Misplaced Pages:Notability (fiction): Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 15:38, 21 November 2008 editEl Sandifer (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users19,527 edits Rm protection← Previous edit		Revision as of 23:00, 22 November 2008 edit undoEl Sandifer (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users19,527 edits Importing new proposal that has far more support than objection at present.Next edit →
Line 1:		Line 1:
	{{~~essay~~\|WP:FICT}}		{{proposed\|WP:FICT}}
	<!-- {{Misplaced Pages subcat guideline\|notability guideline\|Fiction\|]<br />]}} -->		<!-- {{Misplaced Pages subcat guideline\|notability guideline\|Fiction\|]<br />]}} -->
	{{nutshell		{{nutshell
	\|Articles on ~~a work of fiction or~~ fictional ~~element(s)~~ should demonstrate real-world ] from ]. Non-notable elements should preferably be concisely covered within articles on the main work or on notable elements. Coverage of fictional elements should focus on the demonstrated notability for the topic, with an appropriate ] of ].}}		\|Articles on fictional subjects should demonstrate real-world ] from ]. Non-notable elements should preferably be concisely covered within articles on the main work or on notable elements. Coverage of fictional elements should focus on the demonstrated notability for the topic, with an appropriate ] of ].}}
	~~:''~~For information about writing articles on fiction~~, refer to ].''~~		{{For\|information about writing articles on fiction\|Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style (writing about fiction)}}
			{{For\|the previous version of this page\|Misplaced Pages:Notability (fiction)/2008 proposal}}
	{{For\|specific examples where you may be able to help\|Misplaced Pages:Fiction/Noticeboard}}		{{For\|specific examples where you may be able to help\|Misplaced Pages:Fiction/Noticeboard}}
	{{IncGuide}}		{{IncGuide}}

			No hard and fast rule regarding the notability of fictional subjects has found wide consensus, and the issue remains deeply contentious. In lieu of such a general principle, this guideline attempts instead to address practical consensus - that is, the factors that often, in practice, go into keeping or deleting an article on a fictional subject. It offers a four-pronged test for whether an article falls into the category of articles we include, or those we do not, as well as offering some general observations on best practices in writing such articles.
	'''Misplaced Pages:Notability (fiction)''' covers the general ] of ] including individual episodes of serialized works such as television or comic book series, as well as ] such as characters, items and places within a work of fiction. For more specific notability guidelines on works of fiction presented in specific forms of media, see the following guidelines:
	*] for books
	*] for films
	*] for web-based content
	*'']'' proposed guideline for toys and games (including both role-playing games and video games)

			This guidance attempts to remain a useful compliment to the ], which states that an article on a topic should have significant coverage in ], ]. Any article that passes the general guideline should easily satisfy these requirements as well, and visa versa.
	==Defining notability for fiction==
	This guideline is based on three excerpts:

			Note also that this is a guideline for inclusion. The standards set here are merely sufficient to not delete an article - they do not represent the ideal of what an article on a fictional subject should be. An article that just barely meets this guideline is unlikely to be very good, and probably needs serious work. This establishes the absolute minimum for an article - not a goal.
	From ]:
	<blockquote>Misplaced Pages articles on published works (such as fictional stories) should contain real-world context and sourced analysis, offering detail on a work's development and historical significance, not solely a detailed summary of that work's plot. This applies to both stand-alone works and series. A concise plot summary is appropriate as part of the larger coverage of a fictional work.</blockquote>

			This page is a guideline for subjects that are themselves fictional. For guidance on inclusion of a work of fiction, look for the notability guideline for the medium the work appears in - e.g. ], or consult the ].
	From ]:
	<blockquote>A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in ] that are ] of the subject.</blockquote>

			==Four-pronged test==
	From ]:
	<blockquote>Whatever you do, endeavour to preserve information. Instead of deleting: try to rephrase;
	correct the inaccuracy while keeping the content; move text within an article or to another article (existing or new); add more of what you think is important to make an article more balanced; or request a citation by adding the {{tl\|fact}} tag. Exceptions include: duplication or redundancy; irrelevancy; ]; ]; or ] (attempt to correct the misinformation or discuss the problems first before deletion).</blockquote>

			For articles on fictional subjects that do not clearly meet the general notability guide, the following four-pronged test generally tracks community consensus. This test does not provide a clear and automatic answer - rather, it gives four factors, all of which must be considered and weighed against each other on balance. It is wholly possible (and indeed common) for an article to be kept because it is strong on two or three aspects of the test, even if it is weaker on another. However, an article is unlikely to be kept on the basis of one factor - ''all four must be addressed to some extent''.
	For articles on fiction, '']'' may cover such things as design, development, reception and cultural impact. This is ''real-world coverage'' because it describes the real-world aspects of the work. ''Fictional coverage'' describes the work's fictional elements, such as the setting, characters, and story.

			===#1: Narrative complexity===
	Based on this reasoning and the above excerpts, fictional concepts can be presumed '''notable''' if they have ''received significant real-world coverage in ] sources that are independent of the subject''. However, notability for individual topics on fiction should be judged on a case-by-case basis while following Misplaced Pages's core policies of ], ] and ].

