Wikipedia talk:Notability (fiction)/Archive 10

tagged as "proposed"
As "disputed" refers only to mainspace, i have used the tag "proposed" following the suggestion of MASEM. I know he;d rather that his view on what it should be would be the accepted one, but it isnt, any more than it seems mine its.

I will develop mine further on a subpage.

And I invite anyone who thinks possible to prepare a minimal guideline that we can all agree on temporarily, to try and do so. It will have to omit the disputed points, of course. The proposed one as desired by MASEM and supporters can then become a subpage. DGG (talk) 22:27, 8 December 2007 (UTC)


 * WP:FICT is our inclusion criteria for when sub-topics of a work of fiction should be split into a sub-article. If people want to argue about how other people abuse it in AfD, that's one thing, but I'm getting a little tired of people going after the guideline for things it does not promote. -- Ned Scott 23:40, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm tired of people stating this page does not advocate deletion for articles that do not provide evidence of notability when it quite specifically does. Deletion discussions for articles that do not provide evidence of the notability of their subject should be guided by the following principles'. There are no alternatives to nominating for deletion listed.  This page guides that an article which does not provide evidence of significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject should be listed for deletion automatically. Hiding T 23:46, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
 * If you want to change some wording, go ahead, but the point of it all is to encourage real-world information. Real world information is not normally found in the fiction itself. -- Ned Scott 23:51, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I thought that was what the manual of style at WP:WAF was for. Do we need two pages doing the same thing? Hiding T   23:54, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
 * This is the inclusion criteria for articles themselves, rather than the recommended writing style. Yes, it overlaps in many areas, but the point is that the existence, or even just the potential of real world information is needed before making another article. -- Ned Scott 23:56, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
 * That being said, a single page might be feasible, or some other kind of reorganization, an idea that has been tossed around here from time to time. -- Ned Scott 05:34, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Um..."The article is deleted if the above options are either redundant, unavailable, or inappropriate. To avoid inefficiency, editors should only nominate articles that clearly fall into this category.[7]". That's actually nicer than the other notability criteria. Also, most of this page deals with "alternatives to nominating for deletion"&mdash;take a look at the "dealing with fiction" and "relocating..." sections. &mdash; Deckiller 19:53, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Take a look at how the section on non-notable topics begins. Don't read any further because you've already been told to go to afd and list it. The whole section is slanted towards deletion or listing of the article.  Note how prescriptive this guidance is, dictating the only reason why an article can be kept at afd, something which conflicts with WP:CONSENSUS and WP:DP.  That's far too aggressive a description of when articles are kept, too.  this coverage is explicitly referenced in the deletion discussion.  That's just nonsense.  It's long standing practise that if a consensus of Wikipedians believe that the sources exist, that is enough.  There doesn't have to be explicit referencing, there just has to be enough people stating their belief that sources can be found.  That's because Wikipedia has no deadline, and the idea is that we grow articles from small seeds.  We don't always expect them to be planted as mighty oaks. This guidance conflicts with common practise and policy and needs rewriting to better fit both. Hiding T 20:08, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

And it seems people are still forgetting the wording that does allow for those extra character articles, when they are necessary: "Sub-articles are sometimes born for technical reasons of length or style. Even these articles need real-world information to prove their notability, but must rely on the parent article to provide some of this background material (due to said technical reasons).[3] In these situations, the sub-article should be viewed as an extension of the parent article, and judged as if it were still a section of that article. Such sub-articles should clearly identify themselves as fictional elements of the parent work within the lead section, and editors should provide as much real-world content as possible." -- Ned Scott 23:56, 8 December 2007 (UTC)


 * that's the wording with which I started. Let's now think of a way to say that they are a preferable way of dealing with  groups of minor characters--one page for all of them, as paragraphs.  Then we can go on to say its the preferable way of dealing with plot elements. Not just acceptable for technical reason, but preferable if the article is at all complicated or the work of fiction important.  If we get that far, we can keep going on the other mary disputed points. I think some of them are even more critical, but lets start somewhere.  DGG (talk) 02:19, 9 December 2007 (UTC)


 * It's still a technical or style reason, though. In theory, we could make just one large article, but we don't prefer one massive article, and there are cases when a character or element is shared by more than one work, etc. As TTN said, it sounds like you want improved wording, rather than disputing the guideline itself, which I am all for. -- Ned Scott 05:30, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

This "dispute" has been concocted by users who do not wish Wikipedia to have encyclopedic standards and want article kept no matter how bad they are, and the fact that several users disputing the policy on this page have recently fought "tooth and nail" to keep articles in blatant violation of both WP:FICTION and WP:WAF indicates that the efforts to dilute the standards should be strongly discouraged. This is not a fan encyclopedia or a gameguide, and fictional things need to have actual roots in real life, otherwise there is zero quality control, and Wikipedia will be as bad as people already contend it is. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 18:40, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I'm not sure I understand you. Could you clarify as to whether you are including me in that statement.  As an editor who has created and helped draft a number of notability guides, the WP:PLOT section of WP:NOT and relevant sections of WP:V, but who also disputes this guidance as it stands, I completely reject your baseless attempt to colour the debate in this manner and your false accusations and attempts to impugn my character.  Rather than attempt to derail this debate with such dismissive tones towards your fellow editors, would it not be better to actually follow WP:CONSENSUS and engage with the issues at hand. Note that consensus can only work among reasonable editors who make a good faith effort to work together to accurately and appropriately describe the different views on the subject. At the minute I would ask all editors engaged in reaching a consensus to disregard your statement, which obviously isn't in keeping with our policy. Hiding T 19:38, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Woah woah, very sorry if I wasn't clear, I was referring to DGG, since I feel that as he could not prevent the deletion of many Elder Scrolls related articles, he instead came here and tagged the whole fiction policy as disputed, which angered me. I simply am here to put in my thoughts, which are that the policy should not be loosened to include articles with no coverage other than plot recitation, because it reduces our encyclopedias quality. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 14:33, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Is that what this is all about? -- Ned Scott 04:23, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Nope. Not on my part, and I resent the implication. Although a trawl through User:Judgesurreal777's contribs suggest he also has a position to protect. Not that there is anything wrong with that. Hiding T 15:48, 11 December 2007 (UTC) Stricken, that came out snide and is irrelevant.  Apologies. Hiding T 15:50, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Ahem
It would seem that the problems here (once again) stem from people who try to write guidelines that don't reflect how Wikipedia works, but reflect how they would LIKE Wikipedia to work. You'll find that the former approach leads to stable guidelines (like this one used to be) and the latter leads to repetitive arguments.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  20:01, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
 * With that logic we wouldn't need any guidelines for notability, or anything, for that matter. It is because these articles have become such a problem that such guidelines have come to exist.


