Wikipedia talk:Notability (fiction)/Archive 9

And things could have just gotten a lot worse...

Slashdot has an article about webcomic authors feeling burned by WP because their works fail WP's notability guidelines.

I've put in a request to protect WP:N, WP:FICT, and WP:WAF while the article's active. --MASEM 14:10, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I think the piece at Slashdot has more than a little point to it, myself. Abb3w 21:13, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. Deleting articles is fun, in the same way bloodsports are fun. It's a buzz, but it robs you of objectivity. There are also bias issues, where fancruft backed by powerful wikiprojects and admins survives, whilst 'weaker' (though equivalently notable) fancruft is eliminated.

That said, I don't have much sympathy for the webcomic fans. Most of them are just the online equivalent of a garage band.--Nydas^(Talk) 21:33, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

It's the first year I won't donate a cent to wikipedia, and have limited my contributios to this rant here. Precisely because of the same reasons: twisted ideas that wikipedia should be a copy of Britannica and limit itself to "notable real world" content that has been written about somewhere. A waste of taxpayers money IMHO and it is killing what I came to love as Wikipedia. Renmiri 02:58, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I even made a wiki at wikia to hold articles pushed out of here by this newly found hate for fiction. Renmiri 02:58, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Any Wikipedian that feels their fiction article is being trimmed beyond recognition is welcome to save a copy at the Annex where it will stay safe from deletionists Renmiri 03:02, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure how welcome you're going to feel if you go around painting us as evil deletionists. Believe it or not, we're fans of fiction, we're comic book nerds and anime fans and sci-fi geeks. We love our novels and our character development, and all the insane little details that go with it. But that doesn't mean Wikipedia is the best place to document the plot of all these things. If anything, we do these works of fiction a great disservice trying to emulate the story itself. Regardless, there's no need to take it personally, to take it emotionally, that Wikipedia is not the place for these things. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that is grounded in the real world, and that's one of the things that keep it from becoming the chaotic mess that it could have become (what with thousands of strangers every day contributing, following an ever changing set of rules, with tons of different ideas).

Britannica will never have the awesome coverage that we have, even in fiction articles. Just because we want to limit the extreme coverage of fictional topics does not mean we exclude them all together. That being said, we are trying to avoid flat out deletion, because we do see some value in these articles. I myself am currently restarting a Wikia, where I will have to transwiki about 1,100 articles, with full article histories. Just the other day I told a Wikia wiki about an AfD, where they imported the article. We'll be doing things like that more and more, so that we can have the best of both worlds. I'm sorry to burst your image of the big bad deletionists, but I love fiction too much to let someone accuse us of hating it. -- Ned Scott 03:21, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Ned, I have personally written a large part of 3 FA class articles and have been part of a team thath has gone from ZERO to 9 FAs and dozens of GAs. I know what I'm talking about when I say this place is hard to recognize lately. Fiction and new media here has been treated like garbage by people who have yet to author a single article yet get to be powerful by bullying dissenters. A pity and a bad use of public money. Renmiri 04:19, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

The supreme irony is that I used to be a mergist and fight newbies attempts to make Wikipedia a game walktrough, using the same arguments you raise now. But I never used the methods being used nowadays. This used to be a friendly environment now it is downright hostile to anyone trying to add new media content. I fail to see the benefit of chasing away dedicated editors, but hey, what the hell do I know ? All I know is that I donated $1 to wikipedia, as someone suggested on slashdot. You donate and get to add a comment like "I refuse to fund the deletion of articles". This way at least my conscience feels at ease Renmiri 04:30, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'm one of the editors that supports the idea that not everything needs to have an article, and that we aren't here to rehash plots. I tend to agree with just about all that's on this page, and do not think we need to be "more lenient" with its application. Just because we seem to be spouting accomplishments, I too have written FA articles. I've written 2 all by my lonesome, another with just one other editor, and brought many others in GA status as well. They were all fiction related articles (see Jason Voorhees, Pilot (Smallville), Aquaman (TV program), Smallville (season 1), Spider-Man 3, The Dark Knight and just about everything on my user page that has a GA/FA symbol next to it). So, I think I can say that I understand both sides quite well--still think there needs to be limitations on what is on Wikipedia. If you want to know what happens in a comic, movie, tv show, book...then go buy them and enjoy it for yourself. You say it's a waste of people's money, but if the people who donate are the ones who agree we need limitations...then is that really a waste? Unless you have empirically supported evidence that suggests that the majority of donors for Wikipedia really want less restrictions on articles and for them to contain all this fiction stuff that is being "pushed out" by the deletionists, then please don't make such generalizations about the Wikipedian community. If the article is worthy of notice then it must have been noticed somewhere else. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a promotion house. Wiki isn't a current events organization.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 04:38, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Is the deletion of articles ethical? Is it making Wikipedia a better site?

Hello patrons, if you'll excuse my lack of an account and pay attention to my words, that would be excellent. Coming from a completely neutral point of view, the point of view of an average Wikipedia browser, I must say there is a cancer that's killing Wikipedia and everything it stood for to the average man. Several months ago I could look up anything on Wikipedia, anything! Whether it be fictional or real information, it was always here and it was truly a glorious sight to behold. I could come on onto the Internet for less than 5 minutes and immediately obtain information on characters, episodes, trivia and etcetera on anything that was on my mind at the time and log off, but that's not the case now. So many articles with information I found useful in the past are gone, never to be seen again. Wikipedia was a compendium of information that simply didn't exist elsewhere and if it did it was horribly written and took too much time to find to bother with. I'm telling you, it was the pinnacle of convenience that rendered millions of bad, foreign, fan and/or obscure sites entirely obsolete, but now it isn't. Take a step back and look from my point of view if you would, are you really make Wikipedia a better encyclopedia? Before it was extremely comprehensive and mostly well-written, now it's just mildly comprehensive and the writing is the same quality. What have you added? What are your real contributions? Despite the way you may look at it, Wikipedia is worse now. You're sacrificing what made it a great encyclopedia to make it a good encyclopedia, which of course makes no sense.

I realize Wikipedia has a lot of guidelines to follow and I agree with most of them, but the concept of "notability" seems to be skewed. If an article is of good size and well formatted, it's notability shouldn't matter because that article is now good enough to be useful for a good number of people. Of course every obscure web comic can't have its own giant series of articles, but if something's published and has been bought or seen by a large number of people and it has a large cast of characters or concepts, it should be notable enough to warrant a sub-article or two. It's definitely not a space issue, Wikipedia's storage, funds and engine are enough to warrant an infinite amount of articles. So tell me, what is the purpose of removing information with a good-sized appeal? Try to answer as humans with your own well-formed opinions on this matter. - 4.154.236.26 23:58, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Notability is requiring proper sources, not personal interpretation or things made up on the spot. (For example, 4chan meme articles; the cancer that's killing Wikipedia, huh.) If we don't have proper sources, the article can be inflated with lots of garbage, thus hurting Wikipedia by being contentious, unstable, or just plain wrong. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 00:22, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

That is a good point but a lot of the time fans and people who work on said articles keep the junk out, like 4chan memes and pointless original research. Primary sources are also greatly needed for these types of articles to maintain their factuality, but that's how it's always been. - 4.154.236.26 00:32, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

No, they don't keep the junk out. I had the now-deleted "4chan memes" page watchlisted for a long, long time, and it was constantly a vehicle for people trying to force memes or just make stuff up. Primary sources that are themselves the subject are bad, because they aren't evaluative or detatched or analytical. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 00:40, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm talking books, tv and the like here. Obviously a subject as uncitable and constantly changing as 4chan's memes shouldn't have an article. Not to mention 4chan's enormous and uncontrollable userbase, that article was doomed from its conception. - 4.154.236.26 00:45, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Same deal. What is a joke in a Family Guy episode a reference to? Is Lord of the Rings about World War II or not? Is a continuity error canon or just an error and does it matter if there's a joking reference to the error later on?