			] states that "A concise plot summary is appropriate as part of the larger coverage of a fictional work." For some works - particularly extremely lengthy serialized works -providing a concise plot summary in one article can be difficult or impossible. Where works have significant narrative complexity that requires considerable length to adequately summarize the plot, we are often more tolerant of spin-out articles that are focused primarily on plot.
	==Demonstrating notability==
	===Works of fiction===
	Articles on a work of fiction (a book, movie, television series, video game, or other medium) should demonstrate real-world ] from ]. Articles on of works of fiction should strive to include information on critical reception, viewings or sales figures, development and other information from reliable sources.

			Such articles should still endeavor to be as brief as possible without sacrificing thoroughness, and must adhere to all relevant guidelines for ]. This includes avoiding the introduction of ] and the ] in writing about a topic. Articles should also avoid excessive duplication of plot from other articles; for example, an article on a fictional character should not fully reiterate the plot of the work the character appears in.
	Certain media have additional notability guidelines: ] for books and printed material, ] for films, and ] for toys, traditional games, and video games. A work of fiction is presumed to be notable if it meets the ], the guidelines presented here, or the guidelines specific to its medium.

			This factor results in a tendency to keep more "artistic" works, including, for instance, episodes of television dramas, and a tendency to reject episodes of more narratively simple works such as video games or children's television. These are not, however, hard and fast rules - exceptions abound. However, generally speaking a work of fiction with a continuing, serialized plot that is focused on character development is more likely to have episode articles than a work of fiction with a more episodic structure, or one where the plot is more action-heavy.
	===Elements of fiction===
	Elements of a work of fiction, including individual stories, episodes, characters, settings, and other topics, are presumed to be notable if there is significant coverage of the element(s) in reliable secondary sources. For fictional elements, this will typically include the real-world context and analysis of the elements, and can include influence and other aspects of its development, critical reception of the elements, and popularity of the element through readership/viewership ratings and marketing. Notability of an element may also be shown through secondary-source analysis of the main work of fiction, citing the importance of the element to the work. Reputable academic studies of individual elements may also demonstrate notability.

			This factor is closely related to the third factor, inasmuch as narrative complexity is often grounds for claims of artistic significance.
	Data such as actors, cast and crew, publication and airing dates, appearances in a larger body of works, and production codes, while useful and sometimes necessary data for articles on fictional elements, are ''not'' sufficient for notability as these are trivial data that can be learned for any other work in the same medium by reviewing the original work or through sites and resources such as ] or ]. Evidence of notability should explain what is special about the topic, such as awards, rankings, sales figures or studies and analyses specifically relating to the element in question.<ref>An example of a plaudit given for fictional elements that speaks directly to notability is ], selected by a respected body on the basis of clear criteria; fan polls will not generally indicate notability, although coverage of the poll result in media or academic sources may do so.</ref><ref>It is not generally a sufficient indicator of notability for an award to be given for a fictional topic, or for a fictional work to have high figures according to primary sources; however, these are often discussed in secondary coverage which, if significant, may be used to establish the notability of the fictional topic in question. In some cases, however, a plaudit is of sufficient stature to represent sufficient coverage in itself; it is rare that such will have been given without coverage in other secondary sources, and exceptional evidence will be required to justify any element as notable on the basis of an award alone. </ref> Notability, in accordance with this guidance, is best demonstrated through citations to reliable secondary sources.

			===#2: Importance within the fictional work===
	Notability may be shown for an individual element<ref>For example ], ], ], ] and '']''</ref> or for a certain grouping of elements, commonly characters or episodes.<ref>For example ] or ]</ref> When notability can be shown, the element or grouping of elements merits a separate article. This article should be summarized in the parent article, and {{tl\|main}} or {{tl\|see also}} templates should be used to direct users to where they may find more information.<ref>For example, an overview of ] is provided by the "Cast" section of ], while a brief summary of ] is included in ] to compare with other listed characters</ref> Further details can be found in the ] section of ].

			We are generally more willing to have articles on important or central aspects of a fictional work than more peripheral ones. Major characters are more acceptable than minor characters, and particularly significant episodes are more acceptable than just having an article for every episode.
	However, even where an element or group of elements is notable, it may be more appropriate to include the information in an article on the work itself if:
	*The resulting article would be very short, with little or no likelihood of expansion.
	*The resulting article would have, by necessity, excessive ].

			In addressing this aspect of the test, it is often productive to look to sources that would not be acceptable for establishing notability in other contexts. Once the notability of the overall work of fiction is established, for specific episodes or characters it is productive to turn to sources that are less-independent than would normally be ideal: DVD commentaries, interviews with creators, blogs or other writings by creators, etc. Similarly, significant review websites that might not be treated as reliable sources can sometimes be used here. (As a good general benchmark, if the review website itself is notable, its viewpoints are probably important enough to factor in this test)
	===Fictional elements as part of a larger topic===
	If consensus on a fictional element is that it is of unproven notability, editors should seek to retain the information where it can improve the encyclopedia. Such coverage may be placed as part of the main article on the work of fiction, or if better suited, an article on another, notable fictional element. If this makes the main article too long, per ], then there are several steps to consider:
	* Trim away unneccessary material to reduce the size of the article. The approach to covering non-notable fictional elements is more fully described in ], but in general, non-notable fictional elements should only be given sufficient information for the reader to understand its relationship within the entire work.
	* ] material that may be of trivial, or of only highly detailed interest, to the general reader. It is still appropriate to leave some mention of non-notable elements within the Misplaced Pages article, while linking to the other wiki for more details.
	* Merge coverage of less-notable elements to into a ] as described below.

