Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Notability and fiction

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

A summary of the debate may be found at the bottom of the discussion.

---

This request for comment regarding notability and how it applies to fiction has been created in order to gauge community opinion on whether a guideline or an essay is most appropriate.

All editors are invited to present comments as to the current treatment of fiction on Wikipedia, especially with regards:

• Whether a true consensus exists or whether the community is split
• Whether a guideline other than the general notability guideline can be created
• Whether an essay describing the differing views is better

Editors wishing to present specific proposals for a guideline, essay or another way forwards should do so in the proposal section. Other comments should be made in the views section.

Views

Views by Hiding

The community is divided

The community is currently divided on how to treat fiction, as can be seen in the arbitration cases Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters 2 and the recent poll on plot summaries which ended in no consensus. The divide centres on the amount of detail with which Wikipedia should cover fictional topics, and whether articles split from a "parent article" in line with Wikipedia:Summary style are part of an overarching topic or become an article on a new and separate topic. While we have our personal opinions on best practise, it is currently unclear as to where consensus lies on many of these issues.

Users who endorse this view

1. Hiding T 10:53, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
2. BOZ (talk) 12:21, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
3. Too true. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 13:35, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
4. Agree. Most of the dissension is caused by one or two extreme deletionists who dislike the fact that fiction articles (including those about films, etc.) start as plot summaries, often by inexperienced editors. If WP bites newbies, it will wither. --Philcha (talk) 14:05, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
5. I'll agree with the general principle, though not necessarily all of the finer points.陣内_Jinnai 17:23, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
6. — Ched :  ?  22:55, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
7. --Cybercobra (talk) 02:24, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
8. Sure, the general principle. With regards to Philcha's gratuitous editorializing, I submit that blame lies equally, if not more so, at the feet of extreme inclusionists who take it as a personal insult and sneering critical rejection of their favorite twenty minute advertisment for toys when the merits of an exhaustive plot summary (no doubt liberally festooned with minute in-universe details such as Herbie the Love Bug's gas mileage and Moe the Bartender's second-favorite sports team) are called into question. Badger Drink (talk) 02:42, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
9. --Gwern (contribs) 15:04 6 June 2009 (GMT)
10. Isn't it obvious? NVO (talk) 20:15, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
11. Hard to disagree. ThemFromSpace 01:27, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
12. Agree -- Michel Vuijlsteke (talk) 11:11, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
13. I dont think there's a need to blame anybody. I can see why both sides take their stance, and I can also see that both sides have difficulty seeing the merit of the other's position.Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:27, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
14. True. Different users have different ideas of what's suitable for Wikipedia. --Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 21:29, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
15. Oh, I agree. Didn't we already have the episodes and characters argument, and the guy "merging" the episodes and characters lost? Why are we even arguing this, except that it's impossible to revert the changes he made since it's easier to delete than to add?Ken Arromdee (talk) 03:17, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
16. Agree. A pity that the dead-locked conflict in WP:FICT tends to spread to others area of Wikipedia like WP:N or WP:NOT. There is no consensus live with it. --KrebMarkt 06:28, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
17. Yes, we have no consensus regarding fictional elements and as such all AfDs reflect more on who happens to show up in any given discussion than any actual adherence to some agreed upon standard. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 13:09, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
18. Big time. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 19:33, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
19. I don't know if this is true for all issues related to fiction and notability, but there certainly is significant division in these areas. -- Ned Scott 06:30, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
20. The community is divided, but I don't think exemptions are the way forward. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 08:57, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
21. Add me to this list, I agree it is too deadlocked.Knowledgekid87 02:21, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
22. Zanotam - Google me (talk) 22:23, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
23. weakly, I do feel we have a broad sort of zone of consensus at most AfDs generally, though there is the usual bickering. Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:10, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
24. Agree. I'm all for quality control, but there has to be a balance. Articles can't be deleted wholesale because they are fictional. Asgardian (talk) 05:04, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
25. Agree w/ the statement "the community is divided" with one critical complaint. In many cases, the users invoking 'the community' in declaring that opinions are divided on the issues are often the ones doing the dividing by refusing compromise, relishing in defeat of proposals with strange bedfellows and generally making things difficult. Just like we shouldn't cut certain Senate republicans slack when they claim that parts of the health care bill can be misinterpreted while they are doing the misinterpreting, we should not settle comfortably into the passive voice when describing community division on this issue. A full and complete exception on this issue is granted to hiding for the above post (so as to be clear). Protonk (talk) 02:47, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
26. Agree that there is great disagreement over these issues. Doczilla _STOMP! 00:04, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view

I believe that the general principles espoused by Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view are the bedrock as regards the content of our encyclopedia. Information has to be sourced because we do not rely on our own reputation. Readers have to be able to check the material and verify our assertions for themselves. It is also important so that we avoid plaigarism. Since we do not rely on our reputation, we cannot advance our own opinions or attempt to document new occurrences or publications. We only summarise reliable sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and that directly support the information as it is presented. Beyond everything else, we ensure that we are representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources.

Users who endorse this view

1. Hiding T 10:53, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
2. BOZ (talk) 12:21, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
3. No argument from me. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 13:36, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
4. We shouldn't be compromising core ideals just to get get this to work.陣内_Jinnai 16:16, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
5. — Ched :  ?  22:56, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
6. These are our policies and the subsequent guidelines should follow from them. ThemFromSpace 01:25, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
7. Percy Snoodle (talk) 13:23, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
8. This statement as far as it goes has to be a given Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:29, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
9. Regardless where the boat go, this is the starting point. --KrebMarkt 06:29, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
10. Those are good policies that should be followed, although some of notability has crept into V, which I don't agree with. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 19:35, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
11. More or less. -- Ned Scott 06:32, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
12. Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:07, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
13. Texcarson (talk) 20:58, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
14. This is the way forward and is the approach being adopted at WP:FICT. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 11:43, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
15. Firmly agree with this. Asgardian (talk) 05:04, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
16. Sure. But not much use. We can agree on these policies and disagree fiercely as to their application. For example, WP:V has an interesting and direct sentence in it which I need not quote here. Does this bedrock agreement on WP:V mean we can all agree on the consequences of that sentence being applied plainly? I doubt it. Protonk (talk) 03:21, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Views by Drilnoth

Need for differentiation

The whole controversy over FICT has gotten to the point of being stupid; neither side seems willing to work towards a consensus (at least the last time I checked, which was a few weeks ago). I think that the biggest reason for this conflict and its lack of resolution is because FICT is trying to do too much. How can fictional locations, TV episodes, and the main characters of novels all really be held to an identical notability requirement? I think that the best way forward may be to try splitting FICT into a number of subsections (all on the same page, though; we don't need multiple essays/guidelines on this topic), to cover different aspects of fiction. Holding Dragon (Dungeons & Dragons)—a topic which is almost certainly notable in my opinion because of how much it influenced future depictions of dragons in Western culture and their popularity within D&D—to the same standards as Drizzt Do'Urden, the main character in over 10 NYT best sellers, seems ridiculous. Characters should be held to a different standard from episodes, concepts, places, types of creatures, etc., because a single set of criteria will never apply perfectly to all of them at once. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 13:52, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Users who endorse this view