Welcome to the world of trying to write an article from primary sources that are themselves the subject. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 00:50, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Oi. That does sound like a pain. Entire articles based totally on inference from the primary subject only citing primary sources is definitely something that should be kept off Wikipedia, as well as literally hundreds of tiny details like Family Guy references. An entry like "Larry picked a daisy in episode 45" is different than "Larry is a character in episodes 43-48 who played a semi-important role in various subplots. His hair is brown." though. Articles akin to lists of characters are much more manageable and fact-based and shouldn't be treated in the same way as giant piles of OR/entirely useless info. - 4.154.236.26 01:03, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Who says how important is his role? Should we also mention the time a brown-haired character that looked a bit like Larry appeared in a crowd scene in episode 23? How much detail do we need to devote to his role? Is his hair or his ethnicity more important for identifying him? Should we mention his last name that only appears in the Official Fan's Guide to Hypothetical Series?

But, above all else, why can't we just mention him in passing in the description of the series or the series' season, since he obviously only appears in one part of the second or third season of a series? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 01:28, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

This is a good idea in theory, but if a main character article should mention him because he was an important part of that character's development in the plot it would be rather cumbersome to convey why that is without going into plot summarization. Having a description of Larry's character and his relevence to the plot somewhere else generally makes things easier to follow. However, I do think it is a great idea to have smaller lists of characters in their relevent story arc articles instead of giant, all-encompassing lists. Not all fictional works with very large casts like DragonBall Z have articles for every section of the story though. - 4.154.236.26 01:44, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Mind you, it is possible to write verifiable and encyclopedic content from primary sources only; as long as multiple editors have access to the subject, limit themselves to a description of the subject, and are in general agreement about that description, then primary sourcing is acceptable, per WP:PSTS. However, the more dependent an article is on primary sourcing, the more difficult it is to keep it free of original research. With fiction articles, there can be fair use issues as well; replicating large swaths of content, such as long plot summaries, can constitute copyright violation.

Wikipedia:Notability is an outgrowth of the "original research" problem; we want each subject we cover to have some form of consistent public presence so that our coverage of that subject doesn't turn into a Blind Men and an Elephant situation. Wikipedia:Notability is quite imperfect, though; it has huge blind spots that cause all sorts of actually-notable subjects to be declared "non-notable" and get deleted in myopic fashion. These blind spots are probably the reason why there are so many supplemental notability guidelines; everything not "okayed" by them is subject to deletion, even when the content of the article is verifiable and encyclopedic in its form. But I hold out hope that these oversights will be rectified sooner or later.--Father Goose 04:15, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

4.154.236.26, you might also want to note that we are trying to give a new focus on not deleting articles, but finding new homes for them and properly connecting those homes with Wikipedia. Much of this is "new ground", even though many external Wikis have been around for many years, but we have yet to really formalize any process for mass use. In a perfect world, the Wikimedia Foundation would make a second entertainment/fiction wiki themselves, but until then we have a lot of alliances on the internet we can use. This way we can have our cake and eat it too. -- Ned Scott 04:44, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Ned, that's actually a good idea! WAVY 10 Fan 12:44, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I have indeed noticed the relocation of articles to smaller, subject-specific wikis and user pages, but that makes the info harder to find since not very many people know of things like Bulbapedia or some obscure user's subpage. The "Fictopedia" idea for compiling all this information into one huge source is a very good idea though, I'm all for it. Someone should forward that to the Foundation. - 4.154.233.33 22:56, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Any Foundation project would still need to comply with the principle of verifiability and fair use/copyright issues, so the only advantage to setting up a separate wiki would be to sidestep a certain amount of anti-fiction/anti-"trivia" bias that exists on the Wikipedia project itself. Putting it on a separate wiki would also make the information harder to access; there is little to no integration between Wikipedia and other Foundation projects, such as Wiktionary and Wikisource.

What really needs to be done is to pare away any inclusion criteria that enact prejudice instead of principle. Aside from verifiability and copyright issues, there's no intrinsic reason why Wikipedia can't have extremely in-depth coverage of any subject, fictional or not. We do ourselves a disservice when things get deleted based on nothing more than "get this shit out of my encyclopedia".--Father Goose 06:05, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Even if things are not well integrated now does not mean much about how it should or could be. Wikipedia is a project from scratch, and so is Wikisource and Wikitonary. As far as extremely in-depth coverage, I'm not really sure about that. It sounds nice in theory, but even if we have all the hard drive space in the world, we still have to make this information manageable, and without drowning out other real world facts. An inclusion criteria is what keeps us from being what the internet used to look like before there was Wikipedia.

I honestly believe that partnerships with other wikis, Foundation controlled or not, will be a big part of our future. It's rather natural for us, too, since Wikipedia was made to be used and copied, and that we can copy and use from others who share our same licensees. -- Ned Scott 06:21, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I go by three minimums for inclusion, personally: neutral, verifiable, organized. Someone would have to convince me that having sub-sub-sub-sub-branches on this here tree of knowledge would make the upper branches less accessible. Any part that is unmanaged (not neutral, verifiable, or organized) can be clipped, but as long as the structure has integrity, there need be no constraints on depth of detail other than satisfying the three minimums.

I'm fine with, say, Wiktionary being a separate project, since it does follow a different ruleset. It would be nice if its integration with Wikipedia were better. But our fiction coverage should still follow all of Wikipedia's most basic content and formatting rules, so I don't see any intrinsic reason why any of it should be moved out.--Father Goose 07:19, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I think one aspect is lacking from the discussion here: scope. Every project must keep its scope in reasonable amounts, otherwise it will fail to reach its goals. The goal of Wikipedia is to create an encyclopedia about the real world; purely fictional topics are out of scope. It can be desirable to create encyclopedias about fictional worlds, also on the same technical basis. But regarding content, that's just a separate project. Whether the Wikimedia foundation would support such projects is a question whether it's in line with their goals, I believe; I can't say much about that (but it seems plausible to me that they have good reasons not to support them). Other platforms (such as Wikia) are organized differently and do support fictional encyclopedias, so there's no real gap to fill. --B. Wolterding 10:33, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

• Not just scope, but also credibility. The articles on Eric Cartman or *cough* Hilda_Spellman need to be governed by the same policies of notability, verification and sources as those on Supernova or Angkor Wat. Sorry to be blunt, but a committed group of diehard fans who use Wikipedia to provide a thin veneer of "encyclopedic" whitewash to mask what is otherwise unfettered fancruft driven by obsessive in-universe fascination is simply incompatible with the larger goals that are being aspired to here. Since many simply ignore policy in authoring these articles, it is clear that enforcement of the policies themselves needs to become more efficacious. What we don't need is a rewriting of the guidelines to allow for further weaseling by editors who are uninterested in consensus in the first place. Eusebeus 20:00, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Calm down there, champ. No one's conspiring to ruin your encyclopedia. Facts about characters and other important aspects in fictional work is not "fancruft", it's fact. These aspects exist in the real world as written information. As long as these articles are written in an out-of-universe style and are an important aspect of a fictional work, there shouldn't be a problem. - 4.156.54.96 19:40, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

You're right. And facts and other important aspects regarding every person living and their lives exist in the real world as written information. I hope that clarifies the problem; a line has to be drawn somewhere, and this is where the Wikipedia editing community have consensually de3cided to draw it. Hiding Talk 15:28, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

There's a difference between "List of Recurring Family Guy Characters" and "List of Jokes Used in Family Guy". One has informational relevence to the main topic and one is an enormous, pointless list. Also this consensus thing that's being talked about sounds like a sham to me, if you took a large poll as to whether these articles should stay or not the consensus would be to keep them. From some of the article deletion discussions I've seen, this is the case but at the last second someone pulls out "WP: NOT A VOTE" or "WP:ILIKEIT", negating the "consensus" and the deletion goes through. If a line has been drawn, a better one needs to be blotted over it. - 4.154.237.231 22:43, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

The consensus is to keep relevant, encyclopedic information and present it in a manner in keeping primarily with the foundation's goals and secondarily with the community's goals. That you talk of a difference between two presentations of information leads me to believe you support the consensus for presenting information where relevant. I'm not sure if you support it being presented encyclopedically, since I am unclear as to your stance on original research and maintaining a neutral point of view. Hiding Talk 23:02, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

If I have a correct notion of what Original Research is, I'm against it. That sort of thing is what belongs on sub-wikis, fansites and the like. I'm also down with writing things in an encyclopedic tone, which is what NPOV entails, I've been browsing through Wikipedia for a good, long and I think I have a good idea of the difference between a good article and a bad one.

