Wikipedia talk:Notability (fiction)

message: I'm wondering if we should start deleting some of these. At least the more obvious ones that are invented topics.Blue Pumpkin Pie Chat Contribs 17:41, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: No, too early. We should first establish the minimum expectations for these lists (previous section), make sure there's community consensus for those, and then give a time frame like 6 months or so for editors to clean up. THEN we can start a deletion spree as we have given editors fair warning throughout this. (Any such RFC and results would be posted to relevant wikiprojects and VP). --Masem (t) 17:44, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

text: I agree with Masem here. There's no huge rush and decency demands at least some prior warning before starting an enormous cleanup campaign. The voice of cynicism- and prior experience- says that no amount of prior warning will actually get the defenders of these lists to sort out any of the problems, or prevent them from complaining loud and long when they are nominated at AfD. But we should still behave properly. Reyk YO! 07:20, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: True, but other editors who aren’t reflexively defending such lists would be far less likely to sympathetic    to the defenders if they had fair waring and ample opportunity to improve the lists and chose not to as opposed to being seemingly blindsided.--69.157.252.96 (talk) 21:25, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Should we start an initiative to delete the majority of these lists?

message: This essay was created two years ago and seemingly has the same "status" (essay) as NFICTION. It is however not very well known; it is not linked from NFICTION, it is cited only in a dozen+ AfD discussions since its creation two years ago, and also seems much more inclusive than NFICTIION or GNG. Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Comics links to NFICTION not to NCOMIC. It seems clear that this essay has been created by one person (User:Etzedek24) with no input or recognition from the community (I only found this which does not constite any wide endorsment; I did not see any other discussion of this essay on any public project discussion space), and it can mislead good faithed editors who can cite it thinking that it is a community-endorsed viewpoint, rather than a view point of a single editor. Few months ago on its talk page an anon suggested it should be deleted/depreciated, and I concur (not to deletion, but to tagging it with , but how to go about it? RfC? Or would a discussion here be enough? PS. For now, should it be tagged with ? An essay written by a single user should not give an appearance of a community-endorsed view, and clearly, an essay on notability template  present there is not enough, since it is also present here, and this falsely suggests NCOMIC is equal to NFICTION (which is much better known and much more widely cited). -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:30, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Comic book notability guidelines]] / [[WP:NCOMIC]] 

message: There is a proposal to add guidance on adapted film/television characters to this page at WT:FILM#Survey. Comments are welcome, thanks. InfiniteNexus (talk) 15:48, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adapted characters 

message: Hi @Kung Fu Man. I saw your recent edit removing the word "merchandise" after my recent update. I definitely appreciate and agree with your edit summary indicating that merchandise alone doesn't indicate notability. My intention with that inclusion was around secondary sigcov in independent reliable sources about merchandise. For example, merchandise announcements or churnalism noting a cross-promotions and such would not qualify, but an article in a reliable source with an experienced journalist providing a few paragraphs reviewing a toy could qualify in many cases. What do you think the best way to reflect this in the text would be? —siroχo 06:53, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: The main problem is if the article is discussing the merchandise or the subject in question for the article in a significant manner within it, and in all honesty I have next to never seen that happen. In the few cases where merchandise has been brought up in regards to how a subject is viewed, it's mentioned in the context of articles discussing the subject where the merchandise is a lesser point overall. Do you have examples of articles focused on merchandise you think helps provide notability towards a fictional element?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 13:32, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Significant coverage about merchandise