1. I'm going to go ahead and endorse my own view. :) –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 13:52, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
2. BOZ (talk) 15:06, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
3. This seems like it could be a good way to move forward on this rather vexed issue. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 06:49, 6 June 2009 (UTC).
4. I agree, and I think this survey I helped make (or one similar to it) is a way to make that differentiation. Some people felt that the first draft from October was too much, so it was simplified. --Pixelface (talk) 01:02, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
5. I would agree with that. There is clearly some room for overlap (books get made into films etc), but it is a good starting pointElen of the Roads (talk) 16:30, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
6. Sure. But the devil is in the details. Ken Arromdee (talk) 03:17, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
7. Agree that we need to better contextualise our decision making processes. Hiding T 12:00, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
8. It would be good, but we can't get people to agree on the details. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 20:38, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
9. Zanotam - Google me (talk) 22:23, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
10. Agree. This one is interesting, and realizing that there are differing standards and making allowances for these is important. Otherwise, we would stand to lose a tremendous amount of articles. Asgardian (talk) 05:04, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
11. It should be easier to agree on a number of smaller issues than one big, comprehensive one. And it's quite possible that the detailed notability criteria will be different for characters, episodes, concepts, places. etc. --Philcha (talk) 07:34, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Lacking notability

One thing that I see happen all too often is when something is deleted as lacking notability. This is certainly the only course of action that can be taken in some instances, but especially with fictional topics merging the content to a better location makes more sense. Deletion is what really causes inclusionists to get frustrated with the policy building, and keeping non-notable articles does the same for deletionists. An in-between point—merging content which is non-notable—should help to find a balance between the two sides of the dispute. Some non-notable topics certainly need deletion. Some probably need to be kept as separate articles (e.g., the promising merge targets are all too long already). But many can be merged with wider topics or "list of..." articles to WP:PRESERVE information while also not leaving a non-notable topic with its own article. Note that when I say "merging" in this case, I mean a real merger... quite often articles are merged with only the lead paragraph or the equivalent remaining afterwords. All relevant content should be actually merged, although trimming it for reasons other than non-notability makes sense. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 13:52, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Users who endorse this view

1. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 13:52, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
2. BOZ (talk) 15:06, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
3. Remember that notability is about whether a topic merits its own article. No material should ever be deleted by reference to notability (and this includes merges that are defacto deletion). This just isn't what we've defined notability to be about. Ken Arromdee (talk) 03:17, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
4. Yes, I agree, and merges should be performed in baby steps. Quite often material fails a number of policies and guidances, but it is better to deal with them individually than in one fell swoop to better outline the best practises. Hiding T 12:00, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
5. -- Ned Scott 06:33, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
6. Zanotam - Google me (talk) 22:23, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
7. Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:12, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
8. Texcarson (talk) 20:58, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
9. Agree. Hiding said it perfectly. There will always be grey. Asgardian (talk) 05:04, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
10. Drilnoth and Hiding hit the nail on the head. --Philcha (talk) 07:36, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
11. Conservation of the non trivial & verifiable information is essential during a merge process. Sometimes it get more complicated when MoS had you to remove more information like in the case of merging a non-notable work to its notable author article. --KrebMarkt 16:00, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

View by Masem

Given the amount of effort to try to get a FICT guideline with two different approaches, it is pretty clear to me that this is pretty much going to be impossible to spell out how FICT varies from the GNG in a manner that meets consensus that is nothing less than a detailed list of rules of when fiction articles are appropriate or not, well above and beyond what one would expect given that WP is not a bureaucracy. The closest we came was Phil Sandifier's version that basically surmised that fiction elements either need to meet the GNG, or otherwise meet three prongs (importance of the work, importance to the work, and existence of real-world information), but even with that, the devil was in the details (what sources were acceptable, are editors' subjective views appropriate justification, etc.) And since policies and guidelines are to follow consensus and not the other way around, attempts to try to define what should be appropriate (as being done now) are also being met with resistance.

It needs to be realized we have a huge number of fiction articles created when WP was more wild (pre-2006-ish), when notability wasn't an issue. As WP as started to mature, there is a push to improve this area - making fiction meet the same qualities as more rigorous articles on science, history, and the like. This pendulum did swing a bit too far (and thus created the two Ep&Char ArbCom cases), and is slowly swinging back - not as far as it was, but we are slowly finding where it will come to rest. However, we still have WP's past to deal with while at the same time we don't want to encourage article growth like those past articles. A fiction notability guideline is going to be difficult to write without grandfathering in articles, again created unnecessary bureaucracy.

At the end of the day, I think the best solution is what most of FICT have realized: the GNG is the best advice for fiction elements, with AFD being the ultimate decider if articles are kept. The logic if articles are kept at AFD is more or less hit or miss, but you improve the chances for that article being kept by having certain qualities, such as the three prongs from Phil's FICT proposal. But we cannot insist on that being a requirement for fiction articles, because there are numerous examples of articles being kept that do not satisfy those. Thus the best advice is to leave FICT as an essay, pointing readers to the GNG, what elements will improve an article's chances at AFD, and then pointing them to WP:WAF.

And that's where the efforts to improve fiction covered need to be focused. WAF needs to help groom the coverage of fiction across the board in manners that are driven by consensus. Case in point: a recent push to merge non-notable South Park episodes was met with a lot of resistance. Instead, myself and others suggested a solution whereby if a small example of current non-notable episodes could be shown to be notable, the rest would be assumed to be so, with a good-faith assumption that over time other SP articles would be improved. This was a satisfactory solution that proved to be in favor in retaining the articles. Through WAF and watching other similar discussions, we can help guide editors better on how to approach articles on fiction - writing from the top-down instead of bottoms-up, and considering collections of non-notable information instead of separate articles. Maybe out of this will fall more obvious FICT guidelines, but at the present time, we just can't do that.

Effectively, I urge the same solution as suggested by Hiding; to replace FICT with an essay until it is clear that a guideline can really be developed, and instead focus the energy on helping to shape the style of fiction articles through WAF. --MASEM (t) 14:43, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Users who endorse this view

1. I would love to instill in users the idea that WAF is more than just a "mere" (read:optional) style guideline, but rather the basis for how articles are written; beating them over the head with the Notability stick yields results but not understanding. Nifboy (talk) 17:47, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
2. — Ched :  ?  23:01, 5 June 2009 (UTC) Good to have something in the interim. Essay seems to be an acceptable compromise unless or until a more formal guideline or policy is approved by consensus.
3. Give Masem a cigar! NVO (talk) 20:20, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
4. ThemFromSpace 01:29, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
5. Masem's idea of trying to build consensus in specific cases appears to be the most promising way forward at present. It might help to log somewhere discussions that have dealt with difficult or new types of case. --Philcha (talk) 08:35, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
6. In a nutshell. Hiding T 12:00, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
7. -- Ned Scott 06:39, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
8. This is the naturalistic pathway which has been the pathway of least effort, and to me seems to be tolerable (just). I'd prefer it to be more inclusive but that's just me. Given other possibilities are unlikely to evolve as there will be too much opposition from either extreme. Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:16, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
9. Agree. I applaud the statement made by Nifboy.

View by Jinnai

It is my belief that while there is a need for some level of measure beyond just verifability, that level is low that almost anything will have at least one "third-party source" for it. However the current notability guideline as well as specifically the general notability guideline fail in regard to fictional elements (not the works themselves, but the elements within it) as it was never designed with the intent of handling such things. Wikipedia:Notability/RFC:compromise and Wikipedia:Notability/RFC:Reevaluation have shown that while the consensus is that notability should be kept, there is clear indication that the current notability guidelines, specifically the main one, are not the ones we should be using. For fictional problems this causes problems as recently brought up at WT:N#Should insignificant subjects be considered notable. Though the point goes beyond just fictional elements, it does address the underlying problem with the current GNG: That the bar set is so high that it is to essentially act for elements as WP:NOT for most comtemporary literature and at the same act as though it the guideline doesn't exist at all for classical and antiquity literature since even a the third man standing to the left has had some scholarly review. Therefore some different criteria must be established.