My main suggestion on this subject is this: There should be a specific guideline for fictional subarticles where they can be created as an extension of an article about a fictional work if they meet certain criteria such as importance to the plot. These articles would be treated as part of the main article instead of stand-alone articles with lots of real-world relevance like Characters of Final Fantasy VIII. - 4.156.24.238 01:20, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

This guideline sucks

This is possibly the worst guideline on Wikipedia, simply because it so damn vauge that it gets thrown around everywhere and nobody ever knows how to show "notability". The current guideline on how to prove notability is as follows: For articles about fictional concepts, "reliable secondary sources" cover information such as sales figures, critical and popular reception, development, cultural impact, and merchandise; this information describes the real-world aspects of the concept, so it is "real-world content".

Responce:

1. "Sales figures"? What sales figures? Characters don't get sold, the work they belong to does.
2. "Critical and popular reception" is stupid. The makes people feel that character articles need some kind of "Critical responce" sections, filled with lame "reviews" on the character. What we don't need is stuff like, "Magazine said in their review that Character is really hot and kicks ass".
3. "Development". Just being able to say how a character was made doesn't make it notable, and not knowing how the character was developed doesn't make it non-notable.
4. "Merchandise" is obviously not something that makes a character notable. Otherwise, we wouldn't be trying to merge all of those Pokemon articles.

I feel that an article on a fictional concept's notability should be more determined by the works that it appears in. For example, character notability guidelines might look like this:

1. Being a main character in three different video games, books, or films; or a comic or TV series that has gone on for over three years.
2. Being a secondary character in ten different video games, books, or films; or a comic or TV series that has gone on for over ten years.
3. Proving notability otherwise (via current guidelines).

Basically, if the character is in enough works, then it can pretty much be assumed that the character is notable without it needing to be "proven" with secondary sources.

Another major problem is that the guideline has the worst possible examples of which articles are notable. Of course the most popular comic book character of all time is notable, we don't need help figuring that out. What we need are examples of articles of the lowest possible notability that are still considered notable enough. --72.204.45.94 22:54, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I disagree with you on the issues of merchandising. Aside from indicating the real-world impact and cultural significance of the parent work, it provides a significant indication of the notability of the given item. To make a reference to your Pokemon allusion, there's ten billion pieces of Pikachu merchandise, and a lot less of most other monsters. This says that the former is more culturally significant and notable than the latter, because people don't buy things they don't care about. MalikCarr 00:57, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Based on your criteria Anon, the main character in a straight-to-dvd series, which has 3 films would be notable for Wikipedia. Being in 3 movies is not that significant if no one knows what those movies are. If the only thing you have to write about is what happens in a movie in regards to that character, then you don't have enough to write an article just on that character. Wiki isn't a plot summary.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:30, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

The suggestion assumes that the "three movies" are three notable movies themselves. --72.204.45.94 06:38, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

But what makes them notable? You cannot ignore notability for one thing and not for another. A character is not notable simply because their film is. They are one aspect of that film. That's like saying the shirt they wore is notable, and we need an entire page devoted to their shirt.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 11:46, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Notability really is the wrong word for all of this. It's not that talking about the character or whatever is notable enough, it's about how much real-world information we have to say about them, and if there is enough for their own article. We still cover a great deal of fictional topics that don't pass WP:FICT alone, they just don't always get articles. -- Ned Scott 03:27, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Contradicting policies and guidelines

I feel that the recent rewording of this guideline now directly contradicts several other guidelines and policies - as I do not think that this inconsitency will help editors to build and maintain a high quality encyclopaedia I have brought up the issue here - for anyone who would like to comment. [[Guest9999 13:03, 15 November 2007 (UTC)]]

How much is "significant" and "substantial"?

I have already stated how I approach fictional coverage with "my" articles (which are overly guideline-based), but I realise that other editors have completely different approaches that also result in some good or great articles here or there. I don't really mind differing approaches as long as a minimum willingness to follow policies and guidelines is apparant.

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

Based on this reasoning and the above excerpts, fictional concepts are deemed notable if they have received substantial coverage in reliable secondary sources.

So, how much is "significant" and "substantial"? I know that it is a matter of interpretation, but I could also ask, "what is the minimum of demonstrated third-party coverage" for a fictional element (e.g. a fictional character) to have their own article? In a particular AfD, it was asserted that one in-depth independant source tangentially dealing with a character demonstrates enough notability. I thought it was more like 10 to 20 different real-world-content sources (of any depth) for a start, but certainly more than 5 to prevent a merge as long as the sources actually source something in the article. (I am not as strict with lists of fictional elements, where I use my gut-feeling for notability or don't participate in AfDs at all.) Good Articles usually have between 20 and 50 secondary sources/references, and Featured Articles usually have 50 to over a hundred sources. So, what rough guide do other editors have? I am not asking for "ammunition", but I'd like to be informed of a rough consensus before I state my opinion/interpretation of the guideline as a rough consensus. – sgeureka ^t•c 23:13, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I've seen list articles having over 20 sources deleted. The Notability guideline gets ignored in both directions sometimes.--Father Goose (talk) 04:20, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

It is intentionally flexible. The idea is for people to have productive discussions before taking articles to AfD. Instead of nominating borderline articles for AfD, users should post criticism/comments on the talkpage. If they go unanswered for a while and/or if the page is not improved, and the page cannot be merged/transwikied/etc, then it should be brought to AfD. This process is efficient, civil, and fair; it's unfortunate that more people aren't seeing the light. — Deckiller 05:24, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Altered WP:PLOT to cover fiction in general

Yesterday I rewrote WP:NOT#PLOT to cover limitations on fiction writing in general, emphasizing the fair use issues that underscore it. Surprisingly, the changes have received little response so far, so I'd like to solicit feedback from those who patrol this page, as the issues addressed here are largely the same. Maybe I'm opening a can of worms, but by the time I mentioned the fair use issues, I figured I might as well point out that they apply to all aspects of our fiction coverage. I hope the paragraph as rewritten summarizes the issue correctly, but let me know at Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not#Delete "plot summaries".

