Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 09:32, 18 July 2009

Template:Fiction notice

Glossary of termsFor the purposes of discussions on this page, the following terms are taken to mean the following. This is just a glossary. Where any guideline and this conflict, please defer to the guideline or edit this glossary to bring them in line: Notability ("WP:N") refers to whether or not a topic is presumed to meet Misplaced Pages's content policies and may have its own standalone article. The term is not a reflection of a topic's importance or merit; rather it used in the sense that the topic has been noted in published commentary from reliable sources independent of the topic itself. General Notability Guideline ("GNG") refers to the inclusion criteria in WP:N itself, that may indicate the notability of any topic. Failure to fulfil the GNG may mean a topic is not notable. Subject-Specific Notability Guidelines ("SNGs) are notability guidelines such as Misplaced Pages:Notability (fiction) ("WP:FICT") and , Misplaced Pages:Notability (books) ("WP:BK") which apply the principles of notability to particular subject area. Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style (writing about fiction) ("WP:WAF") is a style guideline that requires articles to describe fiction and fictional elements from the perspective of the real world, not from the perspective of the fiction itself. WP:PLOT is part of Misplaced Pages:What Misplaced Pages is not, which says that "Misplaced Pages articles should not be plot-only description of fictional works" and requires articles to be improved to provide more balanced coverage that includes real-world context.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Notability (fiction) page.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59Auto-archiving period: 10 days

Archives

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59

This page has archives. Sections older than 10 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Creator commentary

I have to question the following statement added by Jinnai:

Creator commentary on specific elements may still hint at the likelyhood of the element being notable.

It seems to me that this statement runs contrary to the spirit of WP:SPS, which says that "self-published media...are largely not acceptable". The reason is that they are not allowale is that generally they are not considered independent of the primary source. WP:BK specifically rules out such sources on the grounds that "Self-promotion and product placement are not the routes to having an encyclopedia article. The published works must be someone else writing about the book".
I think it would be better if this guideline did not run contrary to these other guidelines and the above statement should be removed. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 09:21, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I thought FICT was dead, and we were going with NOTE. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 00:04, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I specifically said "hint" because a series that gets creator commentary usually is more popular, more reviewed, etc. Series without them tend to be less popular and less notable. Therefore "hint" is approrpriate as compromise IMO from saying that they can be used as notability and saying they can't be. (honestly I think for elements of a work, creator commentary should be usable as partial evidence of notability of an element. IE if all you have is CC, then it would fail, but if you have CC + 1 non-trivial source that covers the element in detail that is independant that that's enough)

I do think its best to get things clarrified in notability in general as there are just too many problems.陣内_Jinnai 01:18, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

If the source is not independent of the primary work, then that source is not evidence that a topic has been noted in published commentary from reliable sources independent of the topic itself. This is a serious conflict - you can't used creator commentary as an independent source because creators, publishers and promoters a direct interest in publicising the primary work. This not a credible statement. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 08:56, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

No, not always. If its a seperate book form of media, yes. If its commentary on a DVD with the media itself there really is no marketable reason to do that, especially if there is only 1 version. People will buy the DVD who will buy it already; it won't increase sales any because you have commentary on a media people intend to buy already to watch or read.陣内_Jinnai 15:21, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't see how your argument can be supported. WP:MOVIE says "The published works must be someone else writing about the film. (See Misplaced Pages:Autobiography for the verifiability and neutrality problems that affect material where the subject of the article itself is the source of the material.) The barometer of notability is whether people independent of the subject itself (or of its creator or producer) have actually considered the film notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works that focus upon it." --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 15:35, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

nothing writer by the creator can make the work itself notable, but what the creator says about he different plot elements or characters can indicate which of them are important. The value of what creators say of their own intent has been a major theme in critical theory for centuries, with sharply diverging schools, but it is one of the factors that can be considered. DGG (talk) 08:18, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

This is what is meant. The creator of a work cannot be used in any way, shape or form to show notability of their work. They alone cannot be used to justify a separate article for an element within a work, but can be used as evidence with non-trivial independent sources to show notability of an element when something is on the edge, ie up at AfD. Furthermore, refusing to use creator commentary when it can be verified would violate WP:NPOV.陣内_Jinnai 05:18, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Then creator commentary may be better placed in the section Articles that don't meet the inclusion criteria, rather than being used as evidence of notability. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 07:29, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't believe so because it can help show notability as an independent article, ie not be merged or redirected.陣内_Jinnai 17:57, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