Users who endorse this view

1. I shall endorse my own view.陣内_Jinnai 16:38, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
2. Although the last two sentenences kind of lost me (can't quite figure out what you're trying to say in them), I agree with the rest. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 17:09, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

   Basically those last 2 sentances essentially said by allowing anything that can meet the very bare essentials of GNG for classical and antiquity fictional elecements, especially characters, even the most trivial member will get mentioned, whether its encyclopedic or not. WP:N essentially doesn't exist for them because scholars must publish or die and so they pick something no one else has, which is almost always trivial. Such information is better left to a "further reading" section. On the other extreme though most contemporary elements, inclduing important and otherwise notable characters cannot get the kind of in-depth direct analysis that older works get. While the analogy is not exactly the same, it is in some way due to an opposite effect of WP:NOT#NEWS, that elements are not considered worthy of study for some time, unless they are on the scale of Harry Potter, which is itself, an exception. Thus for all practical purposes the guideline acts as WP:NOT#Elements of modern works of fiction due to the bar being set so high for them that it is unatianable unless you are the exception.陣内_Jinnai 00:42, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

   Thank you for the clarification; I agree. Characters like Bruenor Battlehammer, for instance, have little scholarly or reliable information because the character is to "new", and from R. A. Salvatore's whole series of NYT-bestsellers, only Drizzt Do'Urden has reached the "exception" point that he has been significantly covered. But sometime in the future, maybe ten years, thirty years, fifty years, or longer, people may look back and start writing reliable discussions about Bruenor. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 18:51, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

3. BOZ (talk) 22:18, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
4. Having been involved in this discussion Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:34, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
5. Agree with "for all practical purposes the guideline acts as WP:NOT#Elements of modern works of fiction". IMO the guideline also creates other systemic biasses too numerous to list here. --Philcha (talk) 08:49, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
6. Agree that the bar is not well established as evinced by the many arguments. Hiding T 12:00, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
7. -- Ned Scott 06:41, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
8. Zanotam - Google me (talk) 22:23, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
9. Agree. Asgardian (talk) 05:04, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

View by User:SmokeyJoe

There is no consensus on how notability (as a reason for deletion) applies to fiction. My best idea for a way forward is to divide the problem into smaller well defined problems (eg recurring characters in a TV series). --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:03, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Users who endorse this view

1. Yes, and this is similar to Drilnoth's call for differentiation above. This survey I helped make is my attempt, and was inspired by the different "types" of people listed in Wikipedia:Notability (people). Fiction is such a broad topical area. There are over 2 1/2 times more articles under Category:Fiction than under Category:Living people (although there is a small overlap), and to me it makes sense to split the issue into smaller pieces. --Pixelface (talk) 01:03, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
2. I think cutting it down almost to cases and then building it back up to a sensible number of components is the way to go.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:35, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
3. There is no consensus support notability as a reason for deletion of anything. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 13:05, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
4. Again, articles need contextualising to understand their claim to notability. Hiding T 12:00, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
5. Zanotam - Google me (talk) 22:23, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
6. Agree. The problems need to be divided and addressed individually. Asgardian (talk) 05:04, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

View by Elen of the Roads

I believe that there is a consensus regarding works of fiction that stand as a single entity (eg War and Peace), and that consensus (that a standalone work of fiction must have verified notability) should not be lost. I believe that where we are struggling is with works that are part of larger series, and elements that are part of works, where there is no consensus as to the level of detail which is acceptable, and the extent to which the notability of the work as a whole should serve to cover content which has become granular. Focusing on these issues, rather than attempting to cover the more nebulous concept of fiction as a whole, may help to find consensus.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:49, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Users who endorse this view

1. Me, obviously Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:49, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
2. BOZ (talk) 22:40, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
3. Definitely the problem is related more towards works that are part of larger series. Hiding T 12:00, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
4. Yes. JoshuaZ (talk) 16:41, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
5. Zanotam - Google me (talk) 22:23, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
6. Jclemens (talk) 07:39, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
7. Aye, the notability and verifiability of standalone works are relatively straightforward to determine.  Skomorokh  16:01, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
8. Agree. Asgardian (talk) 05:04, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Views by Zanotam

Focus off the Editors

The community is split in regards to fiction, but the deletionists are slowly gaining the upper hand as the vocal supporters simply say "screw it" and leave Wikipedia for other places, bringing with them the silent masses. As Wikipedia heads more and more towards notability and away from the useful and interesting. Many editors join Wikipedia because they have a subject that they have seen articles on that seem short or stubbish and want to expand upon them, but if they are about some obscure plant species from Australia than they are welcome, but if they are about the exploits of Strom the Smith and pals in Fantasylandia, than they better not let the door hit them on their way out. The whole point of the notability guidelines was that to insure that things that people care about were on wikipedia and at one point (I wouldn't be surprised if it was not so anymore) fictional characters and series that shared names with actual people and places usually had longer articles with more hits than the real things, but these articles are slowly dying and disappearing. Wikipedia editors are looked upon with derision and shame commonly because of what are seen as rabid deletionist practices and the completely lopsided coverage of material by editors, Scientology having a massive portal and many articles while the Falun Gong movement (at one point) was a handful of medium size articles, the existence of a Paris Hilton portal, and the multitude of geeky wars (just like this one!). Basically, Wikipedia is a website that serves as a source of information, for research papers and showing off to your friends, and the lack of consistency caused by edit wars only hurts the site, but if an agreement cannot be reached among the editors, the good of Wikipedia as a source of potentially interesting information, already organized and collected, with links for further research should be considered. Wikipedia is for the readers not the editors!

Users For:

1. Zanotam - Google me (talk) 22:23, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
2. BOZ (talk) 12:18, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
3. Agree. Asgardian (talk) 05:04, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
4. Yes, there's a strong and unattractive air of intellectual snobbery in many discussions. --Philcha (talk) 07:40, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Users Against:

Research and Notability

Fiction and notability are hard to deal with, it's true, but that simply means a more open way of looking at notability needs to be taken. I think we can for the most part agree several million fan fictions are probably a larger sign of notability and popularity than 3 news articles, but the first is obviously going to be difficult to cite. Dealing with works of fiction in the real world commonly means very few if any possible citations, the creation of styles, effect upon society, and critical reception can be hard to source, unless someone's already written a book about how popular the work of fiction is (which is in and of itself going to be mostly original research) there is going to be very little to cite, but does that necessarily mean the work of fiction isn't very notable or worthy of more than a stub? Works of fiction are very hard to deal with simply because they exist in an awkward niche somewhere between the Starbucks Coffee you had this morning, that revealing article on lead paint you read in Times, the youtube video you saw last month that made you cry (what was it's name again?), and your imaginary friend when you were three. I believe there is a consensus on the problems with research and notability as they apply to certain parts of fiction, but there is no clear consensus on what needs to change.

Users For:

1. Zanotam - Google me (talk) 22:23, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
2. BOZ (talk) 12:18, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
3. Agree. Asgardian (talk) 05:04, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Users Against:

1. Judging the notability of fictional elements based on research is not difficult or problematic in my experience. I'm well acquainted with web and library resources, and I know it's quite easy to find reliable secondary sources if they are needed. If no secondary sources exist, it's highly likely what you thought was important isn't as important as you thought it was. WesleyDodds (talk) 05:21, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment:

1. WesleyDodds's "If no secondary sources exist, it's highly likely what you thought was important isn't as important as you thought it was" (05:21, 10 August 2009) is right as far as it goes. Unfortunately GNG introduces systemic bias, because scholars write about increasingly obscure topics in the "great books" that are set texts in courses - I even found a whole book about Briseis, who is a cipher in the Iliad. We may have to put up with a little systemic bias as the price of keeping out fancrust and POV-pushing. However we have to avoid excluding what outsiders wan to read about. --Philcha (talk) 07:47, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

We shouldn't be concerned with what "people want to read about". Our goal is to provide a survey of all documented, verifiable knowledge. I really like Transformers, but if no one has written about Tarantulas or whomever in a reliable secondary source I'm not going to shed a tear over it. WesleyDodds (talk) 08:59, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Views by WesleyDodds

General impressions

I generally agree with Hiding's essay. The only sticking point for me is what "other standards sometimes come in to play" are unclear. As I understand it, specific notability guidelines merely specify details about the general notability guideline as it pertains to specific subjects (for example, I work a lot on music articles, so WP:SONGS has a more specific criteria of what makes a song notable; in essence and practice, WP:SONGS is stricter than the GNG), and are not meant to supercede the general notability guidelines. If it fails the GNG, the article should be deleted. That's the whole point of the GNG.