 * The other flaw in your logic is that you are assuming people here really are disputing the guideline itself. Again and again, I only see people nitpicking at a few words, and no one disputing the spirit of the guideline. The guideline itself has a section made to protect lists of characters and other such typical sub-articles that don't always include real-world information, but are a key part to understanding other articles on the topic. -- Ned Scott 23:06, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I have no idea what you are so angry about, but what you accuse me of has nothing at all to do with what I just wrote.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  11:08, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I wasn't angry.. From your "once again" comment I assumed you were referring to the last time you wanted us to re-evaluate the consensus here. -- Ned Scott 04:21, 11 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Excuse a little irony here, but with the same arguments we could reject e.g. WP:NOT: As a matter of fact, Wikipedia is a collection of plot summaries - just that it shouldn't be. So, drop that section from the policy? --B. Wolterding (talk) 23:16, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
 * That depends on whether those are the exception or the rule, and what happens to such summaries once regular editors notice them.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  11:08, 10 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Exceptions of the rule - well, I don't have precise statistics, but when I find one of these plot summary articles, I can usually spot a dozen or a even a hundred of similar articles within less than a minute, so they can't be so exceptional... and my suspicion is that, once a regular editor sees them, he usually ignores them since cleanup seems rather hopeless, both for the sheer volume and for expected resistance by "fans". (E.g. there are some very sad examples of attempts to clean up TV episodes.) What we need, in my opinion, is a clear description of the target - not of the current state (which is rather poor when it comes to articles about fiction). --B. Wolterding (talk) 17:12, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Rewrite
Okay, I pulled huge tracts of text from WP:SS, WP:DP and WP:N to better establish what I think is common practise on Wikipedia at the present. The truth of the matter from where I'm standing is that we don't really have hard rules on what we keep and what we don't. It's all down to the vagaries of afd on any given day, in all honesty, and really that's the way it should be. Consensus can change, and it should be allowed to change, and we shouldn't seek to straitjacket it. Please edit the text, please amend it and hammer it and adjust it and tweak it and work out what to whittle and what to keep. Please don't revert it away though. Let's get to a consensus through respectfully editing our way there in small steps, not giant leaps. If we can. Nobody wants articles which simply regurgitate plot, but to the left of that is a huge field in which we don't have to plant a flag so much as mark out rough boundaries in which to respectfully agree to disagree and let consensus emerge the best way it can. Through discussion and editing. Hiding T 00:03, 10 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Moved to Notability (fiction)/proposed-12-9-07. -- Ned Scott 00:14, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Excellent, though perhaps a little bit too much of "sources are the holy grail of Wikipedia" shouting and too little "there's some editorial judgement" for my taste. Can you include a reference to consensus or exceptions to the rule somewhere, preferably in the first section? Something like "Note that lack of sources does not exclude any notability at all, just as the availability of sources is not 100% conclusive evidence of its notability" - but then better written. User:Krator (t c) 20:37, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The point isn't as much about sources as much as it is about the existence of real-world information. If you have real-world information, you have a source for it. -- Ned Scott 05:24, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I think the current proposal drowns out the main issues of why we have WP:FICT in the first place. It's not that I disagree, but the focus is lost, and even text unrelated to this dispute has been removed.

From what I understand there are two parts that are "in dispute". One is about the secondary sources having to be independent. I can see softening this point as long as we still emphasize real-world information. We're so desperate for real world information that we're often forgiving when the bulk of it comes from DVD commentary and production notes. It's also not as much of an issue considering most of these articles are not actually independent from their parent in the first place. It will make little difference for the really problematic articles.

The other part is to further advocate other alternatives over deletion. I totally agree with this, but we must be careful to not encourage people to simply game the system, and such advice might need it's own page altogether since there's so much of it. (I've been wanting to write one for transwiking, since the current information we have really isn't useful.) This seems more of an organizational issue, rather than if it's something we agree on or not. -- Ned Scott 04:14, 11 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Hmm, well.. maybe .. *reads proposed rewrite again, thinks about it*.. maybe it's not really an issue for having the alternatives on WP:FICT itself. It's the end of the day, forgive me if I'm not making sense, but hopefully my evaluation of what is disputed is somewhat relevant. :) -- Ned Scott 05:33, 11 December 2007 (UTC)


