User:El Sandifer/Sort

Support

 * 1) Support, though it is far from my ideal choice. In a perfect world, I would see a much stronger emphasis on third-party sources. In this world, I think that stronger emphasis would alienate too much of the inclusionist camp for this guideline to achieve consensus.&mdash;Kww(talk) 02:46, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 2) support because we have to finish this process sometime. I suppose the neutrality is shown bey the fact that, like Kww, i support though I actually find it basically unacceptable also, for of course exactly the opposite reason of Kww and Seraphimblade. Fiction is fiction, and its importance within fiction is sufficient to justify an article if there is sufficient material. I think the only real  solution is a total rewrite of the general concept of Notability, which I think a self-imposed straightjacket, which ought to be replaced by the two distinct concepts of 1. Important enough for coverage in a separate Wikipedia  article.  and 2. suitable for a separate rather than a combined Wikipedia article. However, i don;t think we can afford to wait for that.  Seraphimblade and I have some common ground in preferring merged content, but  it would not be "inappropriate" content but content that while appropriate  is not suitable for a separate article for some practical reason. What will need continued defense is the suitability of full and detailed  content on these subjects, whether merged or separate. DGG (talk) 03:37, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 3) Support - I personally don't see a reason for need for independent sourcing of the second prong and development commentary imo should be enough in almost every case since the policies and guidlines of WP:V, WP:N, WP:RS were never really written with fiction in mind (those exceptions being so few they'd likely not be good articles anyway). However, I'm willing to say that it's a starting point that is a compromise as close as we can get. We also need a functioning WP:FICT as well.
 * I also don't like that it gives character articles less need for justification than other elements because of AfD, yet also critizies other practices done in AfD. Sounds to me like a double-standard is being applied with reguard to character articles, but it's not enough to hold up an entire guideline over on minor point. じん   ない  03:41, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) This is a good compromise. I think that we have balances two elements (independence and importance within the work) in a way that doesn't strangle editors attempting to expand coverage of fictional subjects but doesn't turn our fictional articles into walled gardens or linkfarms.  The guideline that has come out of the process is reasonable, short and direct.  One reason why I resist suggestions like seraphim's is because the old fict was basically similar in content to this (in some respects) but attempted to do to much.  This is just a notability guideline.  As such, I support its adoption. Protonk (talk) 03:50, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 2) Support - Although, I don't like this bit about "good or featured articles". Notability has no place in determining what the "quality" of an article. Notability is for determining whether the topic should have an article. Although I like the idea of independent sources, I see people throwing this sentence back in the face of editors that go through GAC or FAC with articles that primarily use information sourced from the people responsible for making the fiction (i.e. IMO, Characters of Smallville is two shakes away from a potential featured article, but you won't find but less than a handful (maybe 3) independent sources in a list of 170+ sources). I think that whole paragraph, with regard to the "quality" of the article, is creeping a bit too far into MOS territory. I also believe that maybe a statement to the inverse of "and a subject can still be notable based on the reasonable belief that adequate evidence of notability exists." should be made. To clarify, here we say, "If you can show that the sources might exist then the article can stay", but I also believe in the philosophy of, "if it isn't notable now (i.e. you cannot provide the sources immediately) that information can be moved into a user space and developed until the point comes that the sources are provided". It seems unfair to say, "you can keep it if you can argue that there could be some sources", and not say, "if there are no sources immediately available, you can move it into a user space for the time being until said sources can be acquired". This is clearly something for the particular discussion group to decide for that topic, but I think the option needs to be made clear that sometimes we cannot just "let it be for now".   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  03:55, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 3) Generally support: This guideline was built primarily on the premise of what was actually going on at AfD, rather than being the sort of idealistic fluff that generally gets lobbied for at WP:N et al. Making sense of AfD and giving it a frame of reference is more valuable than trying to affect it on a wide scale. Nifboy (talk) 04:33, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 4) Support as per Kww and DGG. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:53, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 5) Support - I'd like to throw notability out the window when it comes to fictional topics, but this is the best compromise. It's taken over a year of heated debate to get here, and we should seize this chance and get back to writing the encyclopedia. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 06:32, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 6) Support Fictional elements should only get articles when they are beyond notable or when there is a good (WP:NOT and WP:WAF) reason to spinout. The current FICT version represents a good rule of thumb for this. – sgeureka t•c 08:27, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 7) Weak support. While having this guideline is better than having no guideline, I have concerns about its exact implementation.  It seems to me that any fictional topic that is essential to the understanding of a work of notable fictional work should be covered.  That's a basic part of the process of writing an article on that notable work.  This guideline disallows this information, even if it is accepted as important to understanding the work as a whole, if no "real world" information is available.  This requirement makes no sense to me.  But it is still better than not having a guideline to work from, so I will support it. JulesH (talk) 08:53, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 8) Weak support, but for the opposite reason to JulesH. I think that the guideline may not be strict enough, but if the "real-world notability" section is properly applied, it'll do. Stifle (talk) 09:14, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 9) Support on the basis that it's worth a try. We can always come back to the drawing board if need be. Hiding T 10:10, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 10) Support – per Kww. Much better to have this rather than not have it. — sephiroth bcr  ( converse ) 10:24, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 11) Support as I see this version of WP:FICT as a huge improvement on earlier versions, because one of the inclusion criteria for a standalone article about an element of fiction is the requirement that it must include significant, real-world information about the topic. This means that elements of fiction must be covered in an encyclopedic fashion (which has a real-world focus), rather than treating them purely as elements of plot (which has a fantasy-world focus). Therefore this guideline binds together the existing consensus