Separately, if the changes there are adopted, we'll have to alter the opening of this guideline to reflect the changed text.--Father Goose (talk) 05:19, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I have changed the quote at the begining of the page to match the new wording. [[Guest9999 22:44, 2 December 2007 (UTC)]]

I see your version there has not been accepted. I think that was the right decision, for it takes an outrageously long plot summary to really exceed fair use; it's usually a minor consideration compared to other factors. DGG (talk) 03:01, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it's under discussion on the talk page, and last time I checked it wasn't being rejected. Hiding T 13:48, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

History of this guideline

I'm always amazed when I see people citing 'WP:FICT' as a reason for deletion of articles on characters or railing against efforts to 'change' it to support keeping articles on major fictional characters and/or lists of minor ones. This guideline was created based on the consensus at Wikipedia:Deletion policy/Minor characters that major characters should be covered in the article on the story they appear in or their own article, and minor characters should be covered in a list article. Indeed, a summary was copied from that discussion to form the starting point for this guideline. There have been efforts to redefine and adjust things back and forth ever since, but nobody is trying to 'change' this guideline to allow lists of minor characters and the like... it was created specifically to validate the existence of such in Wikipedia. --CBD 15:49, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

For the record, the longstanding consensus above remained active on this page until it was re-written in August. The page has been continuously disputed and edit-warred over ever since. --CBD 15:58, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

That deletion policy discussion was held back in 2005; since then, around May of 2007, the general notability guidelines (which this must be a subset of) have since changed to require significant coverage in secondary sources as the measure of notability (see about this edit for when that langauge was introduced) The edits on this page have been to try to allow for the concept of major character lists that likely will never meet that notability guideline on their own (though editors are encouraged to still do so) as being sub-articles of the work of fiction itself. However, this cannot extend to single character pages that are only discussed in in-universe style, or lists of minor characters. This is a further extension of WP is not to be used for excessive plot details which many of the latter two articles qualify as. --MASEM 16:08, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Sure, there have been efforts to change the notability standards... but I think you are wrong to treat those as 'settled decisions which this guideline must conform to'. We've seen plenty of AfDs where people disagree with the new standards... that demonstrates a lack of consensus support for them. The consensus that lists of minor characters from fiction are notable enough for inclusion may not be the 100% it was in that 2005 discussion, but it is still a strongly held view by a significant portion of the community. There has been no demonstrated consensus to the contrary, and indeed several instances where this consensus has been re-affirmed. --CBD 16:24, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

The consensus on the new notability guidelines can be found starting around here in the archived discussion for WP:N. Yes, I know that not *this* guidelines page, but we cannot supercede what was determined over there. Once that guideline was established, that basically meant that any character of list of character page without demonstratable sources for notability should be merged, moved, or deleted. Not WP:FICT's decision. The edits here since that point have been to first make this guideline in line with WP:N (that is not by consensus, that's a requirement), and then to try to help migrate as much of the existing fictional pages into where they appropriate: either give them notability, move them to a transwiki, or in the very careful case, allow them to exist as a sub-article per summary style guidelines (and which is where we have appeared to reach a consensus though other factors are still in play). In general, this means that single character pages or list of character pages are generally non-notable. Remember, when people cite WP:FICT they are indirectly citing WP:N, and that's the guideline that is behind non-notable pages. If you feel that WP:N is too restrictive, you should really take it up there.

(I should point out that a new fair-use issue is also being bubbled up through some pages, in that published works that cite, solely, in-universe details without critical commentary or analysis have been subject to, and lost, lawsuits on copyvios. This issue is still in question, but it gives much more weight to fictional character pages that include appropriate details to satisfy WP:N instead of those that are strictly in-universe.) --MASEM 16:55, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

It's been done before, and although I know there are many reasons not to, is there perhaps an option here to poll the community one way or the pother as to whether WP:N and sub-pages have consensus? Just to get the matter settled one way or the other for the here and now? Would all sides agree that it may be best to get some sort of idea as to the strength of the consensus through a widely advertised poll? Hiding T 17:35, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Note the prior precedence with the polls at Wikipedia:Poképrosal/Poll and Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion/Proposal. Hiding T 17:38, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Again, I can't agree with your claim that a perceived consensus that "list of character pages are generally non-notable" at WP:N trumps the longstanding consensus here that they generally are notable enough for inclusion. 'Geography' of where a consensus discussion takes place is irrelevant. All that matters is what the community as a whole agrees upon. Either there IS consensus for something or there isn't... and this looks very much like the latter. Ultimately, trying to push through something for which there isn't consensus based on claims of 'more important consensus over there' is always going to be pointless. People disagree... and they 'vote down' Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spoo anyway, no matter how loudly you proclaim that there is 'consensus' that they shouldn't. Because there isn't any such consensus. Hiding's suggestion of a widespread vote / discussion might be worthwhile, but in general I'd hope that we could see that 'things alot of people strongly disagree with' do not have 'consensus' without need of any such poll. --CBD 18:39, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

It should be clear that there has never been a consensus/vote on "list of characters"; the consensus I pointed to was for notability being defined as by coverage in secondary sources. Now, it would seem to me that by common sense that a list of characters that lack any references or real-world discussion and not written in the approach of being a sub-article thus lacks significant coverage in secondary sources, and therefore is non-notable; to say otherwise trumps WP:N which is not appropriate. I'm certainly not saying that one can't take a consensus on this specific issue of character lists being notable, but remember, majority is not the same as consensus - I would be in denial to say that a straight-up vote would not favor character lists, but the results are based on the admins closing it and their evaluation of the arguments presented. --MASEM 20:20, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

You know, I'll have more respect for this line of thinking when List of Shakespearean characters: A-K is nominated for deletion because of lack of notability. Note the lack of secondary sources? Notability guidance tells us an article is worthy of note if a consensus of Wikipedians feels it is, but closing admins often skip that part. It's also funny how majority is never the same as consensus except when we think it is? I mean, if it is a minority view that WP:N is a guideline, and further, if it's a minority view that WP:N holds sway in a deletion debate over actual policy, at what point has corruption set in if an admin closes in favour of a minority position held by a minority of editors. We already have templates which allow stacking of a debate. It has really just become a farce. At some point someone has to see the flaw in asserting that even though more people disagree with WP:N as representing a consensus, their opinions are discounted as not knowing what they are talking about. Sorry if this comes across overly strong, it is just starting to become really frustrating. As someone who helped craft a lot of notability guidance, it appears I had a whole different idea of what the goal was to everyone else. Hoist by my own petard. Hiding T 20:37, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh come on, that list you cited has vast potential of being a very well written article with scholarly citations from the vast works of people who have written about Shakespeare, so you may want to avoid an example that so clearly vindicates current policy while trying to criticize it. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 19:01, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

And here's the nub. It really is a we like it decision. Either this guidance is flawed because it states that List of Shakespearean characters: A-K should be deleted, or both myself and Judgesurreal are wrong in believing a consensus of wikipedians would close any deletion debate on the list as speedy keep. This guidance has become too prescriptive, because people want to use it to bash articles they don't like. Instead of doing that, trust the wiki process. I've argued for a long time that we should set up a fiction noticeboard to allow editors from both sides a chance to work together and reach a consensus. Consensus isn't about one side shouting louder than the other, or trimming away at a guideline until it has altered beyond use, meaning and repair.[1] Hiding T 22:30, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

List of Shakespearean characters: A-K has obvious potential to pass WP:FICT, so that really is a bad example. -- Ned Scott 23:00, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hiding, I think you didn't get the point. There must be shelves of secondary (and out-of-universe) literature about Skakespeare's plays, written throughout the centuries. So many secondary sources in fact that an AfD would be closed immediately. Still we manage to treat these characters in only two lists! On the other hand, I've come across quite a lot of articles on characters in comics, novels, video games, without even the slightest hint to any secondary sources existing. All those articles did was re-telling the plot of the fictional works. They fail WP:N, therefore. Now is this a "we like it" argument, as you state? For me, it's at least an attempt to get somehere near a neutral standard. --B. Wolterding (talk) 23:05, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