We both know that sources that are not independent of the primary source can be challenged as having been manufactured for promotional purposes, which can take the form of attempting to obtain monetary or non-monetary gain from writing Misplaced Pages articles. Sources such as creator commentary can't provide evidence of notability for this reason at all, because they are just not credible in terms of accuracy, bias or undue weight. This is a non-starter, believe me. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 22:13, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Just because they can be, doesn't mean they will fail a challenge automatically. SPSes are challenged every day and not every one of them fails, even though we caution against their use. In some cases entire articles are based upon them and these articles pass challenges to reivews of their sources. We aren't saying SPSes aren't allowed automatically because they can be challenged and therefore should not do so for creator commentary, but should note that it alone cannot be used to show notability.陣内_Jinnai 03:28, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Directories and databases

I note that you have tagged the inclusion criteria that form part of Misplaced Pages:Notability (fiction) with {{where}} template. With regard to the following can you explain why you have done this?

Directories and databases are examples of coverage that may not actually support notability when examined, despite their existence as reliable sources.

Note that this wording has been cribbed from Note 6 of WP:N, and is already in use and widely accepted. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 08:48, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

well, i tagged it with {{where}} b/c i was actually unaware of that little nugget squirreled away as a ref on WP:N, and i appreciate you taking the time to draw my attention to it. I have been a regular editor on wikipedia for several years, and thought that i was familiar with WP:N. Given that the main text is referring to WP:NOT, i would assume that the directories and databases it is referring to are those like the phone book, with such an incredibly large scope (all people in that geographic region) that individual members are only loosely connected. It might be better to use wording like:

"Some reliable sources, like directories and databases, are indiscriminate collections of loosely connected members, it is recommended that articles should not usually rely on these types of sources to establish notability."

Feel free to remove my tag, and perhaps wikilink to that section of WP:N.

(extra ranting, read if you like) To be honest, it is difficult to keep up with all the conversations on just WP:V, WP:NPOV, and WP:OR, that to be asked to also be aware of the minutiae of their supporting guidelines is a little inhuman. And we could both attest to many editors on here who would feel that coverage in a reliable source has satisfied WP:V, so guidelines be damned - i generally challenge the notion of that wording, and even WP:N, as being widely accepted (remember the hue and cry when it was upgraded from essay?).--ΖαππερΝαππερ _Alexandria 00:00, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

• You make a valid point in this regard; I think note 5 does not fully explain itself. Your wording has its merits, but I recall an exchange I had with another editor (Masem) regarding the term "indiscriminate collections of loosely connected members" which makes this term problematical. He argued something along the lines that lists of characters or episodes should always merit their own standalone page on the grounds that they were not indiscriminate, but that they were part of a set of fictional elements that should have their own page on the grounds that this would provide comprehensive coverage of a topic. I have therefore amended WP:FICT#Inclusion criteria as follows:

Coverage from tertiary sources does not constitute evidence of notability for the purposes of article creation; some reliable sources, like directories and databases, mainly summarize secondary sources, and should not be used in place of secondary sources to establish notability.

I think this follows your train of thought, but is less likely to be disputed. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 00:42, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

actually, the reasoning for using those other terms is because i feel character lists are not indiscriminate. I was more referring to a fictional database that decided to list every fictional character ever created, or databases like IMDB being used as the only 3rd party source to say actor X played character Y (or as the only source for info on episodes). However, if a third-party were to write an exhaustive encyclopedia on a fictional subject and that source was deemed to be reliable (i.e. it was truly encyclopedic in nature and not full of speculation or original fiction by the editor) i think it should satisfy our needs to be a specialized encyclopedia, and we could write articles based heavily on that source - although still not exclusively. I don't tend to think articles should be written if they can only be sourced to one book, site, etc. I think that making the claim, "Coverage from tertiary sources does not constitute evidence of notability..." is too bold and would never have agreement, it sounds too contradictory to the sentence from WP:V that our threshold for inclusion is verifiabilty. i find it only necessary that as a guideline we recommend articles to not rely on some kinds of databases and directories as the only source because it calls into question that actual notability of the article. --ΖαππερΝαππερ _Alexandria 01:06, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