 * For me what needs to be recognised is WP:SS and the nature of lists. I'm a lurker on a list used by academics writing about comics, and many times one academic will ask, hey, which superheroes use magic, or which superheroes have broken the fourth wall?  These seem to me to be perfectly useful lists which we could entertain creating, but which many people feel have no place in an encyclopedia because they are not notable.  My opinion is that when not notable and useful for research conflict, useful for research wins.  I also think we need to rethink how notability applies to articles split in keeping with summary style.  You talk about not wanting to open a back door, but there is no back door to be opened.  AFD is the only place to settle the issue.  At the moment people have bolted the front door through this guidance, they have effectively gamed the system because they can just turn up at a deletion debate and say delete per WP:FICT.  That's not on, pure and simple.  Deletion debate is supposed to debate the article, not the guidance.  If people can just state that WP:FICT declares that this article, viewed in isolation, having no sources must be deleted, then they've won.  Because they edited a guideline to fit their thinking, not to reflect community practise.  Community practise is that we split articles when they get big, and at some point there's a middle ground.  We don't want articles on Superman's toe nail clippers, but Superman and the Presidency is a possible article listing story-lines where Superman has considered a run at the Presidency. I'm not saying it should exist, I'm saying that if it did exist, the deletion debate should focus on the merits of the article rather than the lack of sourcing.  We get into a grey area of policy and guidance when discussing fictional works, and I think guidance should recognise that.  Deletion debates should consider the article.  Articles are not deleted because they fail notability guidance, they are deleted because after debate a consensus of Wikipedians agree they should be.  We need to make that a lot clearer.  Notability is subjective, after all, regardless of what guidance says.  And it has moved.  Every time on article got kept that someone didn't like, they tweaked the guidance.  It's moved from an article needing coverage in a third party source to needing six mentions in works authored by these five critics and published by these two universities in American English, which also appear on this list at the bottom of my filing cabinet.  Well, almost, but you take the point. Most people agree there is a grey area.  If there is a grey area, we need to admit it.  To not do so allows the side that denies it exists to have the upper hand, something which is not only unfair, but is against policy.  Wikipedia should do the right thing and admit there are areas which we all agree to disagree on, and that we all agree to disagree at WP:AFD and make our best arguments there and respect whatever consensus follows.  For examples of breath-taking closes at afd recently, see Articles for deletion/List of planets in Futurama which completely disregards WP:CONSENSUS and WP:SS, and Articles for deletion/D.O.O.P., which again does the same.  This is about maintaining a level playing field. There is a reason why WP:N and the like are not policies, and it is because they do not have the authority of being foundation issues.  They do not guide us to our WP:PURPOSE, they rather guide us when we debate.  They do not have the primacy of being able to trump WP:CONSENSUS.  If consensus forms that guidance can be ignored, it can be.  The onus then falls on those who wish to see guidance followed to build a new consensus. That's how Wikipedia works.  That's per policy.  This guidance does not at present reflect that.  I'm not interested in seeing this article deleted or that article deleted, I'm quite happy chipping in to a deletion debate and I respect whatever the consensus is.  I want everyone to do the same, to respect WP:CONSENSUS and Foundation issues. The "wiki process" is the decision mechanism on content, not this guideline. Our goal with Wikipedia is to create a free encyclopedia--indeed, the largest encyclopedia in history, both in terms of breadth and in terms of depth. We also want Wikipedia to become a reliable resource. At the minute we are deleting articles not because they are unreliable, but because we do not like them.  Just because some have tailored guidance to meet their definition of I Do NOT LIKE, it does not mean we can gloss over the fact that they DO NOT LIKE IT. If the article reliably records facts, increase the breadth and depth, then it deserves to be treated with respect at an AFD and have its debated and deliberated for 5 days. All anyone wants is a fair hearing. Hiding T 11:37, 11 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Notability has only been moved once around this last May due to restating the requirements for notability as being significant coverage in reliable secondary sources - it is a much stronger objective requirement; there is still subjectiveness to "significant" and "reliable secondary sources" but that's sets a bar for any article on WP to make.  It does impact fictional elements much more, since the bulk of these articles are written on primary sources only, but we cannot loosen the requirement for one area only.  The only reason it may seem like the goallines keep moving for notability is that some of the visible articles are being pointed out as lacking notability.  Adjusting all of WP for notability issues is going to be a slow process with a lot of resistance.


 * Also remember this new notability guideline is based on consensus. The list of Futurama planets deletion shows how consensus is supposed to work: it is not based on majority, but based on discussion and the strength of arguments, including other guidelines and policies that have consensus already.  Few of the "keep" votes for that AfD referred to any existing policy and were mainly variations on WP:ILIKEIT.  And while we are trying to allow for summary-style split of lists to exist without strong notability demonstration, it must be obvious that it's not just a list for list-sake, but instead should be a list that was broken out of the main article due to size and summary style concerns.  Lists of minor characters, various settings, etc. generally are not written in a concise overview of a work of fiction unless they have received additional attention elsewhere.


