Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mainframe (C.O.P.S.)
Actually the GNG would be fine if people didn't improperly |synthesize it with other policies and guidelines in order to advance their position that coverage of fiction should be vastly reduced in Wikipedia. The words "real world context" appear nowhere in the |notability guideline; any wording of that sort appears in guidelines about ''how'' articles should be written, not about ''whether'' they should be written. Works of fiction which are not self-published ''are'' reliable sources for the characters and elements described within, the |reliable source guideline even explicitly says that "''for example, a work of fiction is considered a reliable source for a summary of the plot of that work of fiction''". As long as only descriptive claims are made that can be verified by anyone with access to the work of fiction, it is not |original research. Finally, when multiple writers write fictional stories about a fictional character, as is the case with the main characters of most major TV series, that ''is'' independent coverage of the subject. "Independent" means independent of the subject, not independent of the subject's owner, unless we are also going to argue that ''Time (magazine)|Time'' magazine is not an independent reliable source for information about a Warner Bros. film, because they are both owned by Time Warner. This article meets the relevant content policies; any alleged deficiences re OT#PLOT are solved by trimming plot summary or expanding real-world context, not by deletion
— User:DHowell, 03:32, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
Stance: keep
Cited policy: WP:SYNTH||WP:N||WP:RS||WP:OR||WP:NOT (Wikipedia:No original research)