Wikipedia:Notability (fiction): Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 21:01, 8 January 2009

The following is a proposed Wikipedia policy, guideline, or process. The proposal may still be in development, under discussion, or in the process of gathering consensus for adoption.

Shortcut

WP:FICT

This page in a nutshell: Some fictional elements may not meet the general notability guideline but may still be covered in a standalone article. Those elements must be part of a significant and notable work of fiction, be important to covering that work in an encyclopedic fashion, and must have sufficient reliable sources to allow for an article to be written in a real world context.

Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) is a proposed guideline that defines the inclusion criteria for elements of fiction, including individual and serialized works (such as television episodes or comic book series), as well the elements wholly within the fictionalized world (such as characters or settings). Works of fiction distributed through the media of books and film are also (but not exclusively) the subject of separate notability guidelines for books and films respectively. Inclusion criteria for lists are dealt with at Wikipedia's list guideline.

In all cases, if a subject relating to a work or element of fiction meets the requirement of the general notability guideline, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article. Elements of a notable work of fiction are presumed to be notable if they meet a simple test. The work should be important or significant, the fictional element itself should be important to an encyclopedic understanding of the work, and verifiable information must exist about the subject apart from a plot summary. When assessing a topic's notability, Wikipedians should remember that this and all notability guidelines judge a subject on the basis of currently available sources, not sources present in the article itself, which is not a final draft.

Three-pronged test for notability

Per the general notability guideline, a topic is presumed notable for a standalone article if it is the subject of non-trivial coverage by reliable and independent sources. Some articles on fictional subjects, however, may not meet the general notability guideline. For these articles, a fictional element of a notable work should meet three conditions:

Importance of the fictional work: Fictional universes that are considered more culturally or historically significant are more likely to have coverage in reliable sources, and may go into greater depth than a short-form critical review of the work. If those sources present clear claims for the artistic or cultural importance of the fictional work beyond basic notability, it is a good sign that some individual elements of the work may be notable.
Importance within the fictional work: The subject should be an episode or non-cameo character that is important or central to understanding the work as a whole. Assessing the importance involves researching commentary from reliable sources on the topic. The work itself can also indicate importance to some extent, but avoid original research or comparisons. Focus on indisputable facts (e.g. "the character appears in every episode") to prove importance, rather than personal opinion. Understanding the overall work does not require exhaustive detail, but may require articles on specific elements that are necessary to explain the work's overall plot and impact.
Real-world coverage: Significant real-world information must exist on the subject's development and reception beyond what is revealed in the plot of the fictional work. Examples of development information include creative influences and design processes, while examples of reception information include critical, commercial, or cultural impact. Sometimes this real-world perspective can be established through the use of sources with a connection to the creators of the fictional work, such as developer commentary. Merely listing the notable works where the fictional element appears, their respective release dates, and the names of the production staff is not sufficient. An article with a verifiable real-world perspective that establishes real-world notability will rarely be deleted.

A subject that meets all three of the above criteria may qualify for a standalone article. An article is not a final draft, and a subject can still be notable based on the reasonable belief that adequate evidence of notability exists. But there must be a reasonable belief that evidence exists for all three criteria.

This test does not supersede Wikipedia's content and inclusion policies such as those on verifiability and what Wikipedia is not. Editors may consider whether the fictional subject could be treated as a section or part of a parent article or list instead of a standalone article, but notability guidelines do not delimit content. No part of this guideline is meant to preempt the editorial decision of content selection and presentation.

Sources and notability

All articles must meet Wikipedia's policy on verifiability, where every statement is backed by research from reliable sources. However, a verifiable article is not necessarily notable by Wikipedia's standards and merely being verifiable does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion; the general notability guideline requires the use of reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. For fictional subjects, terms such as reliability and independence have specialized meanings.

Reliability

A notable fictional element will have real-world information about its development or reception. Reception, reviews, and criticism must be verified in reliable sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. News organizations and scholarly journals usually ensure reliability through peer review. However, a source may still be considered reliable without these strict content controls. Wikipedians can determine whether a source meets our guideline on reliable sources through consensus. These discussions usually take place at the Reliable sources noticeboard, or at specific WikiProjects.

