Wikipedia:Notability (fiction)/Deckiller-Sandifer
 | This page is currently inactive and is retained for historical reference. Either the page is no longer relevant or consensus on its purpose has become unclear. To revive discussion, seek broader input via a forum such as the village pump. |
 | This page in a nutshell:
|
Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) was a guideline intended to determine whether an element of fiction should or should not have an article on Wikipedia. It was later downgraded, and future proposals failed to attain consensus. In the most recent proposal, an element of fiction is (1) an individual component of a serialized work, such as a television episode or a comic book storyline, or (2) an element in the fictionalized world, such as a character, object, or setting. An element of a notable work of fiction may qualify for a standalone article if it meets the three-pronged test described below. Articles are kept when adequate evidence for all three criteria exists, even if the article's current revision is not perfect. A subject can also have a standalone article when it meets the general notability guideline.
This essay does not seek to give advice on works of fiction as a whole, which are covered by guidelines such as books, films, websites, music, and others. This essay does not supersede Wikipedia's content and inclusion policies such as those on verifiability and what Wikipedia is not.
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. This means that while a book or television series may be the subject of significant real-world coverage, it is not normally advisable to have a separate article on every fictional character, episode, scene or chapter that appears in a work of fiction, such that the coverage contains only trivial details or information about the plot.
Notability of elements within a fictional work[edit]
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, the fictional work from which they come must have produced significant artistic impact, cultural impact, or general popularity. This is shown when the work (not the element) exceeds the relevant notability guidelines.
- Role within the fictional work: The element must be an important element, and its importance must be verifiable. The importance of characters and episodes can be demonstrated through the use of primary or secondary sources, while the importance of other elements must be validated in independent secondary sources.
- Real-world coverage: Significant real-world information must exist on the element beyond what is revealed in the plot of the fictional work. Examples of real-world coverage include: creative influences, design processes, critical commentary, and cultural reception. 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 creator 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. Although part of coverage of a fictional work is a concise plot summary, an article about a fictional element written wholly from an in universe perspective is an indicator that the topic may not satisfy the inclusion criteria for a standalone article.
Sources and notability[edit]
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. However, because they offer no real-world coverage about themselves, they cannot satisfy the first or third prongs, and thus are not enough to establish notability.
All articles must meet Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. In particular, 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[edit]
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 fact-checking or 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 at the Reliable sources noticeboard, or at specific WikiProjects.
Independence[edit]
Coverage of fiction often benefits from relying on sources that do not meet the strictest standards of independence. Because copyright holders often guard their intellectual property, much of the background information about fictional subjects may come from copyright holders. As a result, real-world coverage may be established through the use of non-promotional secondary sources that are not independent from the content creators. Creator commentary should be used in accordance with Wikipedia's policy on self-published sources, and should provide significant real-world coverage 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, spinout articles that resist good-faith efforts to improve them, including the search for independent sources, are often merged or redirected into related articles. Both the guideline on reliable sources and policy on verifiability call for articles to "rely on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. " Effort should be made to find appropriate reliable, independent sources, and to to ensure that the distribution of fictional articles adhere to a neutral point of view and avoid corporate promotion.
Articles that don't meet the inclusion criteria[edit]
An article that does not meet these criteria at present may 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.
In addition, no part of this guideline is meant to preempt the editorial decision of content selection and presentation; for example, a topic may meet all the criteria, 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.
See also[edit]
|
|