In my view, if the content of a list is not supported by reliable secondary sources (if only in the main article), then that suggests to me that it is indiscriminate listcruft without a rationale for inclusion. A broad rule of thumb might be that if, say, a list of characters is not the subject of coverage in an article about a notable topic, then it is indiscriminate stuff. I am not sure how else you can distinguish between listcruft and geniniely encyclopedic coverage.
With regard to the argument that coverage from tertiary sources does not constitute evidence of notability, if only because Misplaced Pages is itself a tertiary source, and because tertiary sources tend to be summaries of secondary sources, such that it is very difficult to agrue that their coverage is not received third-hand so to speak, from a secondary source. Summarising a tertiary source is the equivalent of summarising a summary, and is the equivalent of hearsay from a legal perspective.
In theory some "Encylopedia of..." type publications may contain commentary from from reliable secondary sources (say an expert opinion of the editor), but I think this is an example of a secondary source being "embeded" in a tertiary source that might be allowable as evidence of notability if the expert opinion can be clearly distinguished from the rest of the tertiary source.
For these reasons, I think it is necessary to be bold, and a recomendation not to use tertiary sources as evidence of notability invites Wikilawyering. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 10:54, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

you're arguing that the subject does not merit inclusion (is not-notable) despite it's non-trivial discussion in a reliable third-party source only because that source is tertiary? while our other guidelines already say one should not depened on such sources for high levels of detail, they do not cast them off as irrelevant for establishing notability. --ΖαππερΝαππερ _Alexandria 21:21, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

No, if it is the subject of non-trivial discussion in a reliable third-party source, then it is clearly a secondary source (such as commentary from an expert editor), even it is embedded in a tertiary source. Same goes for primary sources; sometimes you get commentary from an expert with, say, embedded as an introduction to Classic texts such as The Prince, which are often the best source of criticism, analysis and context. Although the publication itself may be a primary source, the commentary (such as the introduction) may be classed as a reliable secondary source. However, primary and tertiary coverage on their own do not impart any notability per Misplaced Pages:No original research#Primary, secondary and tertiary sources. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 21:37, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

i am wondering what phrasing you are interpreting as saying, "...tertiary coverage on own do not impart any notability..." - please keep your quote relevant to tertiary sources. it seems to me that WP:OR is discussing content and prose, not suitability of inclusion. --ΖαππερΝαππερ _Alexandria 03:22, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I see what you mean: I may have over stepped the mark. I have amended the wording in accordance with the footnotes in WP:N as follows:

Note that all coverage in reliable sources constitutes evidence of notability for the purposes of article creation; directories and databases, advertisements, announcements columns and minor news stories are all examples of coverage that may not actually support notability when examined, despite their existence as reliable sources.

Please feel free to amend this if you feel it can be improved upon. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 10:40, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Significant or Non-Trivial?

With regard to this edit ,where in WP:GNG, is the term non-trivial used, if at all? --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 08:53, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

The WP:GNG does not use the word "non-trivial", but does use the words "more than a trivial mention" which is exactly what non-trivial means. While it comes under the heading of "Significant coverage" since FICT doesn't say what it is, it will be contented to rather be higher than lower as the word signigiant implies more than moderate. That was really the problem I had with it before. I admit non-trivial may be at the other extreme. I think its best here then to reinterate what signifigant means. I do realize people can go to the GNG, but many elwayers won't.陣内_Jinnai 01:11, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't think the change that you made to WP:FICT by substituting "significant" with "non-trivial" is of benefit, becasue it appears you are arguing that coverage for fictional topics should only be "non-trivial" which is the bare mininium, where as the term "significant" is somewhat higher that. I am sure you are acting in good faith, but in my eyes your change looks like you are trying to water down the requirement for significant coverage made in WP:GNG, and for this reason I don't accept your changes. I would argue that your departure from WP:N has been made to give special treatment to fictional topics not afforded to other subject areas, and I am not sure what your motivation is. If there is a benefit, please explain.
On the one hand, I do recognise that your approach is not totally invalid, but I wish you would understand why I object to it. Although WP:BK and WP:MOVIE use the term "non-trivial", they define this term in both the body and the foot notes in terms of sourcing, rather than in terms of focus of the coverage itself (e.g. tertiary sources, such as database listings, and self-published sources such as blogs are not evidence of notability). Personally, I consider sourcing to be a seperate issue, dealt with by WP:SOURCES. Furthermore, it is hard to discuss this issue in terms of trivia at all, as again, this can be viewed as an entirely seperate issue dealt with by Misplaced Pages:Trivia sections.
If we go back to the roots of what is trivial and non-trival, my understand of what is non-trivial is illustrated by WP:GNG, which says

"Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material

I just don't agree that the term "non-trivial" does this issue justice: only significant coverage can "anchor" a topic to its sources, otherwise it is not possible to distinguish between content forks and articles which genuinely meet all of Misplaced Pages's content policies, such as the Terminator series of content forks which are not the subject of significant coverage. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 01:55, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Significant implies a much higher level than non-trivial by its very meaning. Without actually explaining in the article (I feel a wikilink back to the GNG would not suffice) it will almost certainly be used to hold sources to higher standards than they should. If a review of 5 paragraphs has one paragraph talking about a character in-depth, then that may be viewed, without the explanation as being "insignificant". At the same time an entire paragraph devoted to explaining one character is hardly trivial commentary given the size of the article (assuming all paragraphs are decent length).