at policy and guideline level (e.g. WP:NOT,WP:WAF), but still leaves editors free to cover an element's role from a plot perspective if it can be demonstrated that the element of fiction is central to understanding the fictional work. --Gavin Collins (talk) 11:21, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 12) Support per Machiavellian principles. Like many I would rather screw FICT altogether and make GNG the policy here, but until pigs fly (or all the inclusionists get lives and leave us to toil in geekdom :P) this is a sensible compromise that should reduce the amount of crap on-wiki. -- Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 12:48, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 13) Support, albeit reluctantly (I do prefer WP:N as well), and per User:Hiding above. The interpretation of guidelines in actual discussions differs sometimes widely from the intention of the guideline and the participants in the creation of it (as I witnessed with earlier versions of WP:ATHLETE). Fram (talk) 13:00, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 14) Support IMO - It does not contradict WP:N, but it does elaborate and expand the ability to document non-real items. Example: while a movie may be fiction, the fact that it was made and distributed is a real life event - this (if it were a guideline or policy) would explain the proper procedures for writing about that event. Ched (talk) 13:57, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 15) Support. Flawed, but workable, and certainly better than having nothing at all. We see a dozen articles at AfD each day that have to deal with the issues presented here, and a consistent framework will make for improved articles. Xymmax So let it be written   So let it be done  14:35, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 16) Support, just as I did in the straw poll above. Certainly it isn't perfect, now will it ever be. I think that it is a good compromise between both inclusionists and deletionists, and I don't really see how it violates any core policies. WP:RS might be the only one, but FICT still says that reliable sources are needed to produce a quality article and that without them articles are likely to be merged. -Drilnoth (talk) 14:39, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 17) Support. I like the reduced requirement for independent sources. In my experience with fiction articles it is possible to create a comprehensive write-up from an out of universe perspective with reliable secondary sources from the developers while having few independent sources. This is usually true in the case of character lists (and often main characters). There may be an official website confirming basic character information and DVD commentaries or companion material that provides detailed background info on production, sales, etc.. The result is a solid article which may not have the substantial independent coverage of the GNG, but has the potential to be well written article. What's more is that I think this is good middle-ground between people who think notability must be completely proven and people who think notability is completely inherited. --Bill (talk 14:41, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 18) Support Although I'm not crazy about assuming that every recurring character or episode is important. But hopefully the other two prongs can reign us in from becoming an WP:INDISCRIMINATE WP:DIRECTORY of every trivial fictional subject. I also see no way to make this prong consistent without losing support of either inclusionists or deletionists. It's being pulled in two different directions, with some people insisting on reliable third-party sources for every article, and others wishing that we could drop write all fictional articles without them. We're in the middle now, so we've found the best compromise. I agree with User:DGG and User:A Man In Black that the next step, if we have consensus on this basic guideline, is to discuss the appropriate organization of combined articles (such as series and list articles). Randomran (talk) 15:40, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 19) Support. We need a guideline in this area to reduce tension and redirect warring and to increase consistency at AfD.  The proposal is not perfect, but is much better than nothing and should be adopted as a guideline with the ordinary common sense exceptions.  Eluchil404 (talk) 16:22, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 20) Support - I'm a little concerned that it may not be strict enough with regards to independent sources, but as with Kww above, this is a so very much better than nothing that it really should be put through. A le_Jrb talk  16:58, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 21) Support - I'm impressed by the re-re-(re-re-re?)write. It feels more like something that attempts to be descriptive of decisions made by AFD, and not just making an arbitrary ruling merely because some ruling must exist.  This concept of a three-pronged requirement appears reasonable to achieve; and merging to lists allows a reasonably weighted volume of content to remain when an exclusive article is not appropriate.  I regret to see the content (largely spearheaded by Masem I believe) regarding spinout articles.  But it's likely that I missed some discussion on that topic, and more importantly, I'd always felt that the topic should be addressed on a broader scope that just fiction.  A strong encouragement towards merging has much of the same effect anyway. -Verdatum (talk) 17:13, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 22) Support This represents a good compromise between the various parties. I share Thuranx' & others reservations, but the three-pronged requirement sets out a decent standard and, more importantly, the rancour surrounding this debate needs to come to an end. Eusebeus (talk) 17:42, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 23) I appear to have never gotten around to saying support. Phil Sandifer (talk) 21:52, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 24) Abstain While having a something is better than having nothing. I feel that the current text has much room for different interpretations resulting that future Afds of similar articles will have divergent results depending who & how this is interpreted. Bottom line it may turn into rhetoric / lawyer contest. WP:FICT being nothing but the rules of warfare instead of preventing/lessening warfare.--KrebMarkt 08:44, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 25) Support - this should makes things easier for me, as well as many other editors. Again (as mentioned for the 1000th time), something is certainly better than nothing.   Corn.u. co.pia  •  Disc.u s.sion   11:34, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 26) Support - this is a reasonable compromise, and I really doubt that pushing by any side will make it better for anyone. Even if the guideline isn't adopted, the GNG still applies. Sceptre (talk) 12:47, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 27) 'Support yet again...how many more of these will we have? -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 13:41, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 28) Support if it will end this endless debate and edit-warring. WP:V and WP:RS still apply, and I still believe only a few fictional characters (and almost no television episodes) merit their own articles independent from the work containing them; however, this is an acceptable compromise. / edg ☺ ☭ 20:05, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 29) Support, although I like some of the opposition points, especially Townlake's. We want to make sure the newbies don't feel that they're going to get their wrists slapped unless they take a course in guidelines first.  But this process has been a model in talking things out to get people on different sides of the spectrum to come up with something we can all live with ... bravo! - Dan Dank55 (send/receive)