No, I get the point. It's my point. The point is that a consensus of Wikipedians decide what gets kept and what gets deleted at afd, not this page. What is all this talk of failing a page? When did consensus get determined by referring to a page that has been edited away from common practise rather than the consensus of Wikipedians? When did one group of editors get to enforce their view over others in complete disregard of a policy, WP:CONSENSUS? When did guidance trump policy? Who decided it was secondary sources? Yes it's an I lik it argument. Just because you've built a page which lists your favoured conditions, it doesn't mean you've moved the debate away from I like it. All you're saying is "I like my articles to contain references to secondary sources. Oh, but not those secondary sources, more reliable ones. No really reliable, and there have to be lots of them, and other encyclopedias have to have subjects of this sort and...". It's I LIKE IT. Chicken with gravy on top is still chicken. Hiding T 23:16, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Tag wars don't help

What's the point of warring over the tag. Either there is a dispute or there isn't. Trying to define what a dispute is is just beyond belief. Can people please have a look at WP:CONSENSUS and edit within that context, rather than simply disrupting. Solve the issues with the page rather than fight over a tag. Hiding T 22:22, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Current wording

I'm pretty satisfied with the current wording; although it raises the bar by accepting only secondary sources instead of merely "real-world content", it provides a reasonable exception for subarticles. It's about as close to a compromise as we can get without changing other policies as well. — Deckiller 20:52, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, in theory, real world information normally comes from a secondary source. -- Ned Scott (talk) 21:21, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

My recent addition was undone by a user who felt it was an "unnecessary edit". The fact is simple: it's inefficient to clog AfD with dozens of cases of articles that could be cleaned up; there are other steps before AfD. If we decrease AfDs, then we can have greater focus on each case. Making it clear that AfDs for situations that clearly fall in the merge/redirect/transwiki considerations will help this concept.

S/he also felt my "trigger boys" comment was uncivil—perhaps it was a frank statement, but deletion should always be a last resort. Besides, when have I not been civil? — Deckiller 22:31, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

In a perfect wiki-world, going the AfD route would indeed be inefficient. But when it comes to fiction-related articles, it is not uncommon that good-faith merge discussions (for notability, OR, extensive plot etc.) end after several weeks with local fan consensus outvoting guidelines. And while the necessary secondary information will still not be added, the plot summaries for popular topics grow bigger and bigger. I may sound a little non-AGF-y here, but it seems to me that a wiki-wide and 5-day-long deletion discussion sometimes brings results much faster with more appropriate results, making the necessary merge/cleanup process more efficient than the traditionally recommended let's-discuss-it-first way (unfortunately). Openly encouraging people to only go to AfD when there is really no chance is like saying that fiction articles should never be AfDed. Spoo has already demonstrated that the tiniest piece of bare notability has a chance to grow into a fully fleshed article with the right devotion, but devotion is exactly what lacks to bring the other 99.5% of barely notable topics to something encyclopedic. – sgeureka ^t•c 23:10, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

That attitude will inevitably accelerate Wikipedia's bias. Not all fiction has 'fans' to be cajoled into improving the article. I bet if someone nominated Isola, the fictional city district in Ed McBain's 87th Precinct novels, it'd get deleted, just because it's in a genre that Wikipedians aren't interested in.--Nydas^(Talk) 09:46, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I hope it will inevitably accelerate Wikipedia's bias to be a well-written and -sourced encyclopedia instead of a poorly conceived and speculative fansite, and that's good. And Isola would likely be merged or deleted for being non-notable, not because it lacks fans; other non-notable fiction articles just have the advantage of mass fan-backing inspite of violating existing guidelines and policies, but should, rationally speaking, be merged/deleted just the same. (There is currently an AfD sweep of location lists of notable games/TV shows that often ends in deletion on the ground of missing real-world notability. A stubby article about a fictional location would have even less of a survival chance in AfD, and if you can merge it somewhere to avoid an AfD, the better. I am doing the same with fictional things I care about.) – sgeureka ^t•c 10:50, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

You can hope all you want, but AfD 'sweeps' will inevitably lead to a worsened bias against fiction that doesn't involve spaceships and dragons. You consider Spoo to be of borderline notability whilst writing off Isola. If the setting of a long-running and influential series of crime novels is less notable than a fictional food mentioned seven times in a half-forgotten 90s sci-fi TV show, what hope is there that we can even point in the right direction when it comes to fiction?--Nydas^(Talk) 21:23, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I have never watched Babylon 5, and I have never heard of these crime novels (forget fictional settings in these novel), so I don't know what their respective popularity is (which many people often mistakenly interpret as notability). But wouldn't you agree that Spoo is better written and better sourced than Isola, and that Spoo at least attempts to establish some notability? (For what it's worth, I recommended merge in the Spoo AfD for lack of notability). If topics of vague notability don't want to encourage an AfD against them, they should simply not be stand-alone articles. If some of them have too much fan-backing despite opposing policies and guidelines, then that's too bad for both wikipedia and the article (which often stays in a poor state after the AfD). I believe that it is much better to have fewer articles that are all well written and with great sources, than having dozens of unmanageable articles that are flooded with guideline/policy breaches. Unfortunately, many fans prefer quantity over quality, but I don't know why. All I can do is try to let my arguments and contributions speak for themselves. – sgeureka ^t•c 00:39, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Spoo violates just about every policy or guideline you could care to mention. It's sourced from usenet, it's packed with original research and it's written from a fan's point of view. Isola is just a stub, there's a limit to how bad it can be.

Your hand-wringing over the fans is not encouraging. Oh well, we can't get Adam Mitchell deleted, let's go and delete something we've never heard of instead, it's probably not notable.--Nydas^(Talk) 09:21, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Enough people at FAC once thought that Spoo was inline with existing guidelines and policies (and FAC can be torture). Recent attempts to degrade its article status were unsuccessful (unfortunately) because significent amounts of people still believe it meets all guidelines. I am not saying that Spoo deserves its own article (I think it doesn't), but I say its better written and better sourced than Isola (which has no sources or other secondary information), and that more people (not necessarily me) are willing to look the other way in this light. And it is not my intention to "hand-wring[] over the fans", as I as a big fan of fiction won't battle with myself. But this is an encyclopedia, so all there is is "hand-wringing over encyclopedic content". If an article doesn't have encyclopedic content (read: real-world content) at all after a sufficient time of AGF has passed (and just plot is not considered encyclopedic per WP:NOT#PLOT), the article probably shouldn't exist and may be taken to AfD for community review, as simple as that. – sgeureka ^t•c 11:57, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Spoo doesn't meet any guidelines, the keep votes were just along the lines of 'keep - notable' and 'important within the fandom'. Wikipedia's usefulness is not served by an outcome which will see all fancruft except admin-sanctioned fancruft deleted, along with genuinely notable stubs like Isola. If we can't get our fan admins to see sense, then should we really be targetting 'weak' fiction articles at all? It'll be creating an institutionalised violation of neutral point of view.--Nydas^(Talk) 09:09, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Ah, now I see where you're coming from, and actually agree with what your premise, just not with your conclusion. There have been some recent AfDs of extremely popular games which (surprisingly but justly) resulted in a delete (e.g. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dwarves (Warcraft), followed by Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Playable races in the Warcraft series), and this hopefully sets some kind of accepted precedent. There is also an arbitration case (Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters) that hopefully sheds some light into whether guideline/policy-based cleanup efforts in articles can be reverted back to their guideline/policy-ignoring state. In the worst case, these procedures at least increase awareness of the issue at hand. In the long run, I anticipate en.wiki to grow closer (but never go as far) to de.wiki, which deal with fiction articles this. Anything else prevents wikipedia from maintaining at least some encyclopedic standard. – sgeureka ^t•c 10:16, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

That's the standard line, but I do not see any reason for the fan admins to relent. Warcraft is not a good example, it's not an admin favourite like, say, Doctor Who or Babylon 5 are. I have nominated Adam Mitchell for deletion, let's see what happens.--Nydas^(Talk) 12:21, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