 * At the end of the day, while we want WP to be an academic tool, it is not meant to be the end-all, be-all resource for academics. I won't ask how comics and academics work together in your case, but I do know that if I were to do a report only founded on an encyclopedia, I would not get a good grade/result/performance for that report.  An encyclopedia should not be the only source you consult for research, but can be the first one that you hit, and a properly written one would give you enough guidance as to where to turn to next for more details.  Our notability guideline promises you that: an article build on coverage in secondary sources is going to give you a handle of secondary sources that you can use to research further beyond what an encyclopedia treatment of the topic can provide.   We may not list explicitly what superheroes use magic or who have broken the fourth wall, but if written appropriately, WP's coverage of comic book hereos should give you links you can follow up on that.   Same with technical topics, same with philosophical topcis, same with historical topics.  People mistake much of what WP founding guidelines to mean we are a end-all be-all of human knowledge, which is both impractical and impossible to maintain; instead, we are meant to be the best tertiary source out there. --M ASEM  14:31, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The notability guidance has moved more than just last May, but perhaps I have a longer memory. I can remember putting the guideline tag on it. As to notability being based on consensus, no it isn't. It's based on shouting down opponents.  Every time someone tries to change it, they are pointed off.  Every time people disagree with it, they are told it has consensus, regardless of the fact that a vast number of people disagree with it.  It's just that those people's opinions aren't considered of merit. And the List of Futurama deletion close is not how it is supposed to work.  Please re-read WP:CONSENSUS.  A small group of editors can reach a consensual decision, but when the article gains wider attention, others may then disagree. The original group should not block further change on grounds that they already have made a decision. A small group of editors rewrote WP:FICT, I know I was one of them, and a larger pool rejected it.  The smaller group were allowed to triumph.  That's wrong. Consensus can change. That's the policy for determining consensus, not WP:FICT or I agree with this guidance, so poo to that policy. I'm not going to bother responding to your assertions on doing a report founded only on an encyclopedia since at no stage did I suggest anything of the sort. And I would like to see where it states in policy that we cannot explicitly list what superheroes use magic or who have broken the fourth wall.  Such lists are discriminate and can be sourced.  No issues with WP:V, WP:NPOV, WP:NOR or WP:NOT. As to whether we can loosen the guidance in one area, of course we can.  Why else do we have sub-pages listing criteria for individual topics?
 * All that said, you have missed the main thrust of my argument, which is that we all agree grey areas exist. Why are we not therefore honest enough to admit it. Why is this page so strict, and why is any attempt to rewrite it resisted or shunted off to one side?  Who is trying to protect what position, and for what?  I am well aware of the positions on Wikipedia, and I am well aware that this page as it currently reads does not represent consensus, but that there appears to be a concerted effort to prevent amendments to it or to tag it as disputed. I think some users have to examine their actions here and work out whether their best interests are Wikipedia's. Thanks for listening. Hiding T 15:04, 11 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't disagree that the consensus guideline states that, but that is aimed for when a significant change to an article, guideline, or other non-process page is suggested. For AfD, admins are to look at rough consensus to determine what the discussion of the AfD brings up.  Again, from that : "Consensus is not determined by counting heads, but by looking at strength of argument, and underlying policy (if any). Arguments that contradict policy, are based on opinion rather than fact, or are logically fallacious, are frequently discounted."  That is what occurred at the futurama planet list.  The closing admin followed the process correctly.
 * A list of superheroes by power type approaches being indiscriminate info as well as being a directory. Making a list just because you can make a list is not always a good choice of action.
 * Again, I point that what WP:FICT now says is logically what must follow from the change in WP:N. We had (via consensus a few months ago) had a balance of allowing sub-articles written in summary style to exist on their own, as a strict reading of WP:N would not allow such to exist.  Sure, there's a gray area, but its very narrow gray area and we have provided a route to make sure all other avenues were explored before that point.  I agree that it did strongly suggest "delete any non notable article before trying other routes" and rewriting the guideline to have editors attempt any other route first is the right direction so that namedropping WP:FICT at an AfD should not be status quo.  But if you're more concerned that WP:FICT sets the bar too high for fictional articles, then the proper place to be discussing this at is at WP:N, because the core of WP:FICT (WP:N + WP:PLOT) does not change from WP:N just because the work is fictional. --M ASEM  15:22, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Rough consensus tells us this, to use the whole quote, Wikipedia policy, which requires that articles and information be verifiable, avoid being original research, not violate copyright, and be written from a neutral point of view is not negotiable, and cannot be superseded by any other guidelines. I would state that that was disregarded in that afd, when a guideline was placed above policies.  Guidelines do not come into play, and the closing admin placed a few above policies.  Also, to my eye the article had sources and was written more out of universe than in.  But this isn't WP:DRV.
 * A list which discriminates on what it includes cannot by definition be indiscriminate, and I will resist any attempt to state otherwise. Not being a directory directs us to Lists_%28stand-alone_lists%29 which to me states that list of uperheroes is bad, but list of superheroes who break the fourth wall is allowable.
 * As to where I should be discussing this, please don't pass me back to WP:N, because WP:N states Substantial coverage in reliable sources constitutes such objective evidence, as do published peer recognition and the other factors listed in the subject specific guidelines. My emphasis. This is the right place for the discussion, per WP:N.  At the moment this guidance is flawed.  Everyone here seems to agree on that.  Maybe we should stop arguing about that and start attempting to fix the problem.  I've tried and been reverted, so I'm not sure how next to go forwards.  This guidance needs to address summary style articles, which can draw from the parent article more detailed topics and expand the coverage. Superman is notable.  Superman's powers are notable.  Superman's allies are notable.  Superman's enemies are notable.  How deep do we go.  It can't be enough to say we need outside sources on every single sub-article.  No-one wants articles on characters which have appeared a handful of times in seventy years, but seventy years is a lot of time.  There's a lot there to discuss which may not have significant coverage in a number of sources, but may have some coverage in one source.  I know why our guidance was amended to ask for significant coverage in a number of whatever it is, it was as much to do with people appearing in one news story which gets written about in all the papers.  But that doesn't mean we have to close all the doors to stop the horse escaping, just the ones the horse will fit through. We're allowed to tighten guidance for one area only, but we're never allowed to loosen it for one area only.  Where's the much vaunted level playing field, the "do the right thing", the community spirit? Hiding T 15:44, 11 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I would strongly advocate if you feel incorrectly about the list of futurama planets being deleted that you add it to WP:DRV. My gut feeling is that it will be denied, but consider it at least 1 or more additional opinions of what notability should be defined as.
 * For other factors beyond WP:N we can certainly add others (WP:BIO is a good example for additional notability for persons), as long as they don't reduce the requirement of WP:N. What you are suggesting, that allowing fictional elements to go with only primary sources, is violating that.  I will point out that we have this section in the present guideline (which we came to after a good deal of discussion):


 * "Sub-articles are sometimes born for technical reasons of length or style. Even these articles need real-world information to prove their notability, but must rely on the parent article to provide some of this background material (due to said technical reasons).[3] In these situations, the sub-article should be viewed as an extension of the parent article, and judged as if it were still a section of that article. Such sub-articles should clearly identify themselves as fictional elements of the parent work within the lead section, and editors should provide as much real-world content as possible."