 * 30) Support - seems fair and basically everything that is already in place among the current guidelines but organized into one neat form for instant use. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:00, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 31) Support - I can fully support a guideline that recommends strongly there be sourced information rather than in-universe fancruft. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 03:59, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 32) Support. A reasonable and sensible compromise that is badly needed and is a significant improvement over the status quo. Apart from other considerations, having a specialized notability guideline will allow future discussions about notability of fiction articles to be more focused and specific and also will provide a proper place for conducting such discussions and for hashing out further consensus. Right now the absence of a fiction notability guideline destabilizes WP:N and even WP:NOT. Nsk92 (talk) 04:42, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 33) Support. I think this is a very well done guideline. It's clear and concise. ··· 日本穣 ? · Talk to Nihonjoe 05:28, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 34) Support: realistic workable guideline, consistent with underlying principles in WP:GNG & WP:V. A guideline for this is long overdue. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 05:54, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 35) Support. Looks sensible. -- Klein zach  06:22, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 36) Weak support. I would like to see something much, much more inclusionist.  Wikipedia is sui generis.  One of these days I'm gonna get round to rationally reconstructing my instincts about the limited usefulness of our encyclopedia metaphor.  To my mind most deletionism, however well-intentioned, can't help but implicate itself with either a kinda paternalism (like users can't work out for themselves what cruft is) or a kinda optimism (like it will earn the confidence of people whose fundamental beef is with the open source nature of the project itself).  Anyway, practice and guidelines are out of synch, this might bring em a lil closer, so weak weak support from the centre of my limpy limpy soul. Franciscrot (talk) 12:41, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 37) Support: Even I'm mainly an editor in the field of anime and would be severely impacted by this guideline, I can see the need to limit the proliferation of fictional-work articles. However, I propose a grace period to be granted for the adoption of this guideline such that people are given time to transwiki material that would fail this guideline. -- Samuel  di  Curtisi  di  Salvadori  15:56, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 38) Support IMO, the more guidelines the better, as it helps editors interpret (and where necessary) expand on the core policies for particular situations and subject areas. Of course, there will be discussion and evolution in what each guidelines says: that's how consensus is built. -- MightyWarrior (talk) 16:25, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 39) Support We need stricter rules on fiction notability inclusion. As I stroll farther into many article I start to find them reading more and more like fan-sites. These are often uneditable piles of garbage, with no way to find out if things in them are true or not. Wise dude321 (talk) 16:37, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 40) Strong support. I suspect that many editors do not regularly see the extend of the articles on non-notable characters/other plot elements. Working on Tag and Assess 2008, I personally went through about 4,000 articles within the scope of WP:ANIME, and was shocked by the amount of these articles. Refer for instance to any of the articles in Category:Kinnikuman characters, which is only one example amongst many. Another series/franchise had in excess of 400(!!) articles. I will leave you with the following: "When you wonder what should or should not be in an article, ask yourself what a reader would expect to find under the same heading in an encyclopedia."—What Wikipedia is not. 16:58, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 41) Support I have an ambivalence about the inclusion of fictional topics, but what I am anxious to avoid are mammoth plot regurgitations, original research and topics splitting into a myriad of articles covering increasingly obscure in-universe topics. I would be happy to see articles about fictional topics rely exclusively on sources such as developer commentary, as long as there is some real world information (and not plot regurgitation exclusively) and that content relying on non-independent sources is NPOV and doesn't make critical assertions. Furthermore it should be a given that articles about elements of fictional topics should be of potential size (while retaining quality) to not fit into articles about the parent work. The guideline should, I think, ensure the above outcomes. However, some of the detail may need tightening up: specifically, what exactly might constitute an element 'central to understanding the fictional work?' Editors might claim a character is 'notable' because they have had X ammount of cameos.bridies (talk) 18:17, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 42) Support in principle. Slightly troubled by the fact that "particular cultural or historical significance ... beyond the basic threshold of the general notability guideline" isn't as clear as it could be, and that "fictional work" isn't defined; for example, I would not like to say that a character that only appears in one episode of "Columbo" or "Murder She Wrote" is individually notable, even if he is the main villain of that episode, so clearly central to that episode. But the basic idea is in the right place, so I'll support. --GRuban (talk) 20:05, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 43) Support. Mike Christie (talk) 20:33, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 44) Weak support. I'm supporting only because this is probably the best compromise we'll get (and we need something), but I'd like to see more emphasis on real world notability.-- Fabrictramp  |  talk to me  21:10, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 45) Support. older ≠ wiser 00:04, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 46) Support, as a step toward deleting or forcing improvement to a lot of crummy articles, which is a good thing in my view. Propaniac (talk) 00:49, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 47) Support --If only to prevent a spate of "user owned" pages. The only thoughtful thing I can add is to encourage fans of lesser-known works to create their own wikis, in the way Star Trek or Star Wars fans have.  (And as the fans of many other franchises have done, judging by the banner ads on the before mentioned fan wikis.) Dahile00 (talk) 02:05, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 48) Support per Fabrictramp. It's not perfect, but let's call it good enough for now and move on to actually writing about fiction in a good, encyclopedic manner. Jclemens (talk) 02:30, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 49) Support, step in the right direction. --Brownsteve (talk) 05:11, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 50) Support just about as good as you can get. Let's just hope that it isn't used to justify a million obscure D&D character pages.--Protocop (talk) 06:28, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 51) Support for what it's worth, if only so that we can get this done and get to improving or culling the piles of badly written articles on fictional subjects out there. Lankiveil (speak to me) 09:00, 31 January 2009 (UTC).