			===#3: Importance of the fictional work===
	====Creating fictional element lists====
	Where none of the above steps can resolve the length problem without damaging encyclopedic coverage of the work, groupings of individually non-notable elements can merit their own supporting articles; this should be considered only for highly notable works,<ref name="highly">Highly notable works are taken as those that substantially exceed the minimum standards for notability, having large coverage in secondary sources. This would typically include those that have been the subject of extensive academic analysis.</ref> and the information within the supporting articles should not exceed the necessary ] for the main article's topic. Under current practice, these supporting articles are generally one of the following two types of list:
	* Lists of characters in a highly-notable work or series of works.
	* Lists of episodes or serial elements in a serial work.
	If the resulting list would be too large without exceeding the necessary depth of coverage, elements may be grouped into smaller lists. To avoid undue weight on a subtopic, the smaller lists should correspond to either highly notable<ref name="highly"/> fictional subtopics or divisions of the work, or a real-world division.<ref>Regardless of how the split is broken up, the list article title should clearly indicate the work of fiction as part of the title; 'List of Jedi characters' would not be an appropriate title, but 'List of Jedi characters from Star Wars' would be.</ref> Lists of elements corresponding to a less-notable topic could still appear as sections in an article on that topic. For divisions by fictional characteristics, consider the use of categories to categorise redirects to individual list elements.

			Similarly, we are generally more willing to include articles on specific aspects of a fictional work when the overall fictional work demonstrates great importance. For instance, we are more likely to have episode and character articles for a long-running and critically acclaimed television series than we are for one that was canceled after a few episodes.
	Subject-specific guidelines may limit these cases, or give other cases when such articles are considered appropriate. Articles that fail to meet these requirements can have their inclusion challenged through a deletion debate and are often deleted through editorial consensus. Articles that fail to meet the guidelines presented in ] can also be challenged and deleted or improved to meet our style.

			In evaluating this, looking at the sources presented in the main article on the work of fiction is the best route. If those sources present clear claims for the artistic or cultural importance of the work of fiction, it is a good sign that the work of fiction is important enough to merit deeper coverage.
	==Depth of coverage==
	Articles on fiction should be structured around evaluations and critiques of the work or topic, with an appropriate ] of real-world and plot information, as outlined at ]. The size of a plot summary is often determined by building consensus for each article on a case by case basis. Editors should compare approaches taken on ] and ] about fiction for examples of length and tone.

			===#4: Availability of real world perspective===
	'''Depth of coverage within an article should be guided by the amount of real-world information which can be sourced.''' A single movie, book, video game, or other work of fiction has most likely not generated substantial<ref>This guideline does not offer ] for how much coverage qualifies as "substantial". We cannot rule on every instance, and there is a vast difference between the coverage the ] books have received and the coverage '']'' has received, with many falling into a grey area left to editorial consensus. Where disputes cannot be resolved, please list them at various venues to encourage wider participation and the building of consensus. ] is one such venue.</ref> coverage in sources which Misplaced Pages can summarize. Therefore, the article will be able to summarize those sources in one article. On the other hand, a series of books, television shows, or video games could contain elements which are better covered in a separate article or articles, helping to provide suitable background and supplementary information for each work within the series. See ] above for more details.

			An episode or character article is much more likely to be kept if it provides real-world perspective instead of just plot summary. Information on production and reception goes a long way towards making a quality article. In practice, this factor is probably the most important in determinations about keeping or deleting an article. Remember that ] stresses that "Misplaced Pages treats fiction in an encyclopedic manner; discussing the reception, impact and significance of notable works."
	At times, better depth of coverage may be accomplished by combining notable and non-notable elements into a single topic, such as a character cast or a single season of a television show, instead of individual elements. WikiProjects that deal with fiction have guidelines describing what depth of coverage should be provided for plot information relative to the length of the original work. The complexity of the work should also be taken into a consideration; uses of certain creative elements (such as ] or ]s) may require more detail to clearly explain the concepts in an encyclopedic manner.

			As with the issue of importance for an episode, this factor is often addressed via recourse to sources that would not normally be considered for judging notability: DVD commentaries, interviews, production blogs, reviews, etc. Another consideration for this factor is how other articles from the same work of fiction have been developed and the presumption of sources. For example, if a majority of the episodes of a television series have shown to have good real world perspective including content gained from commentary on their DVD release, leniency is usually given towards episode articles that, at that moment, lack real-world perspective such as episodes that have only just aired.
	If there is an imbalance of fictional information in an article, consider trimming the text or ] to an appropriate GFDL-compatible Wiki.