 * This allows for some cases of articles with only primary sourcing, but when it naturally falls out from larger articles - this is comparable as to why episode lists exist as separate pages - because it makes the main page too large. However, this is a practical limit of how much sub-articles can go, and that's why this is somewhat strong language - otherwise people wikilawyer around it.  --M ASEM  16:25, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't want to go to WP:DRV, that's not my style or my point. And I'm fed up of people talking about wiki-lawyering, it always seems to be wiki-lawyering when you don't agree with it, but consensus when you do agree with it. The section you quote has already been used at afd to state the opposite of what you state it means, so something is wrong somewhere.  Rather than attempt to close cat flaps to stop horses bolting, why can't we just let afd set our limits instead of tweaking this guidance to fit our preferred version of I don't like it.  Do people not trust Wikipedians and admins to do the right thing? Hiding T 17:05, 11 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Can you point to an AfD where the quote from the current phrase was used in the way you suggest it was? Understand how it is being used "improperly" from the intent can help us make it better.  Also, AfD is not where consensus or policy/guidelines are built, that's where they are to be applied though application or discussion may lead to the formation of new guidelines or improvements on others.  As previously suggested, if the concern is that this policy is being misused in AfDs, then lets look through the various AfDs, or ones in progress (where we can see the article) and thus work on improving the language.
 * But again, I'm going to point out that by the AfD process, the list of Futurama planets was closed out and deleted correctly (IMHO). I'm mentioning this one because this is a two-pronged aspect: one, it has to do with this guideline, so there's questions to try to fix it, but the other is that as you suggest, the process was not followed correctly.  If similar AfD's are also two-pronged, it is going to be difficult to improve this one without understanding what mistakes, if any, were present in the other AfDs.  I'm not saying to take all AfDs to to DRV, but the futurama planet one is a good one that shows where an obvious minority outweighted the majority (though again, I believe this to be correct process for AfD).  If it is shown to be a mistake, then there may be good reason to loosen this guideline some more. --M ASEM  17:41, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I've already pointed out how that close was incorrect per WP:CONSENSUS and [[Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators. If you think they are wrong, I suggest you discuss changing those on their respective talk pages.  Sadly I have only recently started sorting afd debates so I don't have the one I referred to above to hand, but it does exist.  As to afd not being where consensus is built, I think you are so wrong on that score and that prior precedence, policy and practise disagrees with you too that either I am misreading you or I am not, and there is little value in arguing the point.  I will return instead to my main point.  This guidance is currently drafted to advocate deletion, and is drafted tighter even than WP:N and I would like to return to an earlier version which is not and better reflects community consensus and practise. Hiding T 18:04, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

(←) I agree that we need to make sure that if an editor sees an article that lacks notability, the first step is not AfD it. Going back to Notability (fiction)/proposed-12-9-07, I see no major problems in this, it sticks deletion as the last effort that should be done to an article failing merging and transwiking. (I've made a few edits to make sure deletion is the last subject on the table, and that non-notability is not criteria for CSD). --M ASEM 18:30, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Can someone answer this for me?
Why do we even need this guideline. If a fictional article passes all the core polices it will automatically pass notability. This guideline just confuses the issues and there will never be consensus on it. A bunch of articles get deleted so people run in here and change it, then it starts causing problems in AFD and people come in here and change it back. It is an issue that is way to large to ever be handled by this guideline.

Anyway back to the main point, if an article can pass the test of WP:V, WP:OR, WP:RS, and other policies it will automatically be notable. If people want to deal with the issues raised by WP:PLOT and other policies that restrict fictional content then they need to deal with the policies themselves and not write a guideline. Ridernyc (talk) 14:46, 11 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Referring more to the general WP:N, the keep language added that differs from WP:V, WP:OR, and WP:RS is "significant coverage".  I can certainly make an article that is comprised of non-significant aspects of a work that meets V, OR, and RS (say, adding whom the voice actors are for a list of characters in an animated work), but this is not significant coverage of the topic in secondary sources.  Adding that language is what sets WP:N apart from those.  In the specific case of WP:FICT, we also add in WP:PLOT as an corroborating guideline to WP:N that basically says that nitty-gritty details of a fictional work are not notable nor appropriate for WP and should not be included.  --M ASEM  15:04, 11 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Why does this guideline exist? When I first read it around June/July 2007, several months after I had set foot on wikipedia and wanted to expand the extremely poor wiki coverage of an unpopular TV show, I was looking for guidance on how an article should look and when to break out a subarticle etc. Even before its major rewrite, this guideline summarized consensus on key policies and guidelines (and pointed me there for more detail) to get me started so that I wouldn't need to be afraid of AfD. Unfortunately, the fewest editors actually read this guideline before starting fiction-related articles, which results in this guideline being used more in AfD than in article creation. – sgeureka t•c 15:19, 11 December 2007 (UTC)


 * The guideline is basically unreadable to someone who's not familar with Wikipedia. At the very least, it should contain common deletion outcomes like fanfic, fictional objects and minor characters getting deleted.-- Nydas (Talk) 15:39, 11 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Isn't that already happening with WP:FICT? Articles for deletion/Common outcomes doesn't mention any fiction outcomes, although an old version of WP:FICT linked to Deletion policy/Minor characters and Deletion policy/Middle-earth items. Maybe an essay can be written as a rough summary, and linked from here. – sgeureka t•c 15:53, 11 December 2007 (UTC)