Now, there are a lot of fiction-related articles I have worked on and that I am interested in working on, but I notice time and again repeated issues. Among these are overreliance on primary sources (in particular, the stories themselves), assumptions of inherited notability, and too much emphasis on creating subarticles (for example, making pages for every episode in a TV series). Frankly, most of the fiction articles on Wikipedia are utter messes that simply reiterate in-story details, the biggest offenders being character articles. Not all areas that deal with fiction are plagued by these problems: Wikipedia:WikiProject Films and Wikipedia:WikiProject The Simpsons are just two examples of fiction-related WikiProjects that turn out scores of excellent articles. What makes them so successful is the emphasis they place on secondary sources, not on primary sources and in-story details. The emphasis on primary sources on many fiction articles is disturbing; notbility should never be based on in-story context such as how "important" a character is in a work, or that an "important" plot development occured in an episode. If it's so important, find me a third-party, reliable secondary source that says so. Anything else would be personal opinion and original research, and per Wiki guidelines, can be challenged and removed.

One idea I suggested below was that we need to stop thinking about these pages as "fiction" articles. The reason there are so many FA and GA film articles is because they are treated as articles about productions, not as stories. The emphasis is on who made it, when it was made, how much money it made, and what people thought of it. That's how you approach a fiction article, not by relying on what the stories say. We need to turn away from the focus on fiction and instead think of these subjects as productions, publications, broadcasts, plays, copyrighted characters, and so forth. That's the first step to determining how to establish notability and whether or not articles need to be merged. There's an old maxim that "Every character is someone's favorite". Well, that may be, but not every character is notable. That's just a fact. Sometimes they are a prop to service a larger production and thus only need to be discussed as part of that larger work. Same with TV show episodes; a TV show may be notable, but that doesn't mean that each episode is. If a TV show episode is going to have its own article, it needs its own notability established. An example I can offer is the Nirvana album Nevermind, which I have worked on for over two years. The album is certainly notable, but that doesn't mean every individual song on the record is. The song that have articles meet the GNG, while those that don't fail the GNG or simply have too little written about them to warrant separate articles that will never expand beyond stubs. Thus we aren't afraid to merge articles or turn them into redirects based on what is available published by reliable secondary sources. This attitude may be hard for some to accept, but ultimately our goal on Wikipedia is to provide a compnedium of documented information and knowledge, not to give you plot synopses of TV series episodes you missed.

This is a bit rambling, but basically my opinion is: I agree with Hiding's current essay draft aside from the lack of clarity on specific fiction-related notability guidelines; any fiction-notability guideline can only clarify, not supercede, the general notability guideline, and we need to stop acting like that isn't so; we need to combat institutionalized perceptions about fiction articles (particularly emphasis on story details and primary sources); and we need to look at high-quality fiction-related articles, and even article in other topic areas, for a way forward. Who here works solely on fiction-related articles, and has never worked in another subject area on Wikipedia? Because you can learn a lot about greta article-writing by doing that. Let me tell you, the longer I hone my editing skills in other subject areas of Wikipedia, the more disappointed I am when I come to work on a fiction-related article about a bit character from a comic book series that relies solely on in-line citations from the comic books the character appeared in. Because if made an article that relied primarily on primary soruces for any other subject area, I'd be rightly called out on it and prompted by others to find secondary sources to establish notability and provide an accurate scholary overview of the topic. WesleyDodds (talk) 08:18, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Users Against:

1. We've had an RFC which has already shown that the community accepts that subject specific guidance can extend the scope of the GNG, indeed that's how WP:MUSIC, for example, works. The GNG also makes this quite clear when it states: A topic can also be considered notable if it meets the criteria outlined in one of the more subject-specific guidelines. I can't therefore agree with Wesley, and find his view contradictory. If his view is that we should respect the GNG, then that means we accept that subject specific guidance allows alternative routes. Stating the opposite flat out contradicts the GNG that Wesley states has to be followed. I don't believe Wesley's view is supported by either consensus or current guidance. Hiding T 10:05, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

   Fair enough, but I doubt this apparoach will result in better articles, which is my consideration. The overreliance on primary sources needs to stop, and I'd like to hear what you think about that point. WesleyDodds (talk) 10:25, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

   There's a limit to how far primary sources can carry us, but I think we have different opinions on where the line should be drawn. I've never been overly bothered about what we have articles on, more that the articles themselves are well written, reflect their sources, give due weight and respect the law. I think Wikipedia has a wonderful opportunity to add depth to the encyclopedia tradition, I'd hate to see us boxed in by limitations that need not actually apply. There's a staggering opportunity here to redefine what an encyclopedic resource actually consists off. We just have to make sure we don't drop the ball. Hiding T 10:32, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

   One problem I'm worried about is relying on fictional components (ie. story context) to establish notability. To me, this would not be a positive and would only promote plot-only and plot-heavy articles with no real-world context. To paraphrase a certain miserable Englishman, what do those types of articles have to do with peoples' lives? The grounding would be based on a fiction and not real-world context. Basing something's importance on what happens in a story does help me learn anything I couldn't get from reading/watching the story in the first place. Also, an approach relying on the primary source itself to establish importance is very insular; it favors people already invested in the topic, and is not accomodating to the general reader. WesleyDodds (talk) 10:44, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

We do not need a fiction notability guidelines

What the subject says. There is no need for a separate fiction notability guideline, as I cannot see how one could be crafted that would complement the GNG and not be prone to reliance on primary sources, given the general tenor of conversation regarding these types of articles. Basically, in my view a fiction guideline cannot be satisfactorily crafted that would result in the creation of better articles; instead, the tendency would be to institutionalize unproductive attitudes and approaches to fiction articles (ie. making separate articles for every episode in a TV series, even if not every episode is covered by secondary sources). Better to rely on the GNG and specific topic guidelines (films, television, comics, etc.) which make an effort to consider the non-fictional aspects of the topics. WesleyDodds (talk) 10:36, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Merging is good, mmkay?

Not everything needs its own article, but it might be an essential component of a larger fiction topic. Instead of letting it sit and fester, and before jumping into the AFD tiger pit, be bold and merge fiction articles without notability established into larger topics when applicable. You can always split off an article again when you find sufficient secondary sources. WesleyDodds (talk) 10:50, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

View and question from Protonk

Just a question right now, perhaps to return with a view later. Are outcomes important? We have the old saw that policies describe consensus, but that gets tautological real quick. We don't exactly just record all outcomes from current events and then derive a principle based on them. However, our past debates on fiction have been influenced by (sometimes) anecdotal statements that "articles with no context get deleted" or "articles which are central to a work get at least merged".

For a while in May I was working on Randomran's list of project VG outcomes at AfD, User:Randomran/VGAFD. The list was constructed by digging through each day of XfD discussions for VG related articles and recording their outcomes (including an implicit record of the eventual outcome through an article link) on the page. I had hoped that we could take the data and come to some general conclusions with it, at least about broad categories of articles. As you can see, work on the page has stopped, for various reasons--chief among them that I was worried it would all be for nothing (You can help! Post on my talk page for some ideas on what can/should be done to complete the dataset). I'm trying to test the waters at this RfC about continuing the 'project'.