			In practice this is probably the most important single factor in decisions to keep or delete an article - an article with substantial real world perspective that uses sources to establish claims about production and reception will rarely be deleted.
	==Dealing with non-notable fictional topics==
	Editors may request evidence of the notability of any article, including those on fictional elements, either through in discussion on the article talk page or by the addition of a {{tl\|notability}} template on the article itself. Articles on fictional topics that lack demonstrated notability should be improved either by adding demonstrated notability, or by other editing actions such as trimming, merging, or moving content to another Wiki.

			==Specific tendencies==
	Nevertheless, the lack of demonstrated notability is ''not'' one of the ], and ] improvements are expected as part of the ]. Editors should review specific guidelines or approaches outlined in the appropriate ], such as ] or ]. Other concerns about dealing with fictional notability can be raised at the ].

			Although the four-pronged test provides a good basis for evaluation of a given article, certain trends in inclusion and deletion can also be noted for general categories.
	First and foremost, if you can provide reliably sourced, verifiable information on real-world facts that establish the notability of the topic, be ] and include it in the article. Here are additional suggestions to improve articles that lack demonstration of notability:

			===Episodes===
	* If you believe the article will never have a chance of demonstrating notability or cannot be merged elsewhere, '''and''' that its deletion is unlikely to be contested, place the article up for ]. A character in a TV show that only appeared on-screen for a few seconds and is never referred to otherwise is probably non-notable; however, by using the proposed deletion process, someone may be able to provide the required evidence of notability. If you are unsure if this is the correct step, then do '''not''' perform this step.
	* Inform the editors of the article on the article's talk page of your concern about the lack of notability. This can also be done by tagging the article with the {{tl\|notability}} tag on the article page, though it is recommended to discuss your concerns with the editors as well in this case. If many such articles within the same fictional universe exist in a similar state, attempt to find a project or task force page for that fictional work and let the editors there know your concerns.
	* If the article can be grouped with an existing article or other articles on the same type of fictional elements, then it may be appropriate to discuss a potential ]. This may require that information be trimmed from the article. If articles are merged, leave ] in their place to the appropriate page, and link the old article or articles in your edit summary to comply with the GFDL. Consider using ] to help track such redirects. You can boldly merge articles, but consensus will often be required before major changes are accepted by the community.
	* If an existing GFDL-compatible wiki for the fictional topic exists, suggest transwiki'ing the information. Again, articles that are moved should be replaced with redirection pages.
	* If the above options have been considered and determined to not be possible or if you feel that any action taken has not remedied the situation, it may be appropriate to nominate the ] where the merits of the article can be debated. However, this should be considered carefully for an article that otherwise does not violate any further Misplaced Pages policies or guidelines such as those regarding ] or ].

			Misplaced Pages sometimes includes articles on episodes of television series. Such articles may consist of a short plot summary, a cast and crew list, and available information about production or reception. Articles must conform to ], and must not contain speculation or interpretation unless it is sourced. Articles that are overwhelmed with speculation, or that have excessively long plot summaries are often deleted. For guidance on writing an effective plot summary, consult ] and ].
	Editors are cautioned against performing the above actions on numerous articles ''en masse''; an ] stated that editors are '''''"urged to work collaboratively and constructively with the broader community and the editors committed to working on the articles"'''''.

			If it is possible, it is often preferable to cover multiple episodes via a list article instead of having individual articles for each episodes. Such lists are much less controversial than individual episode articles.
	==Relocating non-notable fictional material==
	], Misplaced Pages's sibling project, contains instructional and educational texts. These include annotated works of fiction (on the ]) for classroom or private study use. ], similarly, holds original public domain and GFDL source texts. See ]. One possible action to consider is to make use of all of the Wikimedia projects combined: to have an encyclopedia article about the work of fiction on Misplaced Pages giving a brief outline, a chapter-by-chapter annotation on Wikibooks, the full source text on Wikisource (if the work is in the public domain), and ] joining them all together into a whole. However, Wikibooks , so it is not an appropriate place to transwiki large quantities of fictional material.

			In other serialized works of fiction, similar attitudes exist, with varying tendencies. With comics, we tend to be more biased against articles on individual issues or storylines. WIth series of novels, we tend to be more biased in favor of them.
	Fictional material unsuited or too detailed for Misplaced Pages can be ] to a appropriate GFDL-compatible wiki, such as or ; editors should check with related Wikiprojects to determine if a specific wiki has been selected for transwiking materials. Any transwikied material should be edited to meet the guidelines of specific wikis.

			===Characters===

			Misplaced Pages sometimes includes articles on major characters of fictional works. Such articles may consist of a short fictional biography, and available information about the development of that character or reception of the character. Articles must conform to WP:WAF, and must not contain speculation or interpretation unless it is sourced. Articles that are overwhelmed with speculation, or that have excessively long biographies are often deleted. For guidance on writing an effective plot summary, consult ] and ].

			For character articles, the second aspect of the four-pronged test, importance to the overall subject, is particularly important. Articles about fictional characters who are not deemed "major characters" are generally deleted or merged. Based on the third prong, articles on characters from a single work (such as a movie or a video game) are generally discouraged, while a character that spans multiple works (a television series, or a movie or video game franchise) are likely to be kept.

			If it is possible, it is generally preferable to cover characters either in the main article for the work of fiction or in a list of characters articles. Such articles are much less controversial than individual character articles, which should only be created when the alternatives are not feasible.