Part of this has to do with the poor choice of wording in the GNG. Significant tends to hold a higher standard than what the GNG requirement actually specifies.

Due to the controversial nature of fictional element articles I believe we need to go the extra mile and spell out something like this, if indeed significant is to be used. For other SNGs they do not have nearly the same level of controversy.陣内_Jinnai 21:39, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Significant does imply a much higher level than non-trivial by its very meaning, I agree. But the issue of content forks still remains: if you don't have a standard that is high, you can't distinguish between a "genuine" aricle and a content fork. The Terminator content forks all contain non-trivial coverage related to their subject matter. For example, the article Terminator (franchise) does not contain any significant coverage about its subject matter, ie. coverage that address the concept as the Terminator as a franchise directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content, even though I use the word franchise in its broadest possible sense. Significant coverage is vital for anchoring an article to its sources. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 21:48, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

In the case of Terminator, creating a franchise page is considered a common practice when you deal with multiple works within a series. If you disagree that's a separate issue that should be taken up elsewhere.

However, I think we need to emphasis what significance is as if we do not we are handing munition to deletionist and mergist without giving anything to inclusionist. We are effectively saying "screw you" to anyone who wants to create an article that has some secondary sources, the content on them is clearly not trivial. I say this because the part about inclusion criteia does not also include the possibility that the article be able to WP:IAR and be kept for other reasons.陣内_Jinnai 22:00, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

The problem is with this approach is that the difference between "trivial" and "non-trivial" is just too slight. Significant coverage is a superior requirement, in that sources address the subject directly in detail are easily discernable. Coverage which is not direct or detailed is usually insufficient to use in an article without being supplemented with orginal research or synthesis. In any case, if a topic is not the subject of coverage that is direct and in detail, how can you claim it has been noted at all? What is the point of non-trivial coverage if the subject matter is being addressed in this way? --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 07:04, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

And that's why I think it's wrong. Your trying to over-compensate for the marginial difference between trivial and minor to just shift it over to the other extreme completely bypassing the middle ground of moderate. As to claiming if it is notable, if almost every reliable sources continually mention some element, but do not necessarily go into detail due to the way their article, interview, show, etc. is structured, its hard to say the element is unnotable since so many RSes seem to want to mention it. This is where I say a multitude of non-trivial sources, aka those that use minor coverage that is above trivial. We define trivial by consensus as what is trivial for one source may be signfigiant for another one. I do agree it needs to be covered directly, but the level of detail can vary, but does need to go beyond the basic facts of its existance in the narrative.陣内_Jinnai 09:17, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

There is nothing extreme about being clear, which is why the requirement for "significant" coverage is important when it comes to resolving disputes. If almost every reliable sources continually mention some element, that does not mean they are notable. A mulitude of trivial mentions is not a substitute for coverage that addresses the topic directly and in detail; the coverage has to be focused. If there is no focus, then it is difficult to ascertain wether the source is addressing a notable topic, or whether it is addressing a non-notable only in passsing. Perhaps the only way to resolve this issue is to draft an RFC on the issue. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 08:50, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

RFC: Non-trivial or signifcant

Please consider joining the feedback request service. An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. Within 24 hours, this page will be added to the following list: Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the list. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

The term "non-trival" has replaced "significant" in regard to the level of coverage that is required to establish the notability of fictional topics. The term "significant" implies a much higher level than non-trivial by its very meaning, and may imply a higher standard than is required. Comment is requested on whether "non-trivial" or "signifcant" should be used to describe the type of coverage that address the subject directly in detail and no original research is needed to extract the content. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 11:16, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

