Wikipedia:Notability (fiction): Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 17:34, 24 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:

For an element of a fictional work to qualify for a stand-alone article, it must be an important aspect of an important fictional work, with significant real world facts about the element's development or reception.
Facts about development and reception can be verified in self-published sources such as author commentary, as well as other reliable sources.
Alternatively, any element of a fictional work that meets the general notability guideline is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article.

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 as elements within the fictionalized world (such as characters or settings). Works of fiction distributed via books and film are also (but not exclusively) the subject of separate notability guidelines for books and films respectively. The inclusion criteria for lists are described in 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 three-pronged test: the work should be 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 notability guidelines judge a subject on the basis of available sources, not sources present in the article itself. It is general consensus on Wikipedia that articles should not be split and split again into ever more minutiae of detail treatment, with each split normally lowering the level of significant real-world coverage contained in an article. What this means for elements of fiction is that, while a book or television episode may be the subject of significant real-world coverage, it is not normally advisable to have a separate article on every fictional character, episode, or scene that appears in a work of fiction, such that the coverage contains only trivial detail or information about the plot.

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. Articles covering elements within a fictional work are generally retained if their coverage meets these three conditions:

Importance of the fictional work: To justify articles on individual elements, a work of fiction must be of particular cultural or historical significance. This requires significant external sourcing for the work itself, well beyond the basic threshold of the general notability guideline. Those sources should present clear claims for the artistic or cultural importance of the fictional work.
Role within the fictional work: The subject should be an episode or recurring character that is central to understanding the fictional work. Other essential elements of the work are appropriate too, but only if their significance is verified in commentary from reliable sources. Notability requires evidence, and bald assertions of significance are insufficient.
Real-world coverage: Significant, real-world information must exist on the subject, beyond what is revealed in the plot of the fictional work. Examples of real world content include: creative influences, design processes, and 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; for example, a topic may meet all three prongs above, but may be decided by consensus to be better covered in the article on the work of fiction itself instead of a separate article if there is limited information available.

Sources and notability

All articles must meet Wikipedia's policy on verifiability, where every statement is backed by research from reliable sources. Nevertheless, 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. Some care, however, 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.

Although an article with no independent sources may meet the minimum threshold to avoid deletion, independent sourcing is necessary to reach good article status. Articles that resist good-faith efforts to improve them to good article status, including the search for independent sources, are often merged into other articles. Effort should be made to find appropriate reliable, independent sources. Remember that both our guideline on reliable sources and our policy on verifiability call for articles to "rely on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. "

Secondary sources

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, because 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.

Articles that don't meet the inclusion criteria

An article that does not meet these criteria at present will sometimes still be notable. In evaluating whether an article satisfies this guideline, one should consider not only the present state of the article, but also the likelihood that sources exist to satisfy all three criteria. Remember that all Wikipedia articles are not a final draft, and an article can be notable if such sources exist even if they have not been added at present. Merely asserting that such sources exist is seldom persuasive, especially as time passes and actual proof does not surface. An article that features significant real-world coverage will rarely be deleted.

@@ Line 39: / Line 39: @@
 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 [[WP:SPS|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.
-Although an article with no independent sources may meet the minimum threshold to avoid deletion, an article with no independent sources is unlikely to be a very good one. Effort should be made to find appropriate reliable, independent sources. Remember that both our guideline on [[WP:RS|reliable sources]]  and our policy on [[WP:V#Reliability|verifiability]] call for articles to "rely on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. "
+Although an article with no independent sources may meet the minimum threshold to avoid deletion, independent sourcing is necessary to reach good article status. Articles that resist good-faith efforts to improve them to good article status, including the search for independent sources, are often merged into other articles. Effort should be made to find appropriate reliable, independent sources. Remember that both our guideline on [[WP:RS|reliable sources]]  and our policy on [[WP:V#Reliability|verifiability]] call for articles to "rely on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. "
 === Secondary sources ===