			===Other fictional objects===

			Beyond episodes and characters, little consensus exists to have articles on specific aspects of fictional works that do not meet the general notability guideline. Exceptions exist, but are rare, and generally must demonstrate extraordinary compliance with all aspects of the four-pronged test.

			Specific WikiProjects that deal with fiction works may also restrict such content. For example, the ], in following the content guideline that ], discourages discussion of specific in-game weapons, objects, or levels, though does not prevent their inclusion when such topics meet the general notability guideline or the above four-pronged test.

			==Use of sources==

			Any article on a fictional element must be sourced to show ]. However, the use of sources for articles on fictional subjects is a complex issue. In general, as with any article, significant coverage in secondary sources is a prerequisite for inclusion. However, for fictional subjects, often notability can be satisfied with sources that do not meet as strict standards as are required for other areas.

			===Semi-independent sources===

			Coverage of fiction often benefits from relying on sources that do not meet the strictest standards of independence. Part of this stems from the fact that the idea of an "independent source" was developed to deal with press releases, corporate websites, and issues of self-promotion - a very different issue than the one faced by works of fiction. As a result, notability can often be established for these articles by using sources that are not as independent as would be required for other areas, so long as they provide substantial coverage of the topic.

			Often, very good sources exist that are not wholly independent - interviews, production blogs, writings (even self-published ones) by creators, officially licensed "behind the scenes" guidebooks, etc. Substantial use of these sources goes a long way towards improving an article to the point where it is likely to be kept, and although they do not meet the strictest available standards of sourcing, it remains the case that they are, in practice, often viewed as acceptable sources for establishing the viability of an article.

			===Self-published sources===

			Often, sources that would not meet the strictest criteria of reliability can provide important insights for fictional subjects. This is most true of reviews. Fan sites or popular culture sites that fall short of some of the criteria in ] can often be used as primary sources for their own views on a work of fiction, as per the policy on use of such sources, ]. This is particularly true if the sites are themselves notable, and thus if their viewpoints are significant enough to be included as part of providing a ] on the subject. As a result, substantial coverage in sources that are significant but not necessarily reliable sources can often be used to establish notability.

			For example, although ] (TWoP) probably fails to meet our standards for a reliable source, they notably provide detailed reviews of every episode of numerous television series. These reviews can be cited as evidence of what TWoP, itself an important site with an important point of view, thinks about shows. Use of such sources, though it does not meet the strictest available standards of sourcing, is often viewed as an acceptable way to establish notability in this area.

			Editors should check specific WikiProjects for that type of fiction as they may provide a list of sources that have been determined to be reliable through community consensus. Editors should also remember that though such sources can provide evidence of a topic's notability, they are not, in the long term, sufficient to base an article on, and that more reliable sources should be actively sought.

			===Primary sources===

			Plot summaries are one of the areas where primary sources are most important for use on Misplaced Pages. Although it is often possible to find secondary sources that offer plot summaries, given the degree to which a plot summary consists of straightforward description, it is rarely preferable to do so.

			On the other hand, it is important not to stray into speculation, interpretation, or commentary that is based on primary sources. Describing what happens in episodes, and even describing connections between episodes is an essential part of providing good coverage. However it is crucial to avoid speculative claims about what is merely implied. There is, however, no firm line between the two. Sometimes implication is perfectly obvious - for example, it does not require any difficult or controversial leaps to observe the ambiguity in the final episode of ].

			===Bias towards commercialism===

			One problem that arises in covering fictional subjects is that the availability of sources is tied, at times, not to cultural importance but to the dedication that fans of a given work of fiction devote to it. If one were to judge purely based on the availability of secondary sources, one could be forgiven for thinking that science fiction shows are far and away the most important category of shows about television. After all, the number of books published on Star Trek, Doctor Who, and other shows is staggering. Often, more books exist on a low-rated, albeit critically acclaimed science fiction show such as ] than exist on enormously popular shows like ]. Unsurprisingly, this bias is often reflected in our coverage of subjects as well.

			Closely related to this bias is a presentist bias — it is far more commercially sound to publish a book on a currently running television show than one that has been off the air for ages. The situation only becomes worse when the online sources that are most often consulted for Misplaced Pages are taken into account. Similarly, non-English language works of fiction are unlikely to see the same representation in English language sources as similarly popular English-language works.

			There is no easy way to correct for this bias. Certainly we do not want to ignore the wealth of sourcing that exists for works with devoted fandoms — that sourcing makes it easier to write better articles with more real world perspective on them, and we ought take advantage of it. However, in the case of an older work of fiction, or one that does not inspire as devoted fans as other works, it is important to be somewhat more relaxed in standards to avoid excessively succumbing to this bias. As with any article, the threshold for inclusion is not whether notability has been established, but whether it is likely that it could be.

			==A note of caution==

			Deletion debates, and particularly those centering on fictional subjects, are among the most contentious processes on Misplaced Pages. Even the most well-intentioned of editors can be prone to assumptions of bad faith when, on the one hand, it is claimed that an article they worked hard on is unfit for inclusion, and, on the other, they are confronted with people clamoring to keep what appears to be unencyclopedic garbage. While the deletion process is sometimes - indeed often - necessary to deal with deeply flawed articles, it is important to remember that even a bad article can provide a useful foundation for writing a good article, and that working cordially and respectfully with editors whose views on inclusion you disagree with is one of the best ways to improve coverage in a given area. If it is possible to improve an article, it is always better to do so than to try to delete it.