• My strong opinion with "trivial" from years back is that we should not label any source as trivial. The issue is with sources that contain "trivial coverage of the subject", and the use of trivial is synonymous with incidental. There is definitely a problem with the word "significant". In everyday use, is means highly substantial, even providing input that changes/determines the entire view. In technical terms, "significant" means almost the oppositie of this. It means anything down to things barely measurable above, even at, the noise level. For this reason as well I thing the use of "significant" is non-ideal. I suggest using the phrase "incidental coverage of the subject" in places where with less words you might use significant/trivial. I know it's more words, but often very interested editors need these things explained precisely more than briefly. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:15, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I favor "significant", mainly because it is a term of art: directly taken from WP:N, it should have a consistent meaning across Misplaced Pages.—Kww(talk) 02:27, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

The problem is also the way the

Remove both "non-trivial" and "significant" as subjective terms. Sincerely, --A Nobody 02:41, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Drive-by comment

Been a while since I checked in on the debate, but the last time I looked, I thought the winds were blowing in the direction of once again decoupling inclusion guidelines for works of fiction and fictional things. Which decoupling I heartily approve of, in no small part because of the wrenching ontological confusion that comes from equating the two -- the ropes and straps used to try to yoke them together show all over the place. A quick glance at the voluminous archives doesn't find when the winds shifted again, so a plea from a passing editor: please, please separate them. Focus this on just inclusion guidelines for fictional things, and leave works of fiction to format-specific guidelines like WP:BK and WP:NF. —Quasirandom (talk) 22:42, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Format-specific guidelines have been created because a work or element of fiction can take many different real world forms, and establishing their notability can be done in a variety of ways, e.g. Lady Chatterly's Lover is not only a notable work of fiction in itself, but the book itself was the subject of a notable obscenity trial. Establishing the distinction between of works and elements of fiction which have not been distributed seperately is more difficult. The terms works and elements can be used interchangeably to describe episodes in, say, a television series, or individual works which can be grouped together, such as a collection of short stories. This guideline is necessary where a work/element of fiction is not format-specific, simply because the boundry between the two is not clear. For this reason, it seems sensible to me to have a seperate guideline for "fictional topics" which covers both. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 10:42, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

If your Lady Chatterly example is intended to show how something can be shown notable as both a work of fiction and a fictional element, it's not working -- both of those demonstrate the notability of the work of fiction. Admittedly most of my experience working on articles on serial works has been manga and comics, and I've never fought in the trenches of a television series, but I've yet to find a short story serial art collection where the distinction cannot be clearly made between the stories and what they narrate. Given that television episodes seem to be the main point of difficulty, possibly that format alone needs separate inclusion guideline. But as I said, I haven't been engaged in this debate for some time, and don't have your experience. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:41, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

• I tend to agree with you to a certain extent, Quasirandom. The problem appears to be working out how to change the guidance on this page. Do you have any ideas? Maybe yet another restart? Hiding T 12:43, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
  • No specific ideas. To be honest, I stay out of guidelinewonkery these days, because it's my road to wikiburnout. So I occasionally kibitz from the sidelines. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:41, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Sniff test

This proposal is, as it stands, a more rigorous version of WP:N. That is, it sets up criteria in addition to WP:N for inclusion. All articles that pass this will pass WP:N, but it is possible for an article to pass WP:N and fail this.

This, to my mind, fails the sniff test. There is clearly nothing resembling a consensus that fiction articles should be governed under a stricter standard than WP:N. There is no way, looking at the past debate on this matter, to come even close to that interpretation.

This proposal is clearly DOA, and it is disingenuous to suggest otherwise. Unless its advocates can provide some reason why, given the context of this debate, there is community consensus that the notability requirements for fiction are actually stricter than WP:N (when in fact this dispute arises primarily because of the large number of people who advocate for extremely lose notability criteria for fiction, and their ability to sway AfDs), this proposal should be delisted, as it is disingenuous at best to give the suggestion that a proposal that so blatantly fails the sniff test is a serious possibility. Phil Sandifer (talk) 13:13, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

You could say this of any or all the SNG's. The reality is that, in the same way WP:N provides practical guidance on the application of Misplaced Pages's content policies to article inclusion in general, so too do WP:FICT, WP:BK, and WP:MOVIE provide practical guidance on their application of to specific subject areas. In this sense, WP:FICT and the other SNG's are not stricter than WP:GNG, they just illuminate the various notability issues that apply to fictional topics, the key being that plot summary on its own can't be used as evidence of notability.
As you have not said what your "sniff test" actually represents, I would guess it is based on some set criteria loosely based on subjective judgement. I am afraid I would have to dismiss your bald assertion that this guideline is in any way stricter than WP:N. So far, your proposal at Misplaced Pages:Fiction has skirted around the issue of article inclusion criteria. Instead, I think it is a vague and deliberately misleading essay in which various exemptions from Misplaced Pages's content policies are currently nesting. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 17:20, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

You manifestly can't say it for, for instance, WP:BIO, which says explicitly that these are additional options for satisfying notability. And for something like WP:MUSIC, there is a clear consensus to tighten the notability guidelines.