The arbcom case is only about how editors acted when applying these guidelines, and won't be a debate about the guidelines themselves. -- Ned Scott 01:48, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I can't tell if this was a general comment for interested readers, or a reply to me to "set me straight". :-) If it's the former: true. If it's the latter: I know, and I hopefully didn't imply anything else. – sgeureka ^t•c 02:48, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

It was in general :) -- Ned Scott 06:49, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

(indent)

Sgeureka, your attitude towards AfD is actually counter to policy. AfD is NOT supposed to be used just to get people to clean up an article. Jtrainor (talk) 17:41, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't know exactly to which of my statements you refer, or where I gave the impression that this is what I believe, sorry. Dozens of articles (of any kind, also fiction) are AfD'ed every day for failing notability guidelines, and if they still don't abide by it at teh end of the AfD, merging and/or redirecting is a very possible outcome (intro of WP:AFD). If editors want the article to become a separate article again, then they have to give it a proper encyclopedic treatment/expansion. The assumed "cleanup" you speak of is therefore only "true" if you believe that a sub-topic deserves its own article to begin with. (And I think it only does if notability and/or other substantial secondary coverage have been explicitly demonstrated, which is exactly what this guideline already says.) If discussions fail due to too differing opinions, AfD is currently the only other convenient option to determine a consensus to which everybody has to abide. – sgeureka ^t•c 18:33, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Wait a minute, when did we decide that secondary sources were the only criterion for notability? The sub-article provision is dandy, but this seems a bit extreme to me... I mean, fiction tends to be produced by firms that own copyright to the fiction in question, and all contents therein - if the copyright holder possesses all content of the fiction from a legal stance, won't this make usage of reliable secondary sources nearly impossible? I'm all for broadening coverage of fiction from as wide a spectrum as possible, but sometimes that just isn't possible. If our notability criterion no longer includes "real world impact", this is going to get very ugly... MalikCarr (talk) 00:05, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Secondary sources for notability is in WP:N. And as you mentioned, this is exactly why the bulk of fictional content on WP is not notable by this stance - if the only information about the works are what the fictional work creators/producers provide and fan content, the work is likely not notable in real world. This already is causing a huge impact, which is why we are trying to carefully word the changes to this guideline to direct how fiction articles should be approach and does go against unstated long-standing WP policy --MASEM 01:24, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Hang on now, that doesn't exactly make sense. If you can't find "sales figures" "critical commentary" "cultural significance" and "merchandising" in a published, third party, peer-reviewed source, but said items obviously exist and have been documented, it's not notable? Hogwash. MalikCarr (talk) 22:43, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

To put it bluntly, yes. This is why the bulk of the fictional elements articles on characters, locations, items, etc, as well as individual episodes or volumes of a work are not WP-notable and thus being merged, trimmed, transwikied, or deleted, and why we're trying to carefully allow for subarticles for very rare cases. --MASEM 01:04, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I would say that this is where the "guideline" part comes into play here. There likely are articles that don't have secondary sources, but good quality real world information from primary sources (DVD commentary, "official" guides [do official guides count as primary?], etc) that we will generally tolerate, depending on the content. However, for general situations, we should be aiming for secondary sources to mine our real-world content. -- Ned Scott 04:52, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Well that's not so much of an issue - I could demonstrate real world impact of fiction <X> by citing merchandising <A>, < B> and <C>, article in magazine <D>, video games by other publishers <E> and <F>, and appearances in unrelated fiction (as tribute or homage, whatever) <G>, but if this information isn't available in a reliable third-party publication, a strict interpretation of guideline would suggest the topic isn't notable regardless. Forgive me for being a pessimist, but while your statements do seem to be perfectly reasonable, I can't help but see this wording being used to slash the perfectly well-sourced articles you speak of (primary and maybe secondary as well, just not published or peer-reviewed) as though they were no better than the wads of unsourced and OR-ridden rubbish that honestly deserve to go just because they're atrocities against grammar and sentence structure (I think you know the ones I'm talking about). It seems like a dangerous precedent to set. MalikCarr (talk) 09:41, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Secondary sources don't have to be print-published or peer-reviewed, but they do have to meet reliability requirements - personal blogs or self-published forums cannot satisfy secondary sources. That said, in your example, it really depends on how all those sources support the fictional element X. Generally it is the exception that the sources do provide enough to establish notability, and unfortunately I would say most articles on fictional elements on WP are lacking demonstrated notability. However remember that lack of notability alone is not grounds for speedy deletion: if an article is found non-notable, it should be brought to AfD, content merged into larger articles likely about the work of fiction itself, or as we're trying to suggest, list-of articles that are appropriate for summary style writing. --MASEM 15:25, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

WP:V says that reliable sources should appear "in reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". Again, the rational editor shouldn't interpret this in the most literal sense (e.g. a reference to a Newtype magazine article as being inadequate because it's a "fan magazine" and thus unreliable), but I can't help but feel that draconian editors, especially the "deletion first" crowd who view the PROD and AfD as their first, best, and only tool to improve articles, are going to use this to their advantage. It just seems like we're making demonstrating the notability of fiction <X> excessively difficult. Maybe this is a backlash for all the garbage fiction articles out there (and let me be the first to say there are quite a few), but this strikes me as being kind of excessive... MalikCarr 03:27, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

That is absurd! A fan magazine is a perfectly acceptable source of reliable information for a game. Outside of The Onion and tabloids that proclaim Bush twins are aliens there are very little widely circulated publications that are purposely deceitful. Reliability on publications should be assumed, just as we assume good faith on our editors here, we should assume they used good faith when looking for sources. This treating of game fans as the enemy is against Wikipedia's guidelines and even further, against what I see as Wikipedia's "spirit", the wish to be a place anyone can contribute. Renmiri (talk) 03:52, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

BTW, if anyone wants to join my peaceful protest against deletionists, add Template:User fedup to your user page. Renmiri (talk) 03:52, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Please see the policy about self published sources. If it's an official magazine, then you have nothing to worry about. If it's a self published fan magazine, then it doesn't meet criteria for sourcing. This is why we don't cite fan websites as well.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:59, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

totally disputed?

I see no consensus at all for the recent changes here. i propose one of four courses:

1. . Mark it as rejected
2. . Add a totally disputed tag to the guideline
3. . Restore it to the earlier state
4. .Quickly improve it to reflect consensus.

Normally, I'd say 4 is the best course, if we could do it. I am about to make minimum changes that I think necessary. Perhaps they can be accepted as a starting point. and others can fix up the remaining disputed details.If not, I will look for an earlier version that did have some sort of consensus. If I can't find one, I will go to 2. If we cant settle the dispute, it will have to be #1, for a guideline must have consensus. . DGG (talk) 21:02, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I hope you're not claiming that because you have witnessed a very small part of Wikipedia (fans of fiction uninterested in encyclopedic improvement) complain about this that there is somehow a lack of consensus. A comparable number of people also complain about the general notability guideline; should we mark that as rejected also? TTN (talk) 21:07, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

But that's the root of the problem. Trying to decide what sort of encyclopedia Wikipedia is. Is it a more up to date Brittannica, or is it something else. For most people, it's somewhere between not paper and not an indiscriminate collection of information'. We need to consensually agree on a definition, not stamp a definition onto people who disagree. I think that's in spirit with both m:Foundation issues and User:Jimbo Wales/Statement of principles. What is encyclopedic improvement? Who gets to decide. Why can't the opinions of fans be considered? Is it better to present as much information as we can in an encyclopedic manner, or to limit the information which can be presented to within certain constraints? Are we here to inform and educate, or are we here to declare what can and can't be learnt? Those are the underlying issues facing us, and I think we should all be honest and accept that. This isn't about enforcing our personal view of Wikipedia, it is about learning to accept other people's views and find a compromise we can agree on. Wikipedia belongs to everyone. This isn't about only x is of value, this is about people might like to know x, what#s the best way of telling them. Hiding T 21:22, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