			Even if a fictional element topic fails to meet the four-pronged test or is deleted after discussion, such elements can almost always be described in the context of a larger work, and the use of ] is encouraged to allow readers to search on these terms. For example, the one-shot character of ], which clearly fails the four-prong test, exists as a redirect to the Simpsons episode '']'', the episode it appears in.

			Editors should also take advantage of non-Misplaced Pages ]s that follow the ] that may provide more details about a given fictional work. These can not only be used to augment brief descriptions of fictional topics, or can be used to relocate material that has been deemed unsuitable for Misplaced Pages. Links to such wikis should placed as an external link to the articles in question.

	==See also==		==See also==
	* For examples of high quality fiction articles, see the articles that have been rated as ] and ].		* For examples of high quality fiction articles, see the articles that have been rated as ] and ].
			* Specific questions and inquiries on notability of fiction articles can be made at the ].
	* ]		* ]
	* ]		* ]
	* ]		* ]
			* ]
	* ]		* ]
	* ]		* ]
	* ]		* ]
	* ]		* ]

	==Notes==
	{{reflist}}

	]		]

Revision as of 23:00, 22 November 2008

The following is a proposed Misplaced Pages policy, guideline, or process. The proposal may still be in development, under discussion, or in the process of gathering consensus for adoption.

Shortcut

WP:FICT

This page in a nutshell: Articles on fictional subjects should demonstrate real-world notability from reliable sources. Non-notable elements should preferably be concisely covered within articles on the main work or on notable elements. Coverage of fictional elements should focus on the demonstrated notability for the topic, with an appropriate balance of plot information.

For information about writing articles on fiction, see Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style (writing about fiction). For the previous version of this page, see Misplaced Pages:Notability (fiction)/2008 proposal. For specific examples where you may be able to help, see Misplaced Pages:Fiction/Noticeboard.

Notability
General notability guideline
Subject-specific guidelines
Academics Astronomical objects Books Events Films Geographic features Music Numbers Organizations and companies People Species Sports and athletes Web content
See also
Notability essays Guide to deletion Common deletion outcomes Why was my article deleted?
v t e

No hard and fast rule regarding the notability of fictional subjects has found wide consensus, and the issue remains deeply contentious. In lieu of such a general principle, this guideline attempts instead to address practical consensus - that is, the factors that often, in practice, go into keeping or deleting an article on a fictional subject. It offers a four-pronged test for whether an article falls into the category of articles we include, or those we do not, as well as offering some general observations on best practices in writing such articles.

This guidance attempts to remain a useful compliment to the general notability guideline, which states that an article on a topic should have significant coverage in reliable, secondary sources. Any article that passes the general guideline should easily satisfy these requirements as well, and visa versa.

Note also that this is a guideline for inclusion. The standards set here are merely sufficient to not delete an article - they do not represent the ideal of what an article on a fictional subject should be. An article that just barely meets this guideline is unlikely to be very good, and probably needs serious work. This establishes the absolute minimum for an article - not a goal.

This page is a guideline for subjects that are themselves fictional. For guidance on inclusion of a work of fiction, look for the notability guideline for the medium the work appears in - e.g. Misplaced Pages:Notability (films), or consult the general notability guideline.

Four-pronged test

For articles on fictional subjects that do not clearly meet the general notability guide, the following four-pronged test generally tracks community consensus. This test does not provide a clear and automatic answer - rather, it gives four factors, all of which must be considered and weighed against each other on balance. It is wholly possible (and indeed common) for an article to be kept because it is strong on two or three aspects of the test, even if it is weaker on another. However, an article is unlikely to be kept on the basis of one factor - all four must be addressed to some extent.

#1: Narrative complexity

WP:NOT#PLOT states that "A concise plot summary is appropriate as part of the larger coverage of a fictional work." For some works - particularly extremely lengthy serialized works -providing a concise plot summary in one article can be difficult or impossible. Where works have significant narrative complexity that requires considerable length to adequately summarize the plot, we are often more tolerant of spin-out articles that are focused primarily on plot.

Such articles should still endeavor to be as brief as possible without sacrificing thoroughness, and must adhere to all relevant guidelines for writing about fiction. This includes avoiding the introduction of original research and the bias in writing about a topic. Articles should also avoid excessive duplication of plot from other articles; for example, an article on a fictional character should not fully reiterate the plot of the work the character appears in.

This factor results in a tendency to keep more "artistic" works, including, for instance, episodes of television dramas, and a tendency to reject episodes of more narratively simple works such as video games or children's television. These are not, however, hard and fast rules - exceptions abound. However, generally speaking a work of fiction with a continuing, serialized plot that is focused on character development is more likely to have episode articles than a work of fiction with a more episodic structure, or one where the plot is more action-heavy.

This factor is closely related to the third factor, inasmuch as narrative complexity is often grounds for claims of artistic significance.