Given that it is a dodgy claim to say that there is consensus to apply WP:N as is to fiction, the claim that there is consensus for an actively stricter version is transparently false. Hence my saying it doesn't pass the sniff test - it is self-evidently false.

And I don't see how you're rejecting the claim that this is stricter than WP:N. It's the exact words of WP:N with extra requirements written in. I mean, you're not even being subtle here - you're transparently saying fiction has to meet some standard of supernotability to be included. And you know full well there's no consensus for that view, which makes me wonder what the point of this page is. Phil Sandifer (talk) 17:34, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

What specifically are the extra requirements built in? Exactly in what way does this differ from WP:N? --NickPenguin_(contribs) 20:20, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

"Real world" appears nowhere in WP:N. Phil Sandifer (talk) 20:32, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

You want to debate this, I'm cool, start a discussion about it if you feel it is misplaced, but don't dismiss this proposed guideline on the pretext that it more stict. Note that WP:BK and WP:MOVIE go out of their way to explain why plot summary without critical commentary is not allowable as evidence of notability. WP:FICT simply makes this clear: plot summary on its own is not independent of the primary work, even if it comes from reliable source. This is not strictness, this is common sense application of WP:N which says that Independent of the subject means that works produced by those affiliated with the subject are not evidence of notability. There has to be some real world coverage to show that the primary work being noted, not just regurgitated.--Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 21:34, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

And I'm saying that there is no reason whatsoever to believe that this viewpoint has consensus for elements of fictional works, and plenty of reason to believe it doesn't. And until you provide evidence otherwise, this proposal should be delisted as a proposal, as it does not appear to be even remotely serious. Phil Sandifer (talk) 22:08, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

This things going nowhere. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 22:36, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree. It's either redundant since it restates WP:N, or it goes further than WP:N. What I find strange is the fact that Gavin is arguing that FICT is similar to WP:BK and WP:MOVIE when it patently is not. FICT goes further than WP:N by adding extra hurdles to the route proposed at WP:N, whilst WP:BK and WP:MOVIE add alternative routes to that set out at WP:N. Someone please, please, mark this as rejected and then put up an index of all the versions of FICT and all other related stuff, similar to Misplaced Pages:Notability (populated places). Hiding T 23:13, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

It would be cool to see all the different versions. There must be a bunch. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 23:32, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Phil Sandifer's been the biggest holdout in shutting this atrocity down, so I'm confused as to why he's suddenly throwing in the towel now that it finally has in it most of the things that make it worthwhile including the substantial real world coverage? I think this is a dodge to get people away, so that in a month the zombie corpse can rise to again try to get through the 'if it exists, it's notable' level that Phil long advocated. We don't need Phil to make this stricter proposal into a recognized guideline, and we should push for this version to rise to that of a guideline. ThuranX (talk) 00:47, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Thuran, does it take work to spew your pathetic lies about me, or does it come naturally for you? Phil Sandifer (talk) 03:51, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

There is no one person "holding" this project up. There are many contentions. We still have an RfC outstanding. There is still the problem this would not pass in its current if a similar number and demographic of respondents came to comment on the proposal as a whole since it was split evenly with that less strict proposal (and there were a number who didn't like the more liberal version thought the GNG was good enough). I think people here do not understand this is absolute base level of what should constitute enough evidence of importance to be kept as an article, not to create feature articles; people also seemed trapped by the past and use it at times as a weapon to point out that because it already is, it cannot be anything but (specifically in regard to the GNG, even though the GNG lacks consensus on its current form).陣内_Jinnai 06:29, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

In answer to Jinnai, I think there are many undercurrents out there that mean that this guideline in its current form will not be accepted immediatetly, but I am confident that it will be accepted gradually, grudingly and maybe with some more amendments. But it is clear its precepts have precendent in WP:BK and WP:MOVIE, so Phil's bald assertion that it does not have consensus does not hold up - everything in here is already policy or is included in another guideline. The innovation this version has over old versions is that the inclusion criteria are consistent with WP:N, WP:PLOT and WP:WAF together. The exemptions from that have been proposed over the past two years do not work, and have been shown to be nothing more than special pleading for fictional topics because they ignored the bigger picture. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 09:32, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages requests for comment