This is a tertiary source that mainly relies on secondary information. This is reflected in most other polices and guidelines. Most fans are not interested in that, so their opinions are irrelevant. That is the reason that Wikia and other sites exist. TTN (talk) 21:28, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with your first two sentences, but find your second two objectionable. I can't quite agree that we get to dismiss the opinions of people with whom we disagree. Most fans are interested in using secondary sources. They also believe that we can be broad in using primary source to expand our coverage for greater clarity. Hiding T 21:42, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

We're talking about the people that dispute this guideline, not anyone that is a fan of fiction, which would include myself and many other people here. If they are only interested in having ungodly amounts of plot information, then what do they have to contribute to a discussion? That kind of information belongs on Wikia. TTN (talk) 21:46, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I'd rather allow people who dispute this guideline to speak for themselves and engage with them than accept your characterisation of their opinions, with all due respect. I dispute this guideline, and I also dispute your characterisation of me. I have no interest in ungodly amounts of plot, I have argued strongly against it to the point of adding a section to WP:NOT specifically relating to plot. However, I am also of the opinion that this guidance is deeply flawed when it is used to justify the deletion of articles split from larger ones, or enforce the merge of an article back to a parent from which it was split for space considerations, or to drive people away from Wikipedia. Hiding T 22:03, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

If they want to actually discuss like this instead of "yelling" and crap, then they are free to do so. I said "most fans", so there are obviously exceptions. If articles are removed, then they have no reliable sources and there is no strong assertion for them existing. If they do not exist, the articles are only plot and OR, so of course they're going to be merged or deleted. If you're saying that plot only articles are fine, you're going to need to change WP:N before this one. TTN (talk) 22:33, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not sure you read me correctly. I stated above that I have no interest in ungodly amounts of plot, I have argued strongly against it to the point of adding a section to WP:NOT specifically relating to plot. I disagree that articles on subtopics of fictional works have to be plot regurgitations, and I disagree that articles are removed for having no reliable sources. Typically these articles are removed based on I don't like it or I'm not sure it should exist. I'd rather not characterise the opinions of people I disagree with in such a manner. I'd just rather look to build a consensus, based upon all sides conceding ground. Hiding T 22:39, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

As I said, there are exceptions to my description. If there are no reliable sources, everything has to do with the plot. Personality sections, descriptions of the characters, and all that come directly from the plot, so they are no better than it (and also, they are mostly original research). Anyways, I cannot speak for others, but the reason that I have redirected upwards of five thousand articles is because they do not meet our standards, not because I do not like them. Though, I would say that is the same kind of bad generalization that you're accusing me of. TTN (talk) 22:46, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

You see, where you state you have redirected because articles do not meet our standards, I would say that that is doing it because you are not sure they should exist. But you are right, I should avoid generalisations. I am sorry, I had not meant to caricature you in such a way, and I did not want to drag your own conduct into it. That's being dealt with elsewhere and is not my concern. I believe you did what you did because you thought it was the right thing to do. I simply also believe that Wikipedia is a collaboration, and that means we have to listen to other people even when we disagree with them and we have to agree a way forwards together. I think we need to respect as many opinions as is possible in building our guidance, this one included. As long as we maintain a NPOV, the rest we can work out a consensus on. Hiding T 22:52, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

What do you mean by "you are not sure they should exist"? Most articles on fiction are purely plot info and trivia. They do not assert notability, and they do not show any sort of promise for the future. As they are only redirected, they can be brought back when sources become available. That is the best way to deal with them. It's not because I'm weary about their necessity. Anyways, you forget that a good chunk of these people have no interest in discussing. They want everything covered here and that is it. That is another reason for them to be ignored. TTN (talk) 23:00, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

The definition of notability (WP's inclusion policy for topics) is based on making sure that WP meets its goals of being a verified, reliable source of information. To do that, topics must have coverage in secondary topics. This is what determines what should be included and what should not be. This is why notability in WP's sense is not the same as importance, popularity, or the like; it is a much more defined measuring stick and thus reduces questionable inclusions.

Remember, at the same time, we are encouraging people to transwiki their materials to Wikia, where there's none of these issues on what can be included or not. We provide those includes in the relevant works so they can still go and learn more about that topic beyond what an encyclopedic treatment can provide. --MASEM 21:31, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

You don't need to tell me what our notability guidance is supposed to do. However, it is anything but objective, as detailed at WP:NOPE. The definition of notability was drafted so that new editors would have some guidance as to what to consider when creating an article. It was for fresh concepts, for new articles. It was not intended to limit the splitting of articles, to stem the natural branching of knowledge. It was never intended to state that only sections of an article with huge tracts of coverage in secondary sources should be split off; it was intended to state that we are an encyclopedia. As to what decides inclusion in Wikipedia, that is a consensus of Wikipedians, nothing more and nothing less. That's a foundation principle. Closing against a consensus based on a particular intepretation of policy or guidance is gaming the system. Wikipedia was founded on doing the right thing. It wasn't founded on operating a closed shop. Hiding T 21:48, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I had to revert this change:

For articles about fictional concepts, reliable secondary sources can be discussions of the work, plot, setting, or and characters in an academic or popular context-- this discussion, occurring in the real world, is "real-world context." It can also include secondary works that cover information such as sales figures, critical and popular reception, development, cultural impact, and merchandise; this information describes the real-world aspects of the concept, so it is real-world content. such reliable sources for these are those appropriate for the material being discussed. They will always include books, magazines, video programs, and other published media. They can also include appropriate internet discussion media, to the extent that they are accepted for the subject. The actual plot and characters and background of the fiction can be described from the fiction itself, documented to the extent necessary for clarity.

This statement supersedes both verification and original research by changing the definition of secondary sources which does not allow for most of those aspects.

If you really believe this guideline is disputed, place a disputed guideline on it. There has been concensus of the past editors of this page to the current version, but yes, that not necessarily is Wiki-wide. However, I strongly recommend not rewriting the guidelines until more discussion has taken place. --MASEM 21:18, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

• Can you explain how it violates WP:V and WP:OR please. It's long been held that internet discussion media is a suitable source for certain things, with a very narrow definition of certain things. Hiding T 21:24, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

• Internet forums are self-published, and therefore neither reliable (how do we know who is posting what?) and non-verifiable. They can be used as primary sources on top of secondary sources, but cannot be used for the sole support of a fact. --MASEM 21:31, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

• That's not established policy. Have a read of WP:V, both the section on Self-published sources (online and paper) and the section on Self-published and questionable sources in articles about themselves. I was involved in a lot of the discussion regarding drafting those sections, and what you state does not represent the consensus that emerged. We can use a self-published source to support a fact. We have a featured article which does so. Hiding T 21:39, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Hiding is right here--the current guideline certainly accepts primary sourcs. and certainly in some cases accepts internet forums. There was consensus there. They are widely used for appropriate articles, and accepted at AfD--when appropriate. If you wish to challenge this consensus , do so, and we can mark those guidelines also as disputed. DGG (talk) 21:45, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

• The second section you mention can never apply to fictional works (fictional characters cannot write about themselves). On the other hand, while it is true that the first section you mention allows for some self-published sources:

Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. However, caution should be exercised when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so.