#2: Importance within the fictional work

We are generally more willing to have articles on important or central aspects of a fictional work than more peripheral ones. Major characters are more acceptable than minor characters, and particularly significant episodes are more acceptable than just having an article for every episode.

In addressing this aspect of the test, it is often productive to look to sources that would not be acceptable for establishing notability in other contexts. Once the notability of the overall work of fiction is established, for specific episodes or characters it is productive to turn to sources that are less-independent than would normally be ideal: DVD commentaries, interviews with creators, blogs or other writings by creators, etc. Similarly, significant review websites that might not be treated as reliable sources can sometimes be used here. (As a good general benchmark, if the review website itself is notable, its viewpoints are probably important enough to factor in this test)

#3: Importance of the fictional work

Similarly, we are generally more willing to include articles on specific aspects of a fictional work when the overall fictional work demonstrates great importance. For instance, we are more likely to have episode and character articles for a long-running and critically acclaimed television series than we are for one that was canceled after a few episodes.

In evaluating this, looking at the sources presented in the main article on the work of fiction is the best route. If those sources present clear claims for the artistic or cultural importance of the work of fiction, it is a good sign that the work of fiction is important enough to merit deeper coverage.

#4: Availability of real world perspective

An episode or character article is much more likely to be kept if it provides real-world perspective instead of just plot summary. Information on production and reception goes a long way towards making a quality article. In practice, this factor is probably the most important in determinations about keeping or deleting an article. Remember that WP:NOT#PLOT stresses that "Misplaced Pages treats fiction in an encyclopedic manner; discussing the reception, impact and significance of notable works."

As with the issue of importance for an episode, this factor is often addressed via recourse to sources that would not normally be considered for judging notability: DVD commentaries, interviews, production blogs, reviews, etc. Another consideration for this factor is how other articles from the same work of fiction have been developed and the presumption of sources. For example, if a majority of the episodes of a television series have shown to have good real world perspective including content gained from commentary on their DVD release, leniency is usually given towards episode articles that, at that moment, lack real-world perspective such as episodes that have only just aired.

In practice this is probably the most important single factor in decisions to keep or delete an article - an article with substantial real world perspective that uses sources to establish claims about production and reception will rarely be deleted.

Specific tendencies

Although the four-pronged test provides a good basis for evaluation of a given article, certain trends in inclusion and deletion can also be noted for general categories.

Episodes

Misplaced Pages sometimes includes articles on episodes of television series. Such articles may consist of a short plot summary, a cast and crew list, and available information about production or reception. Articles must conform to Misplaced Pages:Writing about fiction, and must not contain speculation or interpretation unless it is sourced. Articles that are overwhelmed with speculation, or that have excessively long plot summaries are often deleted. For guidance on writing an effective plot summary, consult Misplaced Pages:Plot summaries and Misplaced Pages:How to write a plot summary.

If it is possible, it is often preferable to cover multiple episodes via a list article instead of having individual articles for each episodes. Such lists are much less controversial than individual episode articles.

In other serialized works of fiction, similar attitudes exist, with varying tendencies. With comics, we tend to be more biased against articles on individual issues or storylines. WIth series of novels, we tend to be more biased in favor of them.

Characters

Misplaced Pages sometimes includes articles on major characters of fictional works. Such articles may consist of a short fictional biography, and available information about the development of that character or reception of the character. Articles must conform to WP:WAF, and must not contain speculation or interpretation unless it is sourced. Articles that are overwhelmed with speculation, or that have excessively long biographies are often deleted. For guidance on writing an effective plot summary, consult Misplaced Pages:Plot summaries and Misplaced Pages:How to write a plot summary.

For character articles, the second aspect of the four-pronged test, importance to the overall subject, is particularly important. Articles about fictional characters who are not deemed "major characters" are generally deleted or merged. Based on the third prong, articles on characters from a single work (such as a movie or a video game) are generally discouraged, while a character that spans multiple works (a television series, or a movie or video game franchise) are likely to be kept.

If it is possible, it is generally preferable to cover characters either in the main article for the work of fiction or in a list of characters articles. Such articles are much less controversial than individual character articles, which should only be created when the alternatives are not feasible.

Other fictional objects

Beyond episodes and characters, little consensus exists to have articles on specific aspects of fictional works that do not meet the general notability guideline. Exceptions exist, but are rare, and generally must demonstrate extraordinary compliance with all aspects of the four-pronged test.

Specific WikiProjects that deal with fiction works may also restrict such content. For example, the Video Games Wikiproject, in following the content guideline that Misplaced Pages is not a guidebook, discourages discussion of specific in-game weapons, objects, or levels, though does not prevent their inclusion when such topics meet the general notability guideline or the above four-pronged test.

Use of sources

Any article on a fictional element must be sourced to show verifiable information. However, the use of sources for articles on fictional subjects is a complex issue. In general, as with any article, significant coverage in secondary sources is a prerequisite for inclusion. However, for fictional subjects, often notability can be satisfied with sources that do not meet as strict standards as are required for other areas.