 * 52) Support  - I agree with User:Sephiroth BCR: better to have than to not have it. It's not my ideal and it's very vague, though that latter issue would likely be resolved as the number of AFDs decided under this guideline increased.  I'd prefer to see something a little less restrictive, but at this point almost anything is better than nothing. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 15:42, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 53) Weak Support - I would prefer it were stricter, and more specific about what sort of sources might be acceptable, and which not. But it is an improvement over the current de facto situation, and any step in the right direction is to be applauded. Hopefully, if adopted, it will become clearer as it is increasingly applied in practice. Anaxial (talk) 16:22, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 54) Weak Support - I really like the idea of stipulating that the work the element is a part of must exceed notability. However, the vagueness of both this and the other prongs needs work. A tough task indeed. --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 16:42, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 55) Support, although relunctantly because I beleive the wording could lead to the possible deletion of thousands of articles which would become non-notable by the standards of this guideline. I do however think the assesment is fair, and something needs to be done to limit the many articles on ficitional topics with little or no references, and serving little or no value except as a database to be used by fans of the topics covered. Charles Edward (Talk) 21:23, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 56) Strong support - May not be ideal, but it's a start, and we really need a guideline for this area of the encyclopedia. Gatoclass (talk) 08:54, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 57) Support and suggest stronger criteria re: pop music, especially punk rock. Spoonkymonkey (talk) 14:25, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Oppose due to general opposition to notability
These seem to me problematic votes, because they amount to wholesale rejection of Wikipedia policy. The issue, in other words, is that their objection is not to this proposal as such, but a more fundamental objection. Given that notability is an operative fact of life on Wikipedia, I have trouble with comments that simply reject the premise.


 * 1) Strongest oppose possible - per my personal opinion. Wikipedia is the place where people come for information about everything; even minor characters - these non-notale/barely notable articles is one of the ways we attract new editors, IMO. For example, I was drawn back in by the page Minor Elves in Shannara...but now I've moved on to having two FA's, a MILHIST A, and two GA's. WP is not paper, guys. — Ed 17  (Talk /  Contribs)  23:43, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 2) Strong oppose - unfortunately, notability guidelines on Wikipedia (WP:MUSIC, WP:FICT, WP:ALBUM, etc.) have mostly been treated as binding so far (they shouldn't be), and therefore I cannot support any proposal for a guideline which excludes many informative and encyclopedic articles from Wikipedia. Especially concerning is the regard to elements within a fictional work, which often have insufficient real-world coverage but are important to understanding the particular work of fiction, and all of the information is verifiable through the work of fiction itself. Ed17 brings up another very important point, namely that people come to Wikipedia to gain knowledge about anything and everything ("the sum of all human knowledge"), and articles about seemingly trivial fictional topics actually have far higher readership than many important real-world topics. In addition, these articles attract new Wikipedians who might not necessarily write about fiction later. Therefore, as long as articles about fiction are encyclopedic and don't violate core policies like WP:V and WP:NOT, there is no reason to exclude them. -- Ynhockey (Talk) 03:00, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose For all the reasons above, and below, already given in opposition. And the ones not stated. As far as I'm concerned, notability is ridiculously subjective; hence, this "guideline" (which are usually followed to the exact fucking letter. In fact, how many of you had the urge to delete that word? That's what I'm talking about.) is ridiculous. Are the newspaper and publishing conglomerates going to dictate what is notable now? When I can't find a newspaper article or book on the subject, will it get deleted by some pedantic Wikipedia enforcer? (Probably) Is this going to be one more thing I'm going to have to fight about (the actual existance of the article)? Maybe someone needs to tag articles as non-notable so certain people's browsers filter them out, and maybe tag other as counter-revolutionary while we're at it... Int21h (talk) 03:16, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 4) Strong oppose - I am 100% an inclusionist.. that is one of the great strengths of Wikipedia: information about many, many things that simply wouldn't be in a regular encyclopedia. To me that makes Wikipedia much better than a regular encyclopedia. In that context, I think that placing a notability restriction on fiction would ensure that only "mainstream" fiction would be accepted as notable (due to a large number of reviews, commentary, recognition etc.), while excluding less well known but still artistically, culturally valuable fiction topics. It's basically a value judgement - worthy or not worthy? I don't think such judgements should be made, at least in this case. -BloodDoll (talk) 03:24, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose Notability is highly subjective and one of the great strengths of Wikipedia is that highly specialised articles on obscure topic areas can still be dealt with in a concise and relevant way to an uniformed reader. If a page meets quality standards, there are people willing to write it and people willing to read it, then I see no reason why it should not be included on the strength of its pop culture significance etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Coolcamxl (talk • contribs) 11:05, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Oppose due to fixed/non-existent issues
This was a tough category to draw up, and there may be one or two who are in here unfairly. The issue here is that these opposes cite things that the proposal does not say.