Independence

Coverage of fiction often benefits from relying on sources that do not meet the strictest standards of independence. Because control over intellectual property is often jealously guarded, much of the background information about fictional subject may come from copyright holders. The idea of an "independent source" was developed to deal with press releases, corporate websites, and self promotion—issues that are less likely to crop up with fictional subjects than biographies or company profiles. However, some care must be taken to ensure that the distribution of fictional articles avoids corporate promotion and adheres to a neutral point of view.

As a result, elements of the three-prong test may be satisfied through the use of non-promotional sources that may or may not be independent from the content creators. These are independent in the sense that they make analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, and/or evaluative claims about the subject. These may include self-published sources such as author or developer commentary which provide significant real-world content about the subject that goes beyond what is revealed in the plot of the fictional work.

Secondary sources are necessary for notability

A topic about which there are no significant secondary sources cannot pass this guideline. Primary sources, such as the fictional work itself, can be used to verify certain facts about the fictional work, and can contribute towards the second prong of the three-prong test. However, since they offer no real-world perspectives, they cannot provide any information on the first or third prongs, and thus are not enough to establish notability.

Original research and original analysis of primary sources (for example, by speculating about what a scene might imply, or by making detailed comparisons between scenes) should be avoided. Plot summary may be used to a limited extent as described by our content policies, but an article written entirely from primary sources is a warning sign that the subject might not meet the three-pronged test above.

Systemic bias

One problem that arises in covering fictional subjects is that the availability of sources is tied, at times, not to cultural importance but to the dedication that fans of a given work of fiction devote to it, and their willingness to buy books about the work of fiction. If one were to judge purely based on the availability of secondary sources, one could be forgiven for thinking that science fiction is by far the most important fictional genre in existence. Often, more books exist on a low-rated, albeit critically acclaimed science fiction show such as Babylon 5 than exist on enormously popular shows like The Mary Tyler Moore Show. This bias is often reflected in our coverage of subjects as well.

Closely related to this bias is a presentist bias — it is far more commercially sound to publish a book on a currently running television show than one that has been off the air for ages. The situation only becomes worse when the online sources that are most often consulted for Wikipedia are taken into account. Similarly, non-English language works of fiction are unlikely to see the same representation in English language sources as similarly popular English-language works.

There is no easy way to correct for this bias. Certainly we do not want to ignore the wealth of sourcing that exists for works with devoted fandoms. However it is important not to confuse the dedication of fans (including their willingness to show up on AfD) with notability.

In the case of an older work of fiction, or one that does not inspire as devoted fans as other works, it is important to avoid succumbing to this systemic bias, and to consider the likelihood that sources that do not appear on a quick Google search may exist. Articles on subjects for which quality sources are likely to exist should not be deleted unless a sincere effort to find those sources has been made.

Footnotes

@@ Line 42: / Line 42: @@
 [[WP:OR|Original research]] and original analysis of primary sources (for example, by speculating about what a scene might imply, or by making detailed comparisons between scenes) should be avoided. Plot summary may be used to a limited extent as described by our [[WP:CONTENT|content policies]], but an article written entirely from primary sources is a warning sign that the subject might not meet the three-pronged test above.
+===Systemic bias===
+One problem that arises in covering fictional subjects is that the availability of sources is tied, at times, not to cultural importance but to the dedication that fans of a given work of fiction devote to it, and their willingness to buy books about the work of fiction. If one were to judge purely based on the availability of secondary sources, one could be forgiven for thinking that science fiction is by far the most important fictional genre in existence. Often, more books exist on a low-rated, albeit critically acclaimed science fiction show such as [[Babylon 5]] than exist on enormously popular shows like [[The Mary Tyler Moore Show]]. This bias is often reflected in our coverage of subjects as well.
+Closely related to this bias is a presentist bias — it is far more commercially sound to publish a book on a currently running television show than one that has been off the air for ages. The situation only becomes worse when the online sources that are most often consulted for Wikipedia are taken into account. Similarly, non-English language works of fiction are unlikely to see the same representation in English language sources as similarly popular English-language works.
+There is no easy way to correct for this bias. Certainly we do not want to ignore the wealth of sourcing that exists for works with devoted fandoms. However it is important not to confuse the dedication of fans (including their willingness to show up on AfD) with notability.
+In the case of an older work of fiction, or one that does not inspire as devoted fans as other works, it is important to avoid succumbing to this systemic bias, and to consider the likelihood that sources that do not appear on a quick Google search may exist. Articles on subjects for which quality sources are likely to exist should not be deleted unless a sincere effort to find those sources has been made.
 ==See also==