Wikipedia:Notability (fiction)

This is a failed proposal.

Consensus for its implementation was not established within a reasonable period of time. If you want to revive discussion, please use the talk page or initiate a thread at the village pump.

Shortcuts

This page in a nutshell: If a fictional topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, and is not merely a plot summary, it 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 topics whose subject matter is fiction. The term "notability" is not a reflection of a topic's subjective importance; rather it used in the sense that there it has been "noted" in the form of significant coverage from reliable sources that are independent of the primary source.

In accordance with the Manual of Style for fiction, articles about fictional topics should not solely be a plot summary. Coverage of fictional topics should include both plot summary and coverage from the perspective of the real world in which the work or element of fiction is embedded.

Fiction distributed through other media such as print and film are also the subject of separate notability guidelines for books and films respectively. For the appropriateness of lists of fictional works or elements, please see appropriate topics for stand-alone lists.

General principles

The general guideline for notability shared by most of the subject-specific notability guidelines and Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, is that:

A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.

A fictional work—including but not limited to a book, movie, television show, radio program, video game, or graphic novel, or an episodic elements of a works such as an individual television episode or issue of a graphic novel—is presumed to be notable if it either meets the appropriate media-specific notability guideline (such as WP:BK for books and WP:NF for films), or otherwise meets the general notability guideline.

An element of fiction—including but not limited to a character, location, object, or aspects of a work's mythos—is presumed notable if it satisfies the general notability guideline.

Sources to demonstrate notability should derive from published works such as books, television documentaries, full-length featured newspaper articles from large circulation newspapers, full-length magazine reviews and criticism excluding the following:

Media reprints of press releases, trailers, and advertising for the work itself or elements thereof.^[1]
Trivial coverage, such as newspaper listings of screening times, "capsule reviews", plot summaries without critical commentary or analysis, or listings in comprehensive guides such as "Leonard Maltin's Movie Guide", TV.com or Gamespot.^[2]

Real-world notability

Coverage of fiction on Wikipedia needs to be more than a plot summary of the work. Notability of fictional works and elements within should be based on their impact in the real world as opposed to what occurs within the work. Even if a character plays a highly significant role within a notable work, this does not necessarily make them notable for the purposes of Wikipedia.

Most commonly, a notable work or element's impact is shown through commentary, criticism, and reception specific to the work in which they appear. Because this is a part of the impact of the work or larger series, the advice at Wikipedia:Summary style applies. Less commonly, individual fictional elements may be more notable for their impact in multiple works or media, such as the character of Superman.

Derivative articles

Wikipedia articles tend to grow in a way which lends itself to the natural creation of new articles. However, the consensus at Wikipedia is that articles about fictional works should not be split and split again into ever more minutiae of detail treatment, with each split resulting in undue weight being given to insignificant details or trivial coverage. This means that while a book or television series may be the subject of non-trivial real-world coverage, care should be taken when creating separate articles about individual characters or episodes by providing evidence that the subject matter is notable in its own right, and that the new article does not comprise nothing more than a plot summary.

For this reason, it is not normally advisable to set out from the start with the intention of creating derivative articles for every fictional character, episode, scene or chapter derived from it. Rather, avoid splitting articles if the new article cannot meet inclusion criteria for topics about fiction. Such splits may give rise to the creation of an unintentional content forks whose subject matter is already be featured in a related article that does provide evidence of notability.

Articles that do not meet the inclusion criteria

Articles that do not meet the inclusion guidelines above may be redirected and/or merged with a related article that does provide evidence of notability. Whilst this guideline is intended to be used by Wikipedia editors to decide whether a fictional topic should or should not have an article on Wikipedia, it should not be used as a set of deletion criteria. Although satisfying these notability guidelines generally indicates a fictional topic warrants an article, failing to satisfy them is not a criterion for speedy deletion.

Before proposing that an article is to be deleted, it is important to not just consider whether the existing article meets these inclusion criteria, but whether it's subject has the potential to do so. All Wikipedia articles are unfinished, and an article can be notable if sources exist but have not yet been used in the article.

Editorial decisions on content selection and presentation may override this guideline in some cases; for example, a topic may meet all the criteria, but editors may decide by consensus to merge the article with an article on the work of fiction itself instead of retaining a separate article if there is limited information available, in the belief that this presentation of the information best serves the readers.

Articles covering fictional elements that are deletion candidates are generally merged or retained temporarily if their coverage can meet some of the following criteria. This retention is to allow editors time to find sources not readily available during the short timeframe of an AfD discussion.^[3]These criteria are not exhaustive, nor universally agreed upon, but are a guide to how to best organise content:

Real-world coverage: This establishes real-world importance or provides appropriate context for understanding real-world importance, versus detailing only the fictional adventures of characters. Articles written in the appropriate style and which expand upon relevant points of a main topic to further the reader's understanding are more likely to be retained;
Importance of the fictional work: To justify articles on individual fictional elements, the work from which they come must have produced non-trivial artistic impact, cultural impact, or general popularity as described in secondary sources. Creator commentary on specific elements may suggest but not demonstrate that the element is notable;
Role within the fictional work: The element, such as a character, must be verifiablity important within the work: the importance of individual elements can be demonstrated when they are referred to in more than passing in reliable sources, or if there is a reference to the casting of the character in a reliable source.

References

^ Self-promotion and product placement are not the routes to having an encyclopedia article. The published works must be someone else writing about the element. (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.) The barometer of notability is whether people independent of the subject itself (or of its creator or producer) have actually considered the element itself notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works that focus upon it.
^ Many of these sources can provide valuable information, and point to other sources, but in themselves do not indicate a notable subject. Similar cases of "trivial" publications may include: reviews that are part of a comprehensive review of all films in a particular festival, that don't assert anything regarding the notability of individual entries; other forms of comprehensive, non-selective coverage; and some web based reviews by amateur critics who have not established their own notability as critics.
^ These sources include, but are not limited to, offline media, translation of foreign language sources and full-length academic journals from restricted databases such as JSTOR.

Further guidance

Template:MultiCol

Wikiprojects

| class="col-break " |

Other policies and guidelines, examples and how-tos not mentioned above

Previous proposals

Wikipedia:Fiction, a previous failed content proposal
Wikipedia:Notability (fiction)/proposed-12-9-07, a previous failed proposal
User:Phil Sandifer/Fiction proposal, a previous proposal
Wikipedia:Plot-only description of fictional works, a previous proposal

Template:EndMultiCol

[1] Self-promotion and product placement are not the routes to having an encyclopedia article. The published works must be someone else writing about the element. (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.) The barometer of notability is whether people independent of the subject itself (or of its creator or producer) have actually considered the element itself notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works that focus upon it.

[2] Many of these sources can provide valuable information, and point to other sources, but in themselves do not indicate a notable subject. Similar cases of "trivial" publications may include: reviews that are part of a comprehensive review of all films in a particular festival, that don't assert anything regarding the notability of individual entries; other forms of comprehensive, non-selective coverage; and some web based reviews by amateur critics who have not established their own notability as critics.

[3] These sources include, but are not limited to, offline media, translation of foreign language sources and full-length academic journals from restricted databases such as JSTOR.

[1]

[2]

[3]