Wikipedia:Notability (fiction): Difference between revisions

This page is a thing. It's not a policy, and we're reasonably sure it's not a llama, but beyond that nobody is quite sure. Perhaps people can't agree on what it means. Perhaps people can't even agree on what it says. Perhaps people on Wikipedia really enjoy arguing about abstract concepts. All in all, it's quite confusing, and you'll probably be better off just reading about llamas instead.

This page in a nutshell: An element of fiction may satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article if it is central to understanding an important work of fiction and is the subject of significant real-world coverage from reliable sources. Creator commentary can be used to provide real-world coverage in accordance with our policy on self-published sources. Alternatively, an article that meets the general notability guideline is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article.

Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) is a proposed guideline intended to determine whether an element of fiction should or should not have an article on Wikipedia. An element of fiction is (1) an individual component of a serialized work, such as a television episode or a comic book storyline, or (2) an element in the fictionalized world, such as a character, object, or setting. An element of a notable work of fiction may qualify for a standalone article if it meets the three-pronged test described below. Articles are kept when adequate evidence for all three criteria exists, even if the article's current revision is not perfect. A subject can also have a standalone article when it meets the general notability guideline.

This guideline does not cover works of fiction as a whole, which are covered by guidelines such as books, films, websites, music, and others. This guideline also does not supersede Wikipedia's content and inclusion policies such as those on verifiability and what Wikipedia is not.

It is general consensus on Wikipedia that articles should not be split and split again into ever more minutiae of detail treatment, with each split normally lowering the level of significant real-world coverage contained in an article. This means that while a book or television episode may be the subject of significant real-world coverage, it is not normally advisable to have a separate article on every fictional character, episode, or scene that appears in a work of fiction, such that the coverage contains only trivial details or information about the plot.

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

1. Importance of the fictional work: To justify articles on individual elements, the fictional work from which they come must have produced significant artistic impact, cultural impact, or general popularity. This is shown when the work (not the element) exceeds the relevant notability guidelines.
2. Role within the fictional work: The element must be an important element, and its importance must be verifiable. The importance of characters and episodes can be demonstrated through the use of primary or secondary sources, while the importance of other elements must be validated in independent secondary sources.
3. Real-world coverage: Significant real-world information must exist on the element beyond what is revealed in the plot of the fictional work. Examples of real-world coverage include: creative influences, design processes, critical commentary, and cultural reception. Sometimes this real-world perspective can be established through the use of sources with a connection to the creators of the fictional work, such as creator commentary. Merely listing the notable works where the fictional element appears, their respective release dates, and the names of the production staff is not sufficient.

A topic about which there are no significant secondary sources cannot pass this guideline. Primary sources, such as the fictional work itself, can be used to verify certain facts about the fictional work. However, because they offer no real-world coverage about themselves, they cannot satisfy the first or third prongs, and thus are not enough to establish notability.

All articles must meet Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. In particular, the general notability guideline requires the use of reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. For fictional subjects, terms such as reliability and independence have specialized meanings.

Reception, reviews, and criticism must be verified in reliable sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. News organizations and scholarly journals usually ensure reliability through fact-checking or peer review; however, a source may still be considered reliable without these strict content controls. Wikipedians can determine whether a source meets our guideline on reliable sources through consensus at the Reliable sources noticeboard, or at specific WikiProjects.

Coverage of fiction often benefits from relying on sources that do not meet the strictest standards of independence. Because copyright holders often guard their intellectual property, much of the background information about fictional subjects may come from copyright holders. As a result, real-world coverage may be established through the use of non-promotional secondary sources that are not independent from the content creators. Creator commentary should be used in accordance with Wikipedia's policy on self-published sources, and should provide significant real-world coverage that goes beyond what is revealed in the plot of the fictional work.

Although an article with no independent sources may meet the minimum threshold to avoid deletion, spinout articles that resist good-faith efforts to improve them, including the search for independent sources, are often merged or redirected into related articles. Both the guideline on reliable sources and policy on verifiability call for articles to "rely on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. " Effort should be made to find appropriate reliable, independent sources, and to to ensure that the distribution of fictional articles adhere to a neutral point of view and avoid corporate promotion.

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

In addition, no part of this guideline is meant to preempt the editorial decision of content selection and presentation; for example, a topic may meet all the criteria, but may be decided by consensus to be better covered in the article on the work of fiction itself instead of a separate article if there is limited information available.

Template:MultiCol

Guidelines, examples and how-tos

• For examples of high quality fiction articles, see Good and Featured.
• Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction)
• Wikipedia:How to write a plot summary
• Wikipedia:Manual of Style (anime- and manga-related articles)
• Wikipedia:Television episodes
• Wikipedia:Writing better articles#Check your fiction
• Wikiproject Video Games "scope" guidance

| class="col-break " |

Noticeboards and Wikiprojects

• Fiction-related Noticeboard.
• WikiProject Films guidelines on plot summaries
• WikiProject Novels guidelines on plot summaries
• WikiProject Television guidelines on plot summaries
• WikiProject Soap Operas guidelines on character articles

Template:EndMultiCol