Is this something that would sway the debate if the data pointed toward particularly strong habits in practice? Would deletionists (forgive the broad characterizations) agree to broaden standards in writing if we showed that standards were broad in practice? Would inclusionists (again, generalizing for argument's sake) agree to narrower standards if we showed that standards were narrow in practice? Or would people be uninterested in the results?

Sign in under support if you think it is worth finishing and analyzing. Sign in under oppose if you think it isn't worth the bother. Please make a comment if you want to, we can have a healthy discussion here without kicking things back to the talk page.

Support of this view

1. I'm supportive. I think I could bring myself to view the situation differently if I had a clear sign of what kind of outcomes we had in practice. Protonk (talk) 03:03, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
2. I'm supportive as I've been struggling with what phrases such as "significant coverage", "address the subject directly in detail", and "no original research" mean to editors and the general public and if there's consensus on the definitions. --Marc Kupper|talk 09:42, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Opposition to this view

General comments

Views from Jclemens

I think the previous "real world impact" criteria are fine, if properly construed. My thoughts on notability of fictional topics are at User:Jclemens/FICT, but in a nutshell they are that independent primary sources (e.g. commercial derivatives) adequately demonstrate notability. Jclemens (talk) 02:37, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Support of this view

1. as proposer. Jclemens (talk) 02:37, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Opposition to this view

General comments

Proposals

Proposal #1 by Hiding

Essay drafted at Wikipedia:Notability and fiction

Given that I believe no consensus exists, I propose, that rather than attempt to create a guideline which details how notability affects fictional topics, we instead write a brief essay explaining the current situation. The essay would point editors to Wikipedia:Notability, and note that where an article does not meet that standard, they should consider merging the information to a suitable article otherwise the article may become a candidate for deletion. The essay would then explain that articles are not always deleted because of Wikipedia:Notability. The essay would give reasons why a consensus may emerge for an article to be kept. Namely that the article:

• is written to an encyclopedic standard or could be rewritten to such a standard;
• complies with Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view;
• is part of a cluster of articles discussing an overall topic;
• contains sources other than the work itself or such sources can be found and are added;
• would otherwise exist on Wikipedia as a section of an article which has reached the optimal size;

Users who endorse this proposal

1. Hiding T 10:53, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
2. Sounds good. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 13:38, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
3. Masem - following from my view above but not requiring a new proposal. --MASEM (t) 14:43, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
4. per above — Ched :  ?  23:03, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
5. Quite reasonable. --Cybercobra (talk) 02:26, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
6. Conditionally - with the added bullet point of "[the article] must be demonstrated to have significant real-world impact, above and beyond merely being a part of a widely-watched fictional universe". This would hopefully keep the rules-lawyers from continually insisting that twenty mentions of "<show>, set in fictional <placename, worldplace> (a locale full of <fictional byproduct>)" legitmizes the inclusion of lengthy in-universe articles on <placename, worldplace>. Badger Drink (talk) 02:52, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
7. I doubt it will bring any relief, but essays don't hurt either. Let's see. NVO (talk) 20:22, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
8. I'm suprised nobody's done this yet. ThemFromSpace 01:30, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
9. Although I think 'sources other than the work itself' will continue to give grief.Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:37, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
10. With the exception of point four. For example, under that rule we could not have an article on Thrawn. It is a good quality article on a subject which is certainly notable, but because the cited sources are all Lucas-licensed books, it would not meet this proposal. Cynical (talk) 00:56, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
11. Might as well try it. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 21:01, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
12. -- Ned Scott 06:42, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
13. Looks good to me - hard to argue against an informative essay. Locke9k (talk) 20:59, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
14. Probably is the best we can get consensus for at the moment. It should be explained that any of the 5 reasons is sufficient, or at the very least, that only a balance of them might need to be satisified. DGG (talk) 02:38, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
15. Probably a better proposal than mine really. Hobit (talk) 17:04, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
16. Pragmatic solution for the time being. Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:19, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
17. I'd like to see that essay. Asgardian (talk) 05:04, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
18. --KrebMarkt 16:23, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Proposal #2 by Hiding

A second proposal is to use a form of mediation to work towards a guideline. Roughly, all interested parties would participate in a discussion which would be moderated by a mediator or mediators. The mediators would be there to facilitate a consensus rather than impose one, keeping the discussion focussed on areas of agreement rather than of disagreement, likely through the use of time-bound discussion. Current debate on Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) has produced no guideline of lasting value in two years of attempts. Although this is likely due to a clear lack of consensus, it is possible it may be due to other reasons. A mediated discussion, which would ideally last six weeks, would at leats give a good faith attempt to creating a consensus or declaring a lack of one. This proposal may be rendered irrelevant depending on the outcome of this RFC.

Users who endorse this proposal

1. Hiding T 10:53, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
2. — Ched :  ?  00:19, 6 June 2009 (UTC) Sounds reasonable - poke me on my talk page if it happens
3. I would support this (though full for full disclosure I prefer my proposal).陣内_Jinnai 00:33, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Users who oppose this proposal

1. I'd recommend leaving it for several months. I am pessimistic until overall referencing improves across the 'pedia and we can better see the lay of the land. This will require too much time and effort to be significantly superior to the naturalistic path for the time being (sorry). Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:24, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
2. Casliber just made an important point - we should be improving articles rather than fighting turf-wars over content criteria. --Philcha (talk) 07:50, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Proposal #3 by Jinnai

My proposal is two parts. First it is to allow for a multitude of minor (not trivial) direct references for elements to qualify as an alternative for a minimum for elements. This is because most contemporary works of fiction that have reviews on them will only review the work itself. Any mention of any character will be at most, in all but a few rare cases, a paragraph long. At the same time we need to define what is considered a trivial element to the work and anything trivial, even if it has exhaustive scholarly work should not have its own separate page and possibly even section. For me, removal of it will not affect most readers interested in the work as a whole. Mentioning such elements, even if they have scholarly review does not go along with the spirit of WP:WAF#Accuracy and appropriate weight.

Users who endorse this proposal

1. Since I proposed it...陣内_Jinnai 21:04, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
2. I agree with what you are saying, but don't think it will help unless we also agree to break FICT apart, as it only really deals with elements in written works where the main secondary source is reviews.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:40, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
3. Hiding T 11:51, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
4. Agree, and we should also look at similar cases in other subject areas - I had a major battle to support the notability of 4X (now an FA!), becuase video game journalists spend their time reviewing individual games and take concepts and genres for granted. --Philcha (talk) 07:53, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Proposal #4 by User:Phil Sandifer

At this point I do not believe that any community-wide consensus exists on the matter of fiction and notability. I do believe, however, that strong consensus exists for certain policies on what fiction articles aren't - a minimum threshold. Some people advocate more restrictions on top of these, others do not.

I have an active proposal at Wikipedia:Fiction that seeks to codify clear rules on fiction articles. This proposal is *not* a notability guideline, and it carefully avoids precluding or endorsing a future notability guideline that could exist alongside it. It sets some restrictions, independent of other proposals.

I would advocate passing it, as I think it sets restrictions we do basically all agree on, and letting fiction notability sit for a few months. Those who want to clean up our fiction articles should find sufficient ammunition in Wikipedia:Fiction to make plenty of progress with it, and once that is done I suspect that it will be clearer what sort of additional policies we may need.

