Wikipedia talk:Notability (fiction)/Archive 9

message: 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:
# "Sales figures"? What sales figures? Characters don't get sold, the work they belong to does. 
# "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". 
# "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.
# "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: 
# 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.
# 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.
# 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: The suggestion assumes that the "three movies" are three notable movies themselves. --72.204.45.94 06:38, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  This guideline sucks 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Contradicting policies and guidelines 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  How much is "significant" and "substantial"? 

message: 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)
replies: text: I have changed the quote at the begining of the page to match the new wording. [[Guest9999 22:44, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Altered WP:PLOT to cover fiction in general 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Tag wars don't help 

message: Here's how the guidance read in early August:
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)
replies: text: *How is that any different than the current wording? TTN (talk) 22:49, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *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)
replies: text: *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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: Alternatives

message: 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)
replies: text: *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)

text: *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)

text: The current version highly discourages using AfD, and encourages alternative outlets... -- Ned Scott 23:39, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Core of the argument