 * 1) Oppose I feel uneasy when a guideline uses phrases like "well beyond the basic threshold of the general notability guideline", because I see no reason to have fictional topics follow any stricter criteria than other subjects. Also, I don't like the "three-pronged test". Rather than requiring an article to fulfill all three criteria, it would be better to make it similar to WP:BAND, i.e. fulfilling at least one of them should be sufficent.  So Why  07:40, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose The 'This page in a nutshell:' section doesn't appear to reflect the guideline's actual content: (Lost sig on this)
 * 3) Oppose as a compromise that does not improve Wikipedia. to support simply to "end the process sometime" does not address the proposal's inherent flaws, which will become more difficult to change or modify if the flawed guideline is accepted as editors will say "it was accepted, no need to change it now". There is absolutley no reason to institute a flawed guideline that could itself cause dissention and disruption across the peoject. Throwing a handfull of sand in the engine is a whole lot different than throwing sand on an icey road. While one gives traction and allows safer driving, the other grinds the engine into uselessness. The three-prong test will become a straightjacket and not a tool. Requiring notability "well beyond the basic threshold of the general notability guideline", will become a straightjacket to creativity. The GNG is strong enough to have referred to rather than an arbitrary "well beyond". Though this proposd guideline might be "flawed but workable", that is absolutely no reason to include it intil the flaws areremoved. Being impatient to "end the process" does not improve wiki, as there is no WP:DEADLINE.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 16:10, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose I see no reason for the "first prong" to be so vastly more strict than the general notability guideline. Whether or not it is the intention, some people will certainly interpret it to mean that the work "might appear in a museum or get a Pulitzer" (as Politizer mentioned above). I also see no reason for the "second prong" at all; if an extremely minor element of a work is taken out of context and ends up far exceeding the popularity of the work itself, it shouldn't be excluded just because it is a minor element. Anomie⚔ 00:47, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose as far too complicated. The three-pronged test is far too vague, and we're much better going back to the old standby of "significant coverage in reliable third-party sources". The guidelines are far too strict (and they explicitly say that it's beyond the general notability guideline – why is that?). &mdash;  Werdna  &bull;  talk  03:37, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 6) Oppose: A fiction article without secondary sources should be deleted, just like any other article, and OR is not something to be merely "avoided". shoy (reactions) 16:49, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 7) Weak Oppose. (6 edit conflicts!) While I generally agree with it, I do not think that fiction should be held to a higher standard of notability. I generally agree with SoWhy, but I might support if the higher standard part is changed. Jonathan321 (talk) 00:06, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 8) Strong Oppose - This seems to be way over the top in my opinion. Why must fiction significantly exceed the basic threshold of the relevant notability guideline?  Are we trying to delete every low important piece of fiction from Wikipedia? I feel that only the third prong, real world coverage is required to demonstrate notability.--Captain-tucker (talk) 11:06, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Oppose due to inappropriateness of a notability guideline for this subject
These are tricky. Given that the arbcom has all but begged the community to come up with a guideline along these lines, I have trouble with this argument. Or, put another way, with over a hundred people voicing support for some form of a notability guideline on fictional subjects, these opposes seem to me already outvoted.


 * 1) STRONG OPPOSE This guideline is a continuation of a 4 year edit war, and two AfD's it will not solve this edit war, it will only inflamme it with new rules.  This is more Bureaucracy and Rule Creep.Ikip (talk) 16:10, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose Has the markings of yet-another-policy that is either vague or too strict and will be used to block potentially valuable content from being included. Special notability guidelines for fiction? Sounds like beginning of first they come for you... §FreeRangeFrog 01:47, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose. This is senseless WP:CREEP. First, if the work is notable and the element is central to it, it's probably covered by someone critics/commentators. So I don't see a need for mandating the third element "real-world impact"; I can see it as an alternative to the element being central, e.g. some minor character or meme that catches on. Second, the sentences that come right after those three bullets flagrantly contravene WP:V: "But there must be a reasonable belief that evidence exists for all three criteria." No, either you have a source or you don't. Hunches aren't good enough. Xasodfuih (talk) 02:39, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose per many of the above who cited WP:CREEP. Having one notability guideline is bad enough, we don't need to make it worse. -- Explodicle (T/C) 16:31, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Oppose due to belief that guideline is too strict
One of two expected categories of opposition. Note that, while opposition to notability entirely is a problematic viewpoint, it is also a subcategory of this viewpoint. I point that out mostly because, taken together, these two positions roughly balance the next viewpoint.


 * 1) Oppose For several reasons. First, "important" is often in the eye of the beholder (as one contributor noted above, "whether the Fourth Doctor is more 'important' than Vicky Pollard or Ali G is the actual 'fanwank'"; indeed, when I search Wikipedia about a television show, it's not because it's "important", it's because it is ON, and I wish to receive information about it from a neutral POV; don't tell me if it's important, tell me who is in it, when it was first aired, etc., i.e., encyclopedic details. Second, I think the category (fiction) is way too broad for such a guideline as it seems to include both written works of fiction as well as broadcast works (e.g., television episodes), when the guidelines for the two should be different. Third, in the context of television episodes, it makes no distinction between a serialized story arc vs. an anthology type series. Lastly, having corresponded with several contributors, I am worried that this discussion is now more about who is right than about what makes Wikipedia better, and until that is resolved, I don't think it's a good idea to introduce a guideline that encourages people to remove information. vttoth (talk) 16:02, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 2) Strong Oppose If this passes I predict that literally hundreds of interesting, useful and hard-worked articles will be mass-expunged within days.  Fictional works play a key role in the entertainment of billions of human beings, and not all of these works, or even very many of them, are "notable" in terms of having other words written and published about them elsewhere.  Why must something be ignored if some other, separate entity has not noticed it?  Who is to say how much "notice" is sufficient?  If something exists and is a part of the lives of tens, hundreds, thousands or millions of people, is that not notice enough?  --Captain Infinity (talk) 18:47, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose - The "Importance of the fictional work" section is too ambiguous and could result in uneven application of the guideline. The "Role within the fictional work" section could lead to "patchy" coverage of some subjects (to give an example, Star Trek episode "Plato's Stepchildren" could be deemed to meet the requirements, whereas "Wink of an Eye" might not be). I also think the proposal as a whole is too restrictive. -- G W … 19:03, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose. I support the concept, but I do not think that fictional items should need to be considered "central" to the fictional work to be included; I think Wikipedia should be more comprehensive than that, so long as the other two major requirements are satisfied.  The Jade Knight (talk) 10:36, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 5) Strong Oppose I particularly dislike the "three-pronged test". A subject should not have to pass all three criteria in order to have a standalone article. Indeed, based on the last criteria, most of the fiction-related content on Wikipedia would have to be removed or merged into lists of ever increasing length. It is particularly difficult to find "significant, real-world information...[including] creative influences, design processes, and critical, commercial, or cultural impact." for most fictional material - especially characters, locations, etc. And it is often a matter of an editor's personal opinion whether a piece of work bears evidence of such influence. Also, this proposal is worded quite vaguely, appears to possibly contradict itself at several points, and is above all unnecessary.