Semi-independent sources

Coverage of fiction often benefits from relying on sources that do not meet the strictest standards of independence. Part of this stems from the fact that the idea of an "independent source" was developed to deal with press releases, corporate websites, and issues of self-promotion - a very different issue than the one faced by works of fiction. As a result, notability can often be established for these articles by using sources that are not as independent as would be required for other areas, so long as they provide substantial coverage of the topic.

Often, very good sources exist that are not wholly independent - interviews, production blogs, writings (even self-published ones) by creators, officially licensed "behind the scenes" guidebooks, etc. Substantial use of these sources goes a long way towards improving an article to the point where it is likely to be kept, and although they do not meet the strictest available standards of sourcing, it remains the case that they are, in practice, often viewed as acceptable sources for establishing the viability of an article.

Self-published sources

Often, sources that would not meet the strictest criteria of reliability can provide important insights for fictional subjects. This is most true of reviews. Fan sites or popular culture sites that fall short of some of the criteria in Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources can often be used as primary sources for their own views on a work of fiction, as per the policy on use of such sources, WP:QS. This is particularly true if the sites are themselves notable, and thus if their viewpoints are significant enough to be included as part of providing a neutral point of view on the subject. As a result, substantial coverage in sources that are significant but not necessarily reliable sources can often be used to establish notability.

For example, although Television Without Pity (TWoP) probably fails to meet our standards for a reliable source, they notably provide detailed reviews of every episode of numerous television series. These reviews can be cited as evidence of what TWoP, itself an important site with an important point of view, thinks about shows. Use of such sources, though it does not meet the strictest available standards of sourcing, is often viewed as an acceptable way to establish notability in this area.

Editors should check specific WikiProjects for that type of fiction as they may provide a list of sources that have been determined to be reliable through community consensus. Editors should also remember that though such sources can provide evidence of a topic's notability, they are not, in the long term, sufficient to base an article on, and that more reliable sources should be actively sought.

Primary sources

Plot summaries are one of the areas where primary sources are most important for use on Misplaced Pages. Although it is often possible to find secondary sources that offer plot summaries, given the degree to which a plot summary consists of straightforward description, it is rarely preferable to do so.

On the other hand, it is important not to stray into speculation, interpretation, or commentary that is based on primary sources. Describing what happens in episodes, and even describing connections between episodes is an essential part of providing good coverage. However it is crucial to avoid speculative claims about what is merely implied. There is, however, no firm line between the two. Sometimes implication is perfectly obvious - for example, it does not require any difficult or controversial leaps to observe the ambiguity in the final episode of The Sopranos.

Bias towards commercialism

One problem that arises in covering fictional subjects is that the availability of sources is tied, at times, not to cultural importance but to the dedication that fans of a given work of fiction devote to it. If one were to judge purely based on the availability of secondary sources, one could be forgiven for thinking that science fiction shows are far and away the most important category of shows about television. After all, the number of books published on Star Trek, Doctor Who, and other shows is staggering. Often, more books exist on a low-rated, albeit critically acclaimed science fiction show such as Babylon 5 than exist on enormously popular shows like The Mary Tyler Moore Show. Unsurprisingly, this bias is often reflected in our coverage of subjects as well.

Closely related to this bias is a presentist bias — it is far more commercially sound to publish a book on a currently running television show than one that has been off the air for ages. The situation only becomes worse when the online sources that are most often consulted for Misplaced Pages are taken into account. Similarly, non-English language works of fiction are unlikely to see the same representation in English language sources as similarly popular English-language works.

There is no easy way to correct for this bias. Certainly we do not want to ignore the wealth of sourcing that exists for works with devoted fandoms — that sourcing makes it easier to write better articles with more real world perspective on them, and we ought take advantage of it. However, in the case of an older work of fiction, or one that does not inspire as devoted fans as other works, it is important to be somewhat more relaxed in standards to avoid excessively succumbing to this bias. As with any article, the threshold for inclusion is not whether notability has been established, but whether it is likely that it could be.

A note of caution

Deletion debates, and particularly those centering on fictional subjects, are among the most contentious processes on Misplaced Pages. Even the most well-intentioned of editors can be prone to assumptions of bad faith when, on the one hand, it is claimed that an article they worked hard on is unfit for inclusion, and, on the other, they are confronted with people clamoring to keep what appears to be unencyclopedic garbage. While the deletion process is sometimes - indeed often - necessary to deal with deeply flawed articles, it is important to remember that even a bad article can provide a useful foundation for writing a good article, and that working cordially and respectfully with editors whose views on inclusion you disagree with is one of the best ways to improve coverage in a given area. If it is possible to improve an article, it is always better to do so than to try to delete it.

Even if a fictional element topic fails to meet the four-pronged test or is deleted after discussion, such elements can almost always be described in the context of a larger work, and the use of redirect pages is encouraged to allow readers to search on these terms. For example, the one-shot character of Mr. Sparkle, which clearly fails the four-prong test, exists as a redirect to the Simpsons episode In Marge We Trust, the episode it appears in.

Editors should also take advantage of non-Misplaced Pages wikis that follow the GFDL that may provide more details about a given fictional work. These can not only be used to augment brief descriptions of fictional topics, or can be used to relocate material that has been deemed unsuitable for Misplaced Pages. Links to such wikis should placed as an external link to the articles in question.