Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Protonk (talk | contribs) at 22:20, 8 January 2009 (→Three-pronged test for notability: link significant to that "definition/example" in the GNG. may be a little clunky, check to see.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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: Some fictional elements may not meet the general notability guideline but may still be covered in a standalone article. Those elements must be part of a significant and notable work of fiction, be important to covering that work in an encyclopedic fashion, and must have sufficient reliable sources to allow for an article to be written in a real world context.

Misplaced Pages:Notability (fiction) is a proposed guideline that defines the inclusion criteria for elements of fiction, including individual and serialized works (such as television episodes or comic book series), as well the elements wholly within the fictionalized world (such as characters or settings). Works of fiction distributed through the media of books and film are also (but not exclusively) the subject of separate notability guidelines for books and films respectively. Inclusion criteria for lists are dealt with at Misplaced Pages's list guideline.

In all cases, if a subject relating to a work or element of fiction meets the requirement of the general notability guideline, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article. Elements of a notable work of fiction are presumed to be notable if they meet a simple test. The work should be important or significant, the fictional element itself should be important to an encyclopedic understanding of the work, and verifiable information must exist about the subject apart from a plot summary. When assessing a topic's notability, Wikipedians should remember that this and all notability guidelines judge a subject on the basis of currently available sources, not sources present in the article itself, which is not a final draft.

Three-pronged test for notability

Per the general notability guideline, a topic is presumed notable for a standalone article if it is the subject of non-trivial coverage by reliable and independent sources. Some articles on fictional subjects, however, may not meet the general notability guideline. For these articles, a fictional element of a notable work should meet three conditions:

• Importance of the fictional work: Fictional universes that are considered more culturally or historically significant are more likely to have coverage in reliable sources, and may go into greater depth than a short-form critical review of the work. If those sources present clear claims for the artistic or cultural importance of the fictional work beyond basic notability, it is a good sign that some individual elements of the work may be notable.
• Importance within the fictional work: The subject should be an episode or non-cameo character that is important or central to understanding the work as a whole. Assessing the importance involves researching commentary from reliable sources on the topic. The work itself can also indicate importance to some extent, but avoid original research or comparisons. Focus on indisputable facts (e.g. "the character appears in every episode") to prove importance, rather than personal opinion. Understanding the overall work does not require exhaustive detail, but may require articles on specific elements that are necessary to explain the work's overall plot and impact.
• Real-world coverage: Significant real-world information must exist on the subject's development and reception beyond what is revealed in the plot of the fictional work. Examples of development information include creative influences and design processes, while examples of reception information include critical, commercial, or cultural impact. Sometimes this real-world perspective can be established through the use of sources with a connection to the creators of the fictional work, such as developer commentary. Merely listing the notable works where the fictional element appears, their respective release dates, and the names of the production staff is not sufficient. An article with a verifiable real-world perspective that establishes real-world notability will rarely be deleted.

A subject that meets all three of the above criteria may qualify for a standalone article. An article is not a final draft, and a subject can still be notable based on the reasonable belief that adequate evidence of notability exists. But there must be a reasonable belief that evidence exists for all three criteria.

This test does not supersede Misplaced Pages's content and inclusion policies such as those on verifiability and what Misplaced Pages is not. Editors may consider whether the fictional subject could be treated as a section or part of a parent article or list instead of a standalone article, but notability guidelines do not delimit content. No part of this guideline is meant to preempt the editorial decision of content selection and presentation; for example, a topic may meet all three prongs above, but may be decided by consensus to be better covered in the article on the work of fiction itself instead of a separate article if there is limited information available.

Sources and notability

All articles must meet Misplaced Pages's policy on verifiability, where every statement is backed by research from reliable sources. However, a verifiable article is not necessarily notable by Misplaced Pages's standards and merely being verifiable does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion; the general notability guideline requires the use of reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. For fictional subjects, terms such as reliability and independence have specialized meanings.

Reliability

A notable fictional element will have real-world information about its development or reception. Reception, reviews, and criticism must be verified in reliable sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. News organizations and scholarly journals usually ensure reliability through peer review. However, a source may still be considered reliable without these strict content controls. Wikipedians can determine whether a source meets our guideline on reliable sources through consensus. These discussions usually take place at the Reliable sources noticeboard, or at specific WikiProjects.

Independence

Coverage of fiction often benefits from relying on sources that do not meet the strictest standards of independence. Because control over intellectual property is often jealously guarded, much of the background information about fictional subject may come from copyright holders. The idea of an "independent source" was developed to deal with press releases, corporate websites, and self promotion—issues that are less likely to crop up with fictional subjects than biographies or company profiles. However, some care must be taken to ensure that the distribution of fictional articles avoids corporate promotion and adheres to a neutral point of view.

As a result, elements of the three-prong test may be satisfied through the use of non-promotional sources that may or may not be independent from the content creators. These are independent in the sense that they make analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, and/or evaluative claims about the subject. These may include self-published sources such as author or developer commentary which provide significant real-world content about the subject that goes beyond what is revealed in the plot of the fictional work.

Secondary sources are necessary for notability

A topic about which there are no significant secondary sources cannot pass this guideline. Primary sources, such as the fictional work itself, can be used to verify certain facts about the fictional work, and can contribute towards the second prong of the three-prong test; however, because they offer no real-world perspectives, they cannot provide any information on the first or third prongs, and thus are not enough to establish notability.

Original research and original analysis of primary sources (for example, by speculating about what a scene might imply, or by making detailed comparisons between scenes) should be avoided. Plot summary may be used to a limited extent as described by our content policies, but an article written entirely from primary sources is a warning sign that the subject might not meet the three-pronged test above.

Availability of research

For recent fictional works with a more devoted fan base, it will be easier to find adequate research through web searches. Articles about older works may suffer as a consequence. But our guidelines do not require articles to be perfect. Articles should be evaluated based on their potential to meet this notability guideline, rather than whether they meet this guideline at present. Finding research on older works will often take more time, and editors should be cautious about jumping to conclusions before allowing a good faith search for sources to take place. On the other hand, a wave of devoted fans of a newer work should not necessarily be taken as evidence of notability.

See also

Template:MultiCol

Guidelines, examples and how-tos

• For examples of high quality fiction articles, see Good and Featured.
• Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style (writing about fiction)
• Misplaced Pages:How to write a plot summary
• Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style (anime- and manga-related articles)
• Misplaced Pages:Television episodes
• Misplaced Pages:Writing better articles#Check your fiction

| class="col-break " |

Essays, noticeboards and Wikiprojects

• Misplaced Pages:Fancruft
• Fiction-related Noticeboard.
• WikiProject Films guidelines on plot summaries
• WikiProject Novels guidelines on plot summaries
• WikiProject Television guidelines on plot summaries
• WikiProject Soap Operas guidelines on character articles
• Wikiproject Video Games "scope" guidance

Template:EndMultiCol

Footnotes

• Misplaced Pages proposals
• Misplaced Pages notability guidelines