Users who endorse this proposal

1. Phil Sandifer (talk) 18:41, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
2. Nifboy (talk) 22:48, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
3. As having been helping with WP:Fiction I think with some more tweaking it could pass as a content policy, but it still leaves the problem of notability to deal with.陣内_Jinnai 05:36, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
4. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:13, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
   1. At least we can reach a consensus on the content. If we manage to write a policy for on the content, that policy should be named WP:FictionContent to make it clear that it can't be used to resolve Notability issues. --KrebMarkt 06:43, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
5. Hiding T 11:50, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
6. -- Ned Scott 06:44, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
7. this can also be incorporated into the essay proposed by Hiding. DGG (talk) 02:53, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Users who oppose this proposal

1. Looks like a WP:FORK of the notability (fiction) page to me, not about to support forking to get around this issues. I had no idea he'd been off cooking up his own page, while the rest of us argued the problem over at Notability (Fiction). ThuranX (talk) 11:36, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
   • In what sense, exactly, is it a fork, given that it is in fact not a notability proposal at all? By that lax a standard, the entire notability (fiction) discussion should be cut off as a fork of WAF. Phil Sandifer (talk) 13:11, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
2. Agree with ThuranX, its a fork from Wikipedia:Notability (fiction). It is not a content policy, because it does not contain a new policy per se; it is a set of article inclusion criteria in all but name. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 09:03, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

It is no more a set of inclusion criteria than NPOV. I mean, it sets up things that articles are not allowed to do, yes. But it does not try to rigorously define a class of articles that are permitted - rather it defines a class that are forbidden. That is a key difference. Phil Sandifer (talk) 12:19, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Question

If it's not a guideline proposal - I'm not sure what there is to pass"? I'm not trying to be smart, I'm just not clear on what is being proposed here. — Ched :  ?  09:28, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

WP:Fiction is a proposal for content policy dealing with fiction articles in general.陣内_Jinnai 21:25, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Proposal #5 by Pixelface

I propose a survey, which is one of the recommended steps in the dispute resolution policy. My idea isn't new; I proposed the same idea 8 months ago (at Wikipedia talk:Notability (fiction)), and asked a sitting arbitrator about the idea but received no response at the time. I have my own opinions about where it should take place, the participants, and which questions should be asked. I think a survey would be the best way forward.

The survey could be located at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Fiction Survey 2009, or Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Fiction Survey 2009, or maybe even off-site like Wikipedia:Survey 2008, or users could create a subpage in their userspace (like Special:Mypage/Fiction Survey 2009) and answer the questions there, similar to how a past survey was conducted. I think the user subpage option would eliminate unnecessary conflict, so I favor that option. Although, an off-site survey could also gauge reader opinion, but there could be some drawbacks to an off-site survey. A template could be created (and later protected), perhaps Template:Fiction Survey 2009, containing the final questions, and users could then substitute the template on their subpage and then answer it. The template could also place the survey subpages into a category.

I would like to see as much participation as possible. These sort of discussions really need new blood. Over 158,000 users have made at least one edit in the past month.[1] Wikipedia currently has 2,904,822 articles.[2] As of April 16, 2009, Category:Fiction had 1,071,665 articles under it [3] — 36.9% of Wikipedia's articles. Personally, I would like to see a lot of input from Wikipedia's most prolific article creators. According to this page, as of April 30, 2009, the top 5,000 article creators had created 1,679,835 articles — 57.8% of Wikipedia's articles. I think a timeframe of three months (or even six months) for the survey would be okay.

Wikipedia:Advertising discussions could be followed to get the word out. I even think that talkpage notices to all users have who have edited in the past month (or only those with a certain number of edits) would not be unreasonable. Maybe random users could be contacted. A quick and dirty way of doing that is to click Special:Random and then notify the last editor who edited the article. Or maybe a bot could do the notifying.

I think the most important thing is the questions the survey asks. A draft of a fiction survey has been in my userspace since October. This is the current version, and does not mention notability. Here is a previous version that does mention notability. I suppose the most basic question could be "What are your thoughts about fiction on Wikipedia?" or "Do you think there is a problem regarding fiction on Wikipedia?" Final questions could be hashed out at Template:Fiction Survey 2009 (or editors could write survey questions in their userspace which could then be compared and contrasted). I suppose questions could even be decided upon here, although I would like to avoid the survey developing like Wikipedia:Notability/RFC:compromise did.

All survey participants could also be encouraged to write their own essays regarding fiction in their userspace. As to evaluating the survey, maybe 9 random admins could do it. I also think that a sitewide survey on Wikipedia:Notability itself would be beneficial, and I'm unaware of any previous attempts to do one. --Pixelface (talk) 20:44, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Users who endorse this proposal

1. Pixelface (talk) 20:44, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
2. Okay, as I do not see how it would hurt. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 13:02, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
3. The disussions about fiction have been dominated by a few stubborn adherents of opposing positions. Time for a reality check. --Philcha (talk) 07:58, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Proposal #6 by Elen of the Roads

Since a great deal of AfD debate centres around spinout articles, I propose that we revisit the view that notability is not inherited, with a view to establishing whether or not there is a consensus that where a series of fictional works does have very well established notability, a cluster of lead and spinout articles on the series may share that notability, rather than having to establish a separate notability for themselves. Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:56, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Users who endorse this proposal

1. Endorse as notability is indeed inherited in many cases, such as those listed at User:A_Nobody/Inclusion_guidelines#Table_of_notable_fictional_universes. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 13:00, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
2. endorse It may be time to revisit this issue. JoshuaZ (talk) 15:27, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
3. endorse I have always thought at least one-down heritability was feasible. Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:26, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Users who are firmly opposed to this proposal

1. I like it as an idea, but it clearly does not adhere to consensus. Phil Sandifer (talk) 18:49, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
2. It's generally established that the multitude of no-name one-shot works out there (which are notable) don't get multiple articles. Attempting to codify another tier of notability above the current GNG, where multiple articles are allowed, is only going to end in tears. It's why we got rid of the old-old N(FICT) that said "major characters get articles"; it was impossible to agree on criteria for "major" because it implied the importance of both character and series. Nifboy (talk) 04:21, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
3. No. Good gravy, no. Heritable notability would obliterate any chance at not having an article per pokemon, to go back to an oldie but goodie. ThuranX (talk) 11:34, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
4. The details would be impossible to work out in practice. In theory this is against the notion of having a discriminate encyclopedia with standards of inclusion. We aren't Everything2. ThemFromSpace 15:58, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
5. Since notability requires verifiable evidence, it can't be inherited. You can't use evidence that shows one topic is notable, and use it to say all topics are notable. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 09:11, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
6. Absolutely do not agree. flies in the face of Wiki consensus in all other topic areas. WesleyDodds (talk) 10:11, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
7. Absolutely not. Protonk (talk) 03:23, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Discussion

• In response to Phil Sandifer above, I wonder if consensus is changing. Compare the responses here to the response here. I know one AfD may not be much to go on, but I believe it is characteristic of discussions going on at the moment.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:12, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
• To Nifboy - what I would suggest is that rather than trying to identify 'major' characters, we use something similar to undue weight to determine whether a character requires an article or just a mention in a list. Of course, that could lead to ThuranX's nightmare of an article per Pokemon.....Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:13, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
  • I'm fairly convinced the "due weight" road leads directly to our current WP:N: Determining due weight based on the work alone would be original research. Therefore we ought to write based on third-party sources, which puts us exactly where we are right now at the GNG. I'm not sure how you can lower the bar any further without running into that basic policy issue. Nifboy (talk) 23:29, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Why would an article per Pokemon be a "nightmare"? How would 493 articles for each Pokemon (which Wikipedia used to have) be worse than the 25 lists Wikipedia currently has? --Pixelface (talk) 21:32, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Ask ThuranX. It's his nightmare.Elen of the Roads (talk) 09:40, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

• In response to Gavin Collins, that is not what I have said. What I have said is that if Lord of the Rings is notable, then the articles that properly split out from it should take their notability from it. As I believe Pixelface is fond of saying, Wikipedia is not paper, and one could argue that thinking of articles on Gollum, Goldberry etc as if they are separate from Lord of the Rings is a result of thinking on paper. If one thinks in cyberspace, one could argue that the head and spinouts in fact form one three-dimensional article, for which only one assertion of notability is required.Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:03, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
• I'd vote "oppose" if that section were re-titled "Users who are firmly opposed to this proposal" - "firmly" looks like the Russell conjugation of "intransigent". If that's fixed - I never I thought I'd even half agree w ThuranX :-) --Philcha (talk) 08:03, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Proposal #7 by Hobit

Let's just fall back to WP:N and delete WP:FICT. I see no real chance, without mediation, that a real proposal will come forward that has a chance at consensus. We drop all this "real world" stuff (which isn't part of WP:N and shouldn't be part of NOT#PLOT per the RfC), thus allowing reviews and third-party books on fiction topics (such as biographies of the author) to count as the reliable sources that they are.