 * There were examples of what was good and what was bad, but there were removed/condensed, or the like because the old examples (pre May 07 rewrite of WP:N) were no long good examples. We were talking about adding examples back in, and certainly this is not a bad suggestion.
 * The problem mentioned above about editors editing before reading guidelines is why, for fiction, there is a strong goal of trying to make this policy known. If I'm a new editor, wanting to write about my favorite show, I'm likely going to see the depth that certain shows (The Simpsons) have gotten and think, "Oh, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, and my show needs that too!".  Unfortunately, there's no requirement for an editor to read relevant policy, so the better way to approach this is to make sure that while other stuff may exist, the way its written meets policy/guidelines, so that new stuff, when written, will likely be the same. --M ASEM  16:09, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The problem is that editors exist who created that other stuff before this guidance was written and adopted and in some instances refuse to accept this guidance has consensus since it was never common practise and still isn't. So there's a huge fault line running through Wikipedia, and nobody seems willing to try and find some common ground. My personal opinion is that this guidance is too tight and you won't get editors following it until it is loosened.  We've got a lot of editors at the comic project who have been here a long time and don't agree with this guidance as it stands/gets interpreted. It's hard enough getting WP:WAF adhered to, although that's new too it builds off of Check your fiction at guide to writing better articles or where ever it is. Hiding T 17:17, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Of course, it could be that the plan is to drive off those other editors and then it doesn't matter. That has been suggested to me, semi-seriously. Hiding T 17:18, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Examples
There's some sorting going on at WikiProject Deletion sorting which might prove useful for sourcing examples. Have a look at:
 * WikiProject Anime and manga/Deletion Archive
 * WikiProject Deletion sorting/Comics and animation/archive
 * WikiProject Deletion sorting/Science fiction/archive
 * WikiProject Deletion sorting/Literature/archive
 * WikiProject Deletion sorting/Film/archive
 * WikiProject Deletion sorting/Fictional characters/archive

Those should offer some indication of where Wikipedia is at. Hiding T 22:44, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Notability and special effects
Imagine two TV shows. One is a sci-fi show with a devoted fanbase, the other is a romantic sitcom with a non-devoted fanbase. Both have similar ratings, win similar numbers of awards and get similar amounts of mainstream media coverage. Both shows have a character of medium importance. In the sci-fi show, the character is an alien who is created with prosthetics and computer effects. In the sitcom, the character a regular human. The sci-fi show's fanbase creates a fertile market for supplementary material (including out-of-universe stuff about the alien), whilst the sitcom may get one or two guidebooks if it's lucky.

Does the alien character deserve an article more than the human?-- Nydas (Talk) 16:05, 11 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, assuming that the alien character has coverage of that character in secondary sources; particularly information about how the actor has to be prepped for the role, that's all secondary sources directly relating to that character. --M ASEM  16:09, 11 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Even though it's arguably a violation of neutral point of view? Would you support deleting obscure Indian politicians because we can't get them to the same standard as obscure US politicians? -- Nydas (Talk) 16:15, 11 December 2007 (UTC)


 * WP can only report on what's out there. If an editor purposely ignored one aspect of a topic despite information in secondary sources, that can be considered a bias, but if there's nothing out there to pull information from, there's not much WP can do.  Mind you, there is a language issue here, as this is the english version of WP.  I would suspect that if you ask the same question if we were on the Hindi WP, the info for the US politician would be the one for deletion.  An ultimate goal is to translate all pages of all WP to all other languages, so at some point, a Hindi/English literate person could help translate sources from Indian papers and the like and make that Indian politician sufficiently notable.  However, without either the translation help to identify sources or english-based sources, that article would likely be deleted or merged. --M ASEM  16:34, 11 December 2007 (UTC)


 * English is widely spoken in India. Sources are hard to come by for socio-economic reasons.-- Nydas (Talk) 16:43, 11 December 2007 (UTC)


 * While it is a bias, it is not one under Wikipedia's control. --M ASEM 16:59, 11 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes it is. We just say that every elected official can be covered, since we can establish that they exist. Our policies, which rough consensus should be declared using, state that our articles can report what they can source. Guidance, which does not trump policy, declares that there has to be independent sources in loads of different sources of substantial length, but that can be ignored. We have it within our power to do whatever we want as long as we do it in a neutral manner and all loosely agree. If it improves Wikipedia and doesn't breach WP:NPOV, we are allowed to do it. Hiding T 17:23, 11 December 2007 (UTC)


 * To address the example here, I would suggest you write comprehensive articles about both to the best of your abilities in keeping with WP:V, WP:NPOV and WP:NOR and run them through GA and onto FA. If they are well written and inform readers, you can generally build a case that WP:IAR applies in an AFD.  People want to see encyclopedic articles, and usually won't delete them when they see them. We had a famous hoax that lasted ages because it was written so well. Hiding T 17:26, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Another stab
Okay, I've had another stab, merging the current version with the original rewrite Of July and with WP:N. I hope this is more acceptable to all than the last rewrite. Again, have at it as you will. Hiding T 18:48, 11 December 2007 (UTC)


 * This is my concern (I think we're on the same page, just language/presentation): "contain substantial real-world content from reliable primary and secondary sources." in the first section can be read (if one blindly ignores the bolding) that primary sources are sufficient; there's also cases that one may not be able to have primary sources that describe real-world content. Basically, we know:
 * Secondary sources are necessary and required
 * Primary sources are neither, but can be used as well.
 * I'm thinking to make the language clearer is "contain substantial real-world content from reliable secondary sources with additional support from appropriate primary sources.", which gets both points above across. --M ASEM 18:59, 11 December 2007 (UTC)


