of the manner of treatment is crucial as well; Slashdot.org for example is reliable, but postings to that site by members of the public on a subject do not share the site's imprimatur. Be careful to check that the author, publisher, agent, vendor. etc. of a particular book are in no way interested in any third party source.
  3. Independent does not mean independent of the publishing industry, but only refers to those actually involved with the particular book.
  4. Self-promotion and product placement are not the routes to having an encyclopedia article. The published works must be someone else writing about the book. (See Wikipedia:Autobiography for the verifiability and neutrality problems that affect material where the subject of the article itself is the source of the material). 이 저명성의 지표는 whether people independent of the subject itself (or of its author, publisher, vendor or agent) have actually considered the book notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works that focus upon it.
  5. 이 기준은 수업 목적으로 쓰이는 교과서나 참고서는 포함되어 있지 않지만 only independent works deemed sufficiently significant to be the subject of study themselves, such as major works in philosophy, literature, or science.
  6. 예를 들어, 한 사람의 생애 혹은 업적은 학교 수업에서 공통적으로 다뤄지는 주제가 될 수 있습니다. 인용 오류: 잘못된 <ref> 태그; "study"이 다른 콘텐츠로 여러 번 정의되었습니다
  7. Certain print-on-demand book publishers, such as PublishAmerica, claim to be a "traditional" advance- and royalty-paying publishers rather than vanity presses. Regardless of the exact definitions, PublishAmerica and similar presses are to be considered vanity presses for purposes of assessing notability based on the manner works are published through them.
  8. Publication by a prominent academic press should be accorded far more weight than the analogous benchmark defined for publication of mainstream book by well known commercial publishers, by virtue of the non-commercial nature of such presses, and the peer review process that some academic books must pass before publication is allowed to go forward. See university book publishers for a partial list of such presses. Note that because a large portion of (en.)Wikipedia articles are written by English speaking people from English speaking nations, this list currently has an English speaking bias.
  9. A book's subject may be so specialized, such as in the esoteric math or physics spheres, that only a few hundred (or fewer) people in the world are situated to understand and comment on the material.