Users who endorse this proposal

1. Hobit (talk) 18:39, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
2. As long as writing about Dragonball 7 as if it is real continues to be frowned upon, I fail to see why author interviews and Dr Who annuals should not be reliable sources--Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:34, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
3. I am at least sympathetic, though to my mind we do not need to drop the real-world stuff - reviews and the like *are* real-world content, and real-world content is a fundamental part of WP:WAF. Phil Sandifer (talk) 00:05, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
4. Agree with Phil. Hiding T 11:52, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
5. When more people play WoW or watch the latest Star Trek movie than know or care about many clearly real and notable topics, it's clear that "Real world" impact shouldn't necessarily be junked, but it might need to be turned on its head: Harry Potter has more real-world impact than Fermat's Last Theorem, academic snobbery aside. Jclemens (talk) 07:46, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

   An interesting example, as Fermat was known for producing mathematical games for colleagues to puzzle over. Fermat's last theorem might be little more than a curiosity, but other works of his (namely fermat's little theorem) are substantially more important than harry potter. Protonk (talk) 03:29, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

6. Agree - especially w Jclemens' comment about academic snobbery. --Philcha (talk) 08:05, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
7. Agree. The GNG seems like the best way to settle notability for fiction-related topics. WesleyDodds (talk) 11:00, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
8. Yes, but we should delete "notability" altogether. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 23:04, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
9. I think we have, but I agree. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 03:33, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Proposal #8 by Masem

Combination of two of the above:

• Step 1: We leave FICT as a simple essay per Hiding's proposal: "Use WP:N with common sense at AFD" or something simple, simply because what's occurring now is not tipping the balance and thus best to leave it untouched.
• Step 2: Start a survey in a manner as suggested by Pixelface, but with questions designed to address the extent of coverage of fiction on WP. Instead of asking about "should we have articles on recurring characters" or the like, the questions we should be asking need to be more holistic, such as "To what extent should primary sources be used for fiction?" "To what depth should fiction be covered?" and the like - with a fundamental assumption that we're bounded only by WP's goals and not by existing policies. Let's establish the how first, and then come back and decide if its necessary to build up fiction element notability guidelines or if we're ok with what we have. As this survey potentially has the effect of altering policies including WP:V, and WP:NOT, this needs to be a community wide input, and we may be limited if there's strong resistance in site-wide policies to such change, possibly requiring different followup surveys and/or RFCs. --MASEM (t) 23:05, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Users who endorse this proposal

1. — Ched :  ?  09:21, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
2. Hiding T 11:53, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
3. I think this is what will ultimately happen. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 21:06, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
4. I'll buy that --Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:29, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
5. I would not oppose this, and I can see were it might help. -- Ned Scott 06:47, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
6. Weak support - I have to see those questions first and I do have some qualms with WP:FICT now, even as an essay.陣内_Jinnai 16:53, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
7. feasible. Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:33, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
8. Since I supported the separate parts of this, I guess I should be consistent and support the combination. --Philcha (talk) 08:06, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Proposal #9: Adopt Wikipedia:Notability (fiction)

A new version of Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) has been proposed.

Users who endorse this proposal

• Comment: Although I had a small hand in writing this, I'm inclined upon due reflection to think that WP:N is sufficient. The reference to WP:FICT should be removed from WP:BK, and WP:FICT should become an essay unless there is consensus over any exceptions or lower standards to WP:N that may apply in certain circumstances (eg to lists, episodes, characters etc)--Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:47, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Users who oppose this proposal

1. It's mainly because of the "Role within the fictional work" part. If you simply changed "The element must be an important element, and its importance must be verifiable" to "The element must be an important element, and its importance must be verifiable by secondary sources", I would be inclined to support it. Even then, I don't see what sets this apart from the general notability guideline. WesleyDodds (talk) 10:59, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Proposal #10: Adopt Inclusion guidelines

Eliminate elitist and subjective terminology like "notability" altogether and instead adopt Inclusion guidelines as the basis for inclusion.

Users who endorse this proposal

1. Strong support as proposer. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 21:56, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Discussion

• Perhaps this is only my own isolated view (or views), but I think that one item that isn't being stated outright is this: The "Fiction" topic, and the guideline discussions, have been a bone of contention for some time now. I think that as some point, some people may feel that "Why should I bother working in this area when the rules are in such a state of flux, that my work may end up getting deleted". I know there are a core group of individuals who have, and are, working very hard to resolved these issues, and I don't have the answer. I do think however, that the lack of resolution to this has hamstrung large portions of the fictional topics. I believe we lose a lot of quality contributions to the project because people feel frustrated at the write-delete-DRV-rewrite process, and an ongoing lack of cohesion in what is and is not acceptable to an encyclopedic project. As alluded to in many statements above, I think first and foremost we need to decide 1.) Will fiction be treated as a part of current policy and guidelines?, or 2.) Should we separate fact and fiction and have a few items that may not always coincide? Many libraries, book stores, and academic venues will clearly divide fiction and non-fiction. Should we be looking in that direction? As always IMHO — Ched :  ?  09:21, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

• I've pretty much stopped editing fiction topics because I have no clear idea what will stick. I want to get a clear idea of what will stick before I resume editing. Hiding T 17:39, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
• Actually, there's a separate cycle: AfD asserting non notability, much contention, inclusion of sources which existed all along, and then a coin toss for actual AfD outcome. That actually gives me a couple of ideas:
  1. Make WP:BEFORE mandatory for fiction articles, with penalties for editors who are found to have misrepresented their findings or conducted a search for sourcing in a grossly incompetent manner.
  2. Make merge the default outcome for any fictional topic for which even one editor is able to articulate an appropriate merge target.
• Either or both of these should calm fiction AfD's down a bit. Jclemens (talk) 07:52, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I would support this as long as a merge !vote and closure actually meant anything beyond "keep". How many pages still exist with the "AfD consensus was merge" template in place months after closing? And how many times do AfDs without a single keep get kept because "anything opther than delete is keep"?YobMod 15:05, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

• I can attest that the D&D project has lost a great many members almost certainly due to having the notability debate shoved in our faces in a most unpleasant manner. In fact, it's still almost like pulling teeth to get any of them to come back even momentarily, although we have a slow but steady stream of new contributors to the project. Aggresively alienating people is a good way to end collaboration and shut things down. BOZ (talk) 12:21, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I think the best way forward is to stop thinking of these items as "fiction". People get too wrapped up in the fictional details, often to the detriment of secondary sources. Simply put, if you think of a film or a television show episode in terms of a production, or novels and comic books as publications instead of simply stories, then it's easier contextualize them in the face of the notability guidelines. Above all, what needs to happens is we need to stop overrelying on primary sources. This is the biggest problem facing fiction-related articles on Wikipedia, as too many people are more interested in charting chararcter minutae instead of trying to explain to the general reader why they should care in the first place. WesleyDodds (talk) 03:21, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

That would be fine if said sources existed. The best we can do for now (and I certainly try) is to write succinct, sourced, out of universe narratives. If everything had to be third party and relevant in some real world way, then there would be no comic articles, the reason why every attempt at merges or deletes is voted down. This is an area with a considerable amount of grey, and there at present is no way of quantifying and cataloguing it all. Asgardian (talk) 03:34, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