 * I would also mention that this would, if it went into effect and was actually enforced (which would be rather difficult IMO), create such a plethora of lists relating to fictional content as would reflect poorly on the overall nature of the encyclopedia. WP:NOT says "Wikipedia is not a directory" - this includes such lists. Our readers come here to read articles, not browse through lists. And I think we should consider that carefully. – The Fiddly Leprechaun ·  Catch Me!  21:58, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose Way too strict. Many people come to read Wikipedia articles about a movie or show even if it is not of "particular cultural or historical significance". If there is an article about an anime character, who cares, except those interested in this anime character ? Plus, fiction is an area where a lot of Wikipedia newbies start their first article, I don't want them to be slashed because of such a guideline, see Please_do_not_bite_the_newcomers. Nicolas1981 (talk) 11:22, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose because I feel that Wikipedia is a place where all things must be documented. If you apply this "three prong test" you will forbid a large volume of literature from being added to our collection of articles for no good reason. --Rgemerson (talk) 02:51, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Oppose due to belief that guideline is too lenient
The other expected viewpoint. Note the rough balance with its exact opposite.


 * 1) Not enough support of independent sources, and unlike Kww, I find that makes it unacceptable. We can certainly leave WP:N to solve it, as well as improving awareness of sourcing requirements and helping to support closing admins who ignore fan runs with no idea of where independent sources will be found. Sources need to be independent. That means not from the creator or those involved with the fictional work. This runs directly counter to that. If there were more an emphasis on merging inappropriate content, this might work. Seraphimblade Talk to me 02:56, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose It does not conform to our core principles and policies of verifiability, neutrality and no original research. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:16, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose I cannot support this in it's current form, as one of the chief drivers behind it notes it's about "relaxing inclusion standards for fiction" - well I can't get behind that. --Cameron Scott (talk) 15:54, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose. the material still makes no requirement of a demonstration of notability outside the profiting motivations of the creators, nor does it explicitly require independent sources, to say nothing of reliable independent sources. This weakens it to the point of exploitation by fans of any character, book or series. ThuranX (talk) 17:29, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose The proposed guideline should be more restrictive than what it is.  Elements of a work with outsized popularity today may not have it tomorrow, despite WP:NTEMP.  I personally don't think WP should become a shrine to every character or element dreamed up by content creators unless it enters the collective psyche of culture itself.  Some timeless examples of these being Fonzie and Homer Simpson who have left such an indelible imprint on society that their existence transcends the body of work in which they originated.  However, when their respective series' began, neither would have been notable enough to warrant their own article.  It is only after such time that their influence on culture was shown not to wane that they became notable.  IMHO, unlike "immediate" notability for IRL subjects and topics, there should be some criterion for "staying power" when it comes to fictional elements.  The application of WP:NTEMP to these articles, if not completely revoked, should at least be severely limited.  Allow these fictional subject articles to continue to be created, but they should be continually reviewed for sustained notability, and methods to ease the process of deletion of such articles which no longer meet notability guidelines should also be implemented. GreyWyvern (talk) 15:43, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 6) Oppose The only aspect of the "three-pronged" test that is necessary is the verification of "Real-world coverage". The other points are unnecessary and place too much importance on associated works. Unlike a number of editors here, I feel it's too lenient, and feel it would be used to justify keeping articles on minor fictional characters and so forth. Either an element of fiction is notable under overarching guidelines or it isn't. WesleyDodds (talk) 09:07, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Oppose due to complexity of guideline
Oof. I dunno here. I really have trouble with the idea that this is very different from any other guideline we have in complexity. But maybe it is? I really don't know what to do with these.