(bold mine) means that all those USENET posts by JMS about Babylon 5 can be used to support fictional elements of Babylon 5, but a regular fan's post that describes an element cannot be used, as a fan (except in very rare extreme cases) cannot be considered an established expert on the topic. --MASEM 21:47, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

If you wish to assert that the author of a fictional work is not in some sense the work itself, then I respectfully disagree and state that of course the second section applies to fictional topics. As to your regular fan's posts, you already indicate that there are cases where they can be used, so I see no value in arguing any further since we both agree. Hiding T 21:56, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

JMS is the creator of Babylon 5. He is not a fan. --MASEM 21:58, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Could you explain the relevance of this comment. Hiding T 22:04, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I may have misinterpreted what you stated (I thought you had referred to the example I gave as being a fan, my mistake). However, I do not agree that we agree that a fan's post can be used arbitrarily; I agree they can be used but the case is extremely rare. If a fan's post is to be used, it has to be readily acknowledged and very obvious to people outside of that community that what that fan says is as good as coming from a creator or equivalent (I know there's such as person for Doctor Who, but that's the only example I've ever heard of). The vast majority of fans are not at this level of reliability, and thus the bulk of fan-created materials, even if its accurate and broad in coverage, cannot be used because the source is not reliable. --MASEM 22:12, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Like I said, we already agree that the opinion of fans can be used, so I can't see any value in arguing the toss that they can't. Seems redundant. Hiding T 22:17, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I doubt that informal jokey forum posts from, say, the creators of Avatar: The Last Airbender would be 'allowed' as canonical sources. Babylon 5 gets special treatment because we have a lot of B5 fans (including quite a few admins).--Nydas^(Talk) 22:37, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I'd rather save discussions on specific sources to deletion debates on the specific articles. That's their proper context and rightful place of examination, not here. Here is supposed to be a guide on rough areas of what to do and what to look for, not attempts to wiki-lawyer a tight and rigid straight-jacket of a policy which allows no room for people to think and engage and discuss and reach a consensus. AFD is a forum for debating an articles inclusion. This talk page and the guidance it discusses is for something different. As I have said before, it is redundant to argue over minor clauses relating to points on which we already agree. Hiding T 22:44, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

The B5 thing is indicative of a larger systemic bias. I'd prefer a guideline which either has little wiggle room or lots of it, otherwise the end result will be unbalanced coverage of things important to Wikipedians.--Nydas^(Talk) 10:15, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I am glad for the agreement that at least we must consider sources on their own merits. (But it doesnt have to come from a creator--just from a responsible critic accepted as such by the community, whose views could be published more conventionally if the field were one discussed in conventional publication.--I think that's the sort of "fan" you have in mind. ) Nobody is proposing accepting the contents of everything in every open forum as reliable .DGG (talk) 22:19, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with DGG here. What disappoints me most is the fact that article content and scope and potential is tossed aside in relation to this guidance. It is treated by some on Wikipedia as being an inviolate policy, when it is at best a loose guide. Articles should be evaluated on their own terms. A deletion debate should examine the article, not the guidance, and it should determine what the article is discussing, how it is presenting its information and where it is getting its information from. Our own opinion of whether Wikipedia should cover a topic should not influence the debate, which is what WP:N and sub-pages allows. Hiding T 22:26, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Hiding, you're right--it should be presented as a guideline giving alternatives, not as a guide to AfD debates. I should have done it that way, too. That's the way other guidelines are done. then the AfDs consider the applicability. But we still need to agree on the alternatives. DGG (talk) 22:30, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Alternatives

Here's how the guidance read in early August[2]:

Articles that do not show notability can be kept for a short time, merged, moved elsewhere, or deleted.

• The article can be kept if an obvious potential for notability (i.e. an availability of real-world content from reliable sources) is shown, or such information is added to the article. If this obviousness is challenged, the sources should be shown or included.
• Parts can be merged to a notable article to provide better context. If material is merged, the article is not deleted per the GFDL. In-universe information should be condensed and removed as necessary, and meaningful real-world content should not be deleted. If the article becomes too long and a split would create a sub-article that does not establish its own notability, then the content should be trimmed.
• The article is transwikied to a suitable Wiki (such as Wikia or its Wikipedia Annex) if the above options are unavailable. The article is then redirected to the most relevant article to preserve edit history for the transwiki.
• The article can be deleted only if the above options are either redundant or unavailable.

Articles that have potential to show notability should be given reasonable time to develop. To avoid this problem, do not split or create content unless the new article includes substantial real-world content (and ideally an out-of-universe perspective) from the onset. Editors must prove that there is an availability of sources covering real-world information by: providing hyperlinks to sources detailing real-world information about the topic; outlining a rewrite, expansion, or merge plan; and/or gaining the consensus of established editors. Otherwise, the article will be subject to the options mentioned above. Place appropriate clean-up tags to stimulate activity and mark the articles as sub-par (but with potential).

Articles that are too small or narrow in scope — even if they are notable — should be merged into a larger article to avoid disorganization and a potential overload of plot summary.

• How does that grab people? Hiding T 22:47, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

• How is that any different than the current wording? TTN (talk) 22:49, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

• Compare the first sentence in each version:

Articles that do not show notability can be kept for a short time, merged, moved elsewhere, or deleted. against Deletion discussions for articles that do not provide evidence of the notability of their subject should be guided by the following principles. Can you not see the difference in approach, tone and paths being offered? Why is it a foregone conclusion an article will end up at AFD? Hiding T 22:55, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

• If that's your main issue, how about we change it to "Merge and deletion discussions for articles..." and update the rest accordingly? Any that would be kept for a short time would fall under ones with an asserted potential for sources, so those would fit in the above section. TTN (talk) 23:13, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I really like the wording, and the guide aspect of it, as it directs people in plain english on what to do with notability issues, such as finding out of universe references and things. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 18:12, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I support any rewording that makes it clearer that deletion is not the only option. In the proposed old/new rewordings, it also becomes clear that the guideline/recommendation for "Non-notable topics" applies to merge discussions also, in the hope that AfD can be avoided after all. – sgeureka ^t•c 22:00, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

• Hiding, are you saying that my original July rewrite was a better approach? If so, I agree. — Deckiller 04:44, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Core of the argument

Based on what is above and thinking about it for a time, I think we're on a somewhat common page on what we're trying to achieve, it seems to me that it's more the issue that this page is cited chapter and verse in AfD discussions without considering other options, or that people immediately jump to move an article to AfD without giving the editors time to try to improve notability via discussion/template addition. The old version that is currently up, I'd argue, says pretty much what we were trying to say, but less prescriptively ("you should do this" instead of "you must do this"). By both versions, a list of minor characters that lack demonstrated notability still must be "dealt with" (merge, transwiki, or deleted), so there's no change in the requirements. --MASEM 23:33, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

• I disagree with the assertion that a list of minor characters that lack demonstrated notability still must be "dealt with" (merge, transwiki, or deleted). Until List of Shakespearean characters: A-K, sourced entirely from primary sources is deleted, I think we all have to agree that it is not the case that a list of minor characters that lack demonstrated notability still must be "dealt with" (merge, transwiki, or deleted). Hiding T 23:40, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

• How about List of Rookie Digimon (Part 1) (AfD)? Or the other 18 Digimon lists? (if anyone is wondering, they all now have a new home on Digimon Wiki). -- Ned Scott 23:44, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
• I may not agree with how the Shakespeare article is grouping characters, but I'm pretty sure that one can find plenty of secondary sources to describe a large number of the characters from Shakespeare works. There's a resumable presumption of notability with that simply from the scholarship level of Shakespeare works. The same can't be said of many modern anime works, but I do agree this doesn't mean you slap an AfD on it without persuing other approaches first. --MASEM 23:49, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

The current version highly discourages using AfD, and encourages alternative outlets... -- Ned Scott 23:39, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Disagree entirely. It is quite heavily slanted towards deletion as shown in the section preceding this one. Hiding T 23:40, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I got my wires crossed and was thinking of WP:EPISODE, which does say to avoid AfD. My bad. -- Ned Scott 05:33, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Had my wires crossed again. As Deckiller points out in another part of this discussion, it does specifically discourage article deletion. However, I would not mind emphasizing on that. -- Ned Scott 23:10, 9 December 2007 (UTC)