If there are no such sources, then the subject is not notable. It's that simple. Mind you, there are quite a few notable fictional articles (hell, I found three books alone on The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari at my local library), but not every thing is notable and we shouldn't give anything that isn't notable a free pass. WesleyDodds (talk) 03:52, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

That would mean wiping almost all the comic articles, which is impractical. Again, every attempt at merges and deletes of notable characters fails for this reason. The notability argument just doesn't seem to apply with the characters. Beyond Batman and Superman there's very little third-party literature out there, which is not grounds for removal. An exception must be made here. Asgardian (talk) 03:57, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

"That would mean wiping almost all the comic articles". If they're not notable, then they don't belong on Wikipedia. That's the point of the general notability guideline. However, in many instance people aren't looking hard enough for sources. Hell, I can find scholary secondary sources on Mister Atom, because he's actually worth discussing in the context of the Nuclear Age in fiction. There's no reason any exceptions should be made. WesleyDodds (talk) 04:27, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

You may think that, but the road tested RfD's almost always say otherwise. The best that we seem to able to do for now is to improve the articles. Asgardian (talk) 04:44, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Notability says otherwise. WesleyDodds (talk) 04:57, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

And policies and guidelines are based on practices and consensus. They are driven from the bottom up, not top down model you seem to be implying. That is policy. That said, deletion discussions are not the only thing we should be using to base it on, but it should not be ignored (as some would have it) simply because guidelines/policy say otherwise because that would violate one of the 5 founding pillars of Wikipedia. That it has been is and has been has been the argument of those seeking to enforce the GNG (or more stricter version) despite evidence to the contrary. I'm not saying others haven't used arguments to remove notability, but they are usually almost always the ones who end up ceding as the other side has been unwilling to cede to any compromises and trying to violate the 5th pillar by denying what happens at AfDs as "consensus" and attempting to hammer out any proposal that would meet people half way. WP:N is not universaly accepted in its current form so anyone claiming that it has consensus is on shaky ground to begin with.

The biggest problem I see it is with the GNG requiring "signifigant" coverage which is where for fictional elements it has a problem.陣内_Jinnai 21:59, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

A grey guideline under discussion above. Once again, the RfD's paint a different picture. Try proposing the deletion of well-known character and guage the reaction. Notability is a loose concept here. Asgardian (talk) 10:20, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

No it isn't. The real issue is people commenting at AFDs who don't fully understand the GNG. I've seen it in countless AFDs. That's why you have some many fiction articles being kept that are not notable. WesleyDodds (talk) 07:32, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

The GNG does not have clear consensus, especially for fiction. 2 recent surveys and a recently failed FICT proposal (on top of the 2 arbcom decisions) show otherwise. In such cases where consensus isn't clear, there is justifiable reason (along with IAR) to ignore in in various cases.陣内_Jinnai 07:13, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

That view is not giving editors much credit. I think you may need to read the comments made by others above. Given the fact that there is no consensus, you may have to accept that many of the articles are here to stay. What will help in the short term is tidying them up: out of universe perspective; accurate sources and only relevant information. Asgardian (talk) 08:30, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Comic characters are more notable than some might think. Two things have prevented the articles from showing this.

First, a lot of the sources are in books that aren't searchable by google books. I checked out the book The Comic Book Heroes: From the Silver Age to the Present for when I was working on Silver Age of Comic Books. It had a paragraph or more for about 100-200 characters. You can't search it, though, so the only way to use it would be to read it and add refs to each character article as you go. Otherwise it has no effect on notability or AfD.

Second, there's no need. People don't want them deleted or merged, even though most are aware of the GNG and other rules. I've been doing WP for years, and I wouldn't ever vote delete on a comic character. Inclusionists and deletionists are about half and half, so just throw in a few newbie fans, and it's an overwhelming keep.

The situation was similar for TV episode articles a 2-3 years ago. There was no need to add sources, then User:TTN came along and redirected a bunch of them with overwhelming force (arbcom has since put a stop to this method, and a lot of the stuff he tried to get rid of has since been shown notable). I think TTN actually forced a lot of the improvement of those types of episode articles. Some TV shows are going to have every episode as a GA pretty soon. Even though I'm an inclusionist, and I fight the AfDs a lot, there's a symbiotic relationship with the deletionists that can lead to some very nice articles. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 16:19, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

So, in some ways, deletionists are a necessary evil?  ;) If I could get a copy of the book you mention, man I've love to make use of it! BOZ (talk) 16:28, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I had to go to the library, and then wait for it to be brought in from another branch. Not something one wants to deal with in the middle of an AfD. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 16:32, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Results of poll so far

Summarizing the results of the polling as of the time of writing (Note WP:POLLING applies): --Cybercobra (talk) 07:16, 9 June 2009 (UTC) Updated data as of timestamp --Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:20, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

• 20 For: View of User:Hiding: The community is divided
• 13 For: Proposal #1 by User:Hiding: Have an WP:ESSAY about frequent fiction deletion reasons
• 11 For: View of User:Hiding: Use general principles of existing core policies WP:V, WP:NOR, and WP:NPOV
• 8 For: View of User:Drilnoth: WP:FICT overreaches, sub-guidelines are needed
• 7 For: View of User:Jinnai: Criteria different from the WP:GNG are needed
• 7 For: View of User:Masem: Make WP:FICT an WP:ESSAY and use the WP:GNG; (similar to Proposal #1 by User:Hiding)
• 5 For: View "Lacking notability" of User:Drilnoth Better to merge than delete
• 7 For, 2 Against: Proposal #4 by User:Phil Sandifer: Pass his proposal that's not about notability, and then leave WP:FICT to sit for a while
• 5 For: Proposal #8 by User:Masem Combine #1 and #5
• 5 Against, 1 For: Proposal #6 by User:Elen of the Roads: Notability of topic extends to cover spinout articles.

• I'm not summarizing the others due to low vote count

• 4 For: Proposal #7 by User:Hobit
• 4 For: View of User:SmokeyJoe
• 3 For: Proposal #2 by User:Hiding
• 3 For: View of User:Elen of the Roads
• 3 For: Proposal #3 by User:Jinnai
• 2 For: Proposal #5 by User:Pixelface

See Also

The creators of some proposals have created pages that are included as part of their proposal. Interested editors are encouraged to participate in the construction of these pages.

• Wikipedia:Notability and fiction from Proposal #1
• Wikipedia:Fiction from Proposal #4
• User:A Nobody/Inclusion guidelines from Proposal #10

Summary of the debate

This RFC has established that the community is divided on the treatment of fiction and that this divide centres on both the amount of coverage Wikipedia should provide on a fictional topic and whether articles split from a parent article (per Wikipedia:Summary style) should be seen as part of the overarching topic, or as a seperate article. This RFC has furthermore established that content should be verifiable, not contain original research and present information from a neutral point of view. There is consensus per this RFC that an essay be written to explain this situation and to provide appropriate advice (See Proposal 1 above). It was also proposed to follow this up with a survey to attain the extent of coverage of fiction on Wikipedia.

There are views that WP:FICT might be trying to do to much; and that different guidelines might be required for different elements (i.e. modern vs. classical, episodes vs. characters vs. locations; etc.). Proposals to fall back to using WP:N and to either delete WP:FICT, or to leave it as an essay did not attain wide consensus in the RFC.

A proposal to revisit the issue of "inherited notability" was rejected. Two proposals to adopt WF:FICT and/or Inclusion guidelines did not attain support per this RFC. Another proposal towards the formation of a mediation to work towards a single guideline has been rejected as being premature at this stage.

— G.A.S^talk 09:38, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.