 * 1) Opposed to the proposed text & Neutral on the compromise: It seems, that the opposing sides in this conflict have found a reasonable compromise. But this proposal's text is not that of a future guideline, it's the devastated battlefield of a yearlong verbal conflict on this very talk page. The text wanders off-topic. It is dragged out. Emphasizes are placed. Exceptions are made. And terms are redefined. The text is afraid to say straight out what it means, because that could reduce support. What this text needs is a central statement (not a summary!), which the rest of the text only(!) serves to explain. An example of such a statement would be: "To establish notability of an element of a work of fiction, it does not have to have received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, if the element's work of fiction is of particular cultural or historical significance, the element is central to understanding of that fictional work, and significant, real-world information about the element exists in reliable sources." - I have no opinion on how in- or exclusive Wikipedia should be. I leave that to everyone else. But I fear, this compromise might be an illusion created by the obscurity of the text. I fear, if this text is promoted to guideline, it will create chaos. -- Goodraise (talk) 18:43, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 2) Strong oppose to text and neutral on compromise, like Goodraise. Honestly, the text of the proposed guideline is very confusing. In the above discussion on the subject, I saw people talking about the differences between elements of fiction and works of fiction, etc, etc. The bottom line is that the definitions of these terms used in the guideline are not clear within the guideline itself. The whole thing is entirely too convoluted for effective use within an AfD discussion. The last thing we want to be talking about there is what the intention of this guideline is or what the authors here explained it to be. We need it to be A Few Good Men crystal clear to ensure that if it is passed, it is in a condition to be implemented effectively. We don't need to be bound by a guideline that is not excessively precise in language and deliberate in meaning. SMSpivey (talk) 04:27, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose Extraordinarily complex discussion of what should be a simple concept. Will not be accessible to the newer users to whom this will disproportionately apply.  (I'm glad this issue is being discussed below.) Townlake (talk) 22:46, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose the text and support the compromise, per Goodraise and (in part) SMSpivey. The text is confusing and vacillates frequently. (Later clarified: The most glaring would be the role of WP:GNG: at one point the text requires that articles exceed it, while at another it lowers the bar significantly.) CRGreathouse (t | c) 23:50, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose as far too complicated. The three-pronged test is far too vague, and we're much better going back to the old standby of "significant coverage in reliable third-party sources". The guidelines are far too strict (and they explicitly say that it's beyond the general notability guideline – why is that?). &mdash;  Werdna  &bull;  talk  03:37, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 6) Oppose - The "Importance of the fictional work" section is too ambiguous and could result in uneven application of the guideline. The "Role within the fictional work" section could lead to "patchy" coverage of some subjects (to give an example, Star Trek episode "Plato's Stepchildren" could be deemed to meet the requirements, whereas "Wink of an Eye" might not be). I also think the proposal as a whole is too restrictive. -- G W … 19:03, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 7) Oppose as per editors above. The text is confusing and too complex. There are already policies and guidelines which cover this issue adequatelyTaprobanus (talk) 19:15, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 8) Reluctant oppose with a view to changing to support in the spirit of encouraging compromise and consensus. My position here is similar to Goodraise, CRGreathouse and Jayron. I am generally against instruction creep and specific notability guidelines, but I accept that compromise is necessary, and that in this case, a separate guideline to articulate that compromise is necessary. The current text is poorly written. It is too long and goes beyond its remit.
 * I would encourage editors to regard specific notability guidelines as clarifications or elaborations of WP:GNG, not as additional or contradictory notability guidelines. In this case, in a nutshell, the proposal says that for fictional elements, "independent of the subject" in WP:GNG can be taken to mean that the work is particularly significant according to reliable third party sources, and the element itself has received evaluative (non-promotional) coverage from a real world perspective in reliable secondary sources.
 * The guideline needs to be renamed as WP:Notability (fictional elements), and should not elaborate the notability guidelines for the fictional works themselves.
 * The guideline should not tell editors what will happen because it exists. "An article with a verifiable real-world perspective that establishes real-world notability will rarely be deleted." According to whom? Similarly, "Articles that resist good-faith efforts to improve them to good article status, including the search for independent sources, are often merged into other articles."
 * The guideline should not tell editors what they can and cannot do. "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..." They may indeed.
 * The guideline has no business articulating when articles on fictional elements may or may not be eligible for good article status.
 * Moving the proposed text in the direction of Goodraise's draft, particularly the short early version, would help. Geometry guy 20:48, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose -- although I agree with all three prongs in their essence, the language here is too vague and weak to actually be enforceable in a clear and consistent manner. I consistently see language here that could not hold up to the rigors of a fierce Wikipedian debate.  And debate there will be, particularly since (apart from general notability and and the policy about writing from an out of world perspective) fiction articles here at Wikipedia have been pretty much an ungoverned "Lord of the Flies" environment.  When this policy goes out, it will open a firestorm of AfD, since MANY fiction articles are fancruft and are disporportionately represented (eg. too many) here at wikipedia because of the site's young demographic.  Improvement to the policy would include concrete examples of featured or good articles that already specifically meet each or all of the prongs.  It should also give examples of fandoms that have a network of articles that already have been generally well-managed according to this policy already (the Simpsons maybe?).  Also, this poliicy should use more langauge that is univeral to the project.  I think "important" is a supremely subjective word that is unfit to be used in the "nutshell" box.  Wikipedia runs on notability, verifiability and (in the case of fiction) real world perspective.  This sort of tried and true, commonly recognized language (and other similiar veribiage taken from other policies but modified for this policy) should dominate.  One more thing: first-person sources are (and should be considered) a last resort, a necessary evil.  Persons involved in a project have a HIGH personal investment in the work and thus are inherently biased -- for good or bad.  At the same time, they often are the sole source for very early development and behind-the-scenes details.  Thus, first-person sources should always be "outted" in the actual body of the article, not just in the footnotes or references.  For example, if the New York Times says an episode used 38 pints of fake blood, the article can read, "Thirty-eight pints of blood were used in this episode.[1]"  But if Michael Chriton (former executive producer) said that an episode used 38 pintso of blood, the article must read "Chriton said that 38 pints of blood were used.[1]"  Of course, discretion and attention to style should be considered, but a verifiablity norm universal to the journalistic and encyclopedic community cannot be side-stepped or even miminalized for tihs one policy. I do like the 'presumption of resources' clause, or over-zealous deletionists may have a field-day.  Again, the essence of the policy is good, but not concrete or enforceable enough as it stands.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 13:18, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose The proposed guideline appears overly vague, mangles the English language, and will generate more trouble. What is a "significant" work? What kind of "independent" source is it that can come from the source's creators and promoters? The third "prong" requiring significant coverage appears to be nothing more than a reiteration of the GNG. I don't think this proposed guideline is an improvement over current policy at this time. Ray (talk) 15:40, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 3) Strong Oppose: This is, due to its extremely ambiguous wording (the result of numerous concessions and agreements between users), a useless and unneeded piece of policy that is basically already covered by the general policies guarding all of the wiki. All this will lead to is another hat for the coatrack or both deletionist and inclusionist (both due to the above mentioned ambiguous meanings) in edit wars and arguments.  Unnecessary, unneeded, undesirable, unable to deliver. Hooper (talk) 19:42, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Other oppose
Total hodge podge. Some of these are very sensible, others seem almost to be personal attacks.