 * My fear is the idea that editors will see "primary" and automatically assume that means you can write the article based soley on what happens in the fictional element (which creates original research in most cases), instead of sourcing from things that are considered "primary" -- like interviews with the director, writers, artists, actor, etc etc...and all the other primary sources there are.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  19:02, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The problem is that that contradicts WP:V, which makes no mention of primary and secondary sources, and supercedes this guidance. I would hate to see this guidance move away and further from established policy, that violates other policies as above. Hiding T 19:52, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I think the problem is covered in the section of WP:V on "self-published and questionable sources": Material from self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources in articles about themselves, so long as ... the article is not based primarily on such sources. Then only thing that needs to be made clear is that an artist talking about his own creation is, depending on the circumstances, either self-published or questionable.Kww (talk) 20:02, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * (ec)That's not true. An artist being interviewed in a reputable source is still primary source but is not questionable nor self-published as defined at WP:V. Hiding T 20:18, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * You don't think such cases are "promotional in nature"?Kww (talk) 20:25, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * (ec) No. Why, do you? An interview is as good as the interviewer, and if it is published in a reliable, third-party source with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, then it's going to be fair game even thought it is primary source. Interviews are often useful for revealing things that may otherwise have remained unknown. For example, see Tony Blair. Hiding T 20:44, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Depends on context. An interview by, say, Billboard Magazine talking to Bono after a Grammy win is certainly not promotional; on the other hand, if a record label "published" an interview with a band under their label about an upcoming CD release, there's certainly question of promotion.  In generally, a good interview is actually a secondary source as the interviewer is the one synthesizing/analyzing/etc the questions and answers; as long as the interviewer is sufficiently reliable and independent of the work, it should qualify. --M ASEM  20:33, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I would be extremely suspicious of an article about Bono that was primarily derived from interviews with Bono. Certainly, an article about the average Disney channel show that was derived from interviews with Disney's tightly controlled stable of stars wouldn't pass the sniff test. Questionable may be a bit strong, but I think the concept needs to be applied in this context.Kww (talk) 20:40, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't. You're looking to stop horses by locking cat flaps. If it will fail the sniff test, take it to afd and let afd do its job.  Let this guidance support policy rather than extend it.  Hiding T 20:55, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * (ec) There may be some disagreement what a "primary" source is. If it's the work of fiction, then no, it does not establish notability and would just work against either WP:NOT or WP:OR. If it's the authors/creators of the fiction in sufficient coverage, then yes, notability is established. Reliable secondary sources already establish notability per WP:N. Personally, I don't care what sources are used as long as its real-world information from reliable sources. – sgeureka t•c 20:16, 11 December 2007 (UTC)


 * (ec) Even though I have not really contributed in the above discussions, I must say that I think the rewrite was very good and has my support. But since the guideline moved away from immediate deletion, then this should also be reflected in the notability tags. (and ) suggest that the ultimate end for non-notable fiction elements is deletion. If someone can figure out these intricate templates, they should definately rewrite them because the templates' high visibility and orange warning color just shouts AfD. – sgeureka t•c 20:16, 11 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Good point - you're right that that template does not suggest other courses of action. --M ASEM  20:35, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I've started a discussion on that point at Template talk:Notability suggesting it actually record what Guide to deletion states if it is going to "per" it. Hiding T 20:45, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Again, please make large scale changes to a proposal subpage, especially when you've come here to complain about how changes are being made without a consensus. -- Ned Scott 22:53, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Can you please stop reverting the page. There's discussion on the talk page documenting what we are doing here and four editors have been involved in the rewrite.  Please don't tell me what I've come here to complain about, you've obviously misread me somewhere along the line if that's what you think my issue is. It's a wiki, we're following the wiki process.  If you have issues with the additions, please make your case.  Half of it is drafted in from WP:N and makes the page better meet Guide to deletion so shouldn't be objectionable. Hiding T 23:01, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Four editors.. and you have the nerve to say that the dozens of other editors who worked on the current version don't have a consensus. Wikipedia uses a consensus process, and you don't get to blatantly toss that out the window just because it's something you don't like, and because you're being impatient. -- Ned Scott 23:05, 11 December 2007 (UTC)


 * (ec) Gee, I thought consensus could change. Since I was one of the dozens of editors involved before, I'm at a loss to understand why I was right then and wrong now. And make it five editors, I note the main author of the rewrite agreed up above. The page is basically a restoration of the July rewrite with additional material from WP:N. You have yet to state any areas of the rewrite you wish to discuss, so I can't see a way forward until you do so. Let us know when we can edit the page or you are willing to discuss the rewrite. Hiding T 23:11, 11 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm completely with Ned on this. It is premature to introduce the changes you have made, since it raises some core concerns about making the definition of notable material rather more lithe. That is problematic. Any changes need to be brought here and systematically subjected to review before passing to the main page. Eusebeus (talk) 23:09, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * In what sense does it make the definition more lithe? Hiding T 23:12, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Core issues
Since this was drowned out by rantings, I'll put it in its own section:

From what I understand there are two parts that are "in dispute". One is about the secondary sources having to be independent. I can see softening this point as long as we still emphasize real-world information. We're so desperate for real world information that we're often forgiving when the bulk of it comes from DVD commentary and production notes. It's also not as much of an issue considering most of these articles are not actually independent from their parent in the first place. It will make little difference for the really problematic articles.

The other part is to further advocate other alternatives over deletion. I totally agree with this, as do a lot of us here, but we must be careful to not encourage people to simply game the system. Such advice might need it's own page altogether since there's so much of it, but we'll see. -- Ned Scott 22:58, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

This deletionism mentality is getting really, well, stupid.
I thought I'd beat a dead horse further by putting this out there. I can see deletionism being used for merging subjects that don't require their own articles and deleting incredibly unnotable things, but the outright purging of tons information is asinine, especially information that is greatly contributed to and well maintained. As I recall, a few of the Naruto "List of jutsu" articles were consistently in the top 100 articles viewed on the entire project and have existed for quite some time, yet they were deleted. The existence of these articles wasn't harming Wikipedia at all and obviously lots of people found them helpful as opposed to generally awful fansites, so why were they deleted? According to logic they shouldn't have been, but due to a mixture of "flexible" Wikipolicies they were deleted anyway. This is only one notable example of many cases where the "Laws of Wikipedia" trample over logic and the userbase for the shared views of a few people. This needs to cease. - 4.154.232.12 (talk) 00:29, 8 December 2007 (UTC)


 * "Notability" is not the same as "popularity". Mind you, such popular content should be moved to Wikias before being deleted, but if the topic is non-notable by WP's standards, it should not have an article here. --M ASEM  00:38, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Why not ? Notability means importance to people. So does popularity. The poster above is quite right, this deletionism is ruining Wikipedia as a source for new media, which BTW consists the bulk of Wikipedia hits. You guys are trying to make a new media vehicle into a dusty moldy book. Renmiri (talk) 03:35, 11 December 2007 (UTC)