 * 1) This doesn't solve the problems. It compromises along the wrong lines, making it simultaneously too inclusionist and too deletionist. It doesn't protect articles that need protecting and protects articles of little value. A notability guideline to solve this problem is essentially wrongheaded. Simulating AFD is similarly wrongheaded; AFD as a whole is too heterogenous to be consistent or logical. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 03:53, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose as entirely redundant to WP:N. The third prong of your "three-pronged test" is entirely redundant to the letter and spirit of WP:N.  There is no need to note that an element from a work of fiction may not pass WP:N and then proceed to spell out a situation which can ONLY exist if the work already passes WP:N.  If real-world coverage exists, the subject already passes WP:N tests, and thus, this guideline is entirely redundant.  --Jayron32. talk . contribs  04:35, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose . Such unconfirmed and misleading text, based on someone's non-constructive opinions, must not be choosed as a guideline for all, — especially if it is harmful for creation and increasing of articles, that must be interesting for other users. Krasss (talk) 04:50, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 4) Strong Oppose This proposed guideline exemplifies the politics and lawyering that has grown to consume Wikipedia in the last 3 years. It constructs bureaucracy and global rules, when what we need is common sense and the general principle of independant coverage, applied on a case-by-case basis. Instruction creep like this "three-pronged test" makes it all too easy for editors to zone out and mechanically apply rules, rather than giving honest consideration of the article and whether it adds to or detracts from Wikipedia on the whole. AfD hero (talk) 03:44, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose this unnecessary rule-creep. I agree with SoWhy: it's redundant with Wikipedia core policies.-- S Marshall   Talk / Cont  10:36, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 6) The three pronged test is terrible. If the element is "central to understanding the fictional work" it need to be discussed on the page for that work. Why would we want another page for the element? For an element of a fictional work to have its own page it should be because of notability beyond the work. Thehalfone (talk) 10:44, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 7) Oppose in several particulars. (1) "Sources with a connection to the creators of the fictional work" may provide significant real-world content to be included in an article, but they are wholly irrelevant to establishing notability. This is fundamental: only independent sources provide evidence of notability. (2) "Central to understanding" should not be presumed, but verified by independent reliable sources. (3) "Understanding the fictional work" misses the target anyway. Wikipedia is not a study guide for understanding the work. The objective should be "understanding the reception, impact, and significance of the work". Finally, I think the third point goes to the heart of the matter: notwithstanding that the proposal pays lip-service to WP:NOT, its principal effect would be to further encourage the already prevalent misuse of notability criteria to rationalize content that is not encyclopedic in the first place. As an aficionado of certain forms of fiction myself, I would like to see more and better encyclopedic coverage. This proposal is not the way to get there. ~ Ningauble (talk) 19:01, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Non-oppose comments

 * 1) Somewhat on the fence, i.e. not sure how it would be implemented, but if everything I argued to keep that is listed at User:A Nobody/Deletion discussions would at worst be merged or redirected with edit history intact, I can support. If anything that I argued to keep on that list would be redlinked or have the edit history deleted, then I can't support.  I'd like to support as a compromise, although I still think "notability" is an anti-wikipedic concept (verifiability is sufficient for a paperless encyclopedia; notability strikes me too much as subjective, elitist, and such).  So, it depends how it is used in practice, which I guess I would have to see in actual discussions.  Best, --A NobodyMy talk 04:11, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 2) On the fence as well. I feel that too easily this could lean either way, and as it stands is too loose for both sides but I'm unsure if until put into practice just how the policy is used. I do believe however that for a lot of editors this may come back to bite folks in the posterior.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 04:27, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 3) Abstain While having a something is better than having nothing. I feel that the current text has much room for different interpretations resulting that future Afds of similar articles will have divergent results depending who & how this is interpreted. Bottom line it may turn into rhetoric / lawyer contest. WP:FICT being nothing but the rules of warfare instead of preventing/lessening warfare.--KrebMarkt 08:44, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose for the moment: I think the "significance" guideline (the first prong of the three-pronged test) is, or could be interpreted to be, too strict. Most works that are well-known within their subculture (for example, certain webcomics) and have a significant following, or that have won awards within their area, ought to be considered notable, but the current wording about "cultural or historical significance" almost sounds like it would only accept stuff that might appear in a museum or get a Pulitzer.  If that wording is changed, my !vote will change to Support. Polit i zer talk / contribs 23:55, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 5) Neutral I really hate that line "the work of fiction from which they present themselves must be of particular cultural or historical significance" too. I can see this being gamed. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:31, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 6) Mixed feelings. On the one hand, this is good policy. On the other hand, a lot of articles about fictional characters exist that do not come close to meeting these requirements and I would prefer them to continue to exist. Debresser (talk) 08:00, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 7) Comment. While I agree with the criteria put forward, I think that adopting them would cause too much disruption. Let's be honest: More than 75% of all articles about fiction would not fulfil the proposed criteria. Hence, some articles will be proposed for deletion, causing uproar and endless discussions, making the implementation of these rules for already existing articles cumbersome or even impossible. Other articles will randomly escape the executioner's axe. In the end, it would just draw our attention and time away from the real editing work. Sijo Ripa (talk) 12:13, 31 January 2009 (UTC)