 * If we used "popularity" or "importance" as a guideline for article inclusion, it would be very difficult to apply appropriate reliable secondary sources needed by verification. Requiring demonstration via reliable sources sets a bar for inclusion that is better than "Well, I think this should be in WP". --M ASEM  04:08, 11 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Ironically, the verifiability issue is exactly what's wrong with all these new Wikias being created. WP standards and passionate, elitist fan ediors is what kept all this "non-notable information" reliable and well kept, without them the information is nothing but typos, useless junk and fan bias. Have you been to the Naruto Wikia? Honestly it's godawful and useless for looking indepth into anything, and now that these aforementioned "List of Jutsu" articles are deleted a lot of other Wikipedia sections and articles on the subject make no sense. Someone (in)advertantly ruined any hopes of well written internet content on this series for no reason.


 * Admittedly, the aforementioned Jutsu articles were quite long and didn't require a list of every single attack in the series, but they could have been trimmed dramatically and kept for the betterment of the rest of the Naruto articles. Another similar issue is the deletion of the "Tales of the Abyss terms"(Or something similar to that) article. It was a small article that defined a lot of the convoluted, in-universe terms in the game so the other related articles could be understood better, it was deleted for being "game guide" content despite not having anything to do with progressing through the game. I fear for the day when other "glossary of terms" articles for more complicated subjects are deleted . - The Norse (talk) 23:59, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Deletion at the bottom
Masem, can you confirm that you were happy for deletion to be put to the bottom, and all other options be detailed first. That's in keeping with WP:N, which is the language I pretty much copied in. Hiding T 23:19, 11 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree that taking it to AfD for deletion due to lack of notability should be taken as the last resort if the article cannot be dealt with in one of the other ways describes, and should be as clear as possible to that degree in the guideline. --M ASEM 23:46, 11 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Okay, so if we look at mirroring WP:N with something like the following:

If an article fails to cite sufficient sources to demonstrate the notability of its subject, look for sources yourself, or:
 * Ask the article's creator for advice on where to look for sources.
 * Put the notability tag on the article to alert other editors. To place a dated tag, put a notability tag.
 * If the article is about a specialized field, use the PROJECT-NAME tag with a specific WikiProject to attract editors knowledgeable about that field, who may have access to reliable sources not available online.

If appropriate sources cannot be found, consider merging the article's content into a broader article providing context. Otherwise, if deleting:
 * If the article meets our criteria for speedy deletion, one can use a criterion-specific deletion tag listed on that page.
 * Use the prod tag, for articles which do not meet the criteria for speedy deletion, but are uncontroversial deletion candidates. This allows the article to be deleted after five days if nobody objects. For more information, see Proposed deletion.
 * For cases where you are unsure about deletion or believe others might object, nominate the article for the articles for deletion process, where the merits will be debated and deliberated for 5 days.
 * Would that work? We could add in stuff about transwiki. Hiding T 23:53, 11 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Something like that. Reasonable steps should be:
 * Tag with notability and discuss on article talk page (particularly if the concern is non-obvious). If the concern can be more detailed, add the appropriate tag (I don't believe "expert-subject" applies here.
 * Wait some time (2 weeks to a month) for any replies. If there is good faith effort by editors to demonstrate notability but not completed at the end of this, allow them more time.  (there is no deadline).
 * If there is no response to the notability tag or notability cannot be demonstrated, consider two options which should be determined by consensus:
 * If there is a broader topic that the article can be merged into, or a series of similar articles that can be merged into a list with higher probability of being notable, do that. Follow proper merge procedures for this
 * If a merge is not likely possible, then consider transwiki the material to an appropriate wikia or the holding area for unsorted wikia material.
 * If none of the following are possible, or there is no consensus for merging or transwiking, only consider bringing the article to AfD as a last resort.
 * Something like that. --M ASEM 00:11, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Non-notable topics
Articles that have potential to show notability should be given reasonable time to develop. To avoid this problem, do not split or create content unless the new article includes substantial real-world content (and ideally an out-of-universe perspective) from the onset. Editors should be prepared to demonstrate that there is an availability of sources covering real-world information by: providing hyperlinks to sources detailing real-world information about the topic; outlining a rewrite, expansion, or merge plan; and/or gaining the consensus of established editors. Otherwise, the article will be subject to the options mentioned below. Place appropriate clean-up tags to stimulate activity and mark the articles as sub-par (but with potential).

Articles that do not show notability can therefore be kept for a short time, merged, moved elsewhere, redirected or listed for deletion. If an article fails to cite sufficient sources to demonstrate the notability of its subject, look for sources yourself, or:
 * Ask the article's creator for advice on where to look for sources.
 * Put the tag on the article to alert other editors.
 * If the article is about a specialized branch of fiction, use the tag with a specific WikiProject to attract editors knowledgeable about that field, who may have access to reliable sources not available online.

If appropriate sources cannot be found, consider merging the article's content into a broader article providing context. For instance, articles on minor characters in a work of fiction may be merged into a "list of minor characters in ...". If there is a suitable project other than Wikipedia which may cover the topic in question, consider a transwiki. An article can be transwikied to a suitable Wiki such as Wikia or its Wikipedia Annex. The article is then redirected to the most relevant article to preserve edit history for the transwiki. Otherwise, if deleting:
 * If the article meets our criteria for speedy deletion, one can use a criterion-specific deletion tag listed on that page.
 * Use the prod tag, for articles which do not meet the criteria for speedy deletion, but are uncontroversial deletion candidates. This allows the article to be deleted after five days if nobody objects. For more information, see Proposed deletion.
 * For cases where you are unsure about deletion or believe others might object, nominate the article for the articles for deletion process, where the merits will be debated and deliberated for 5 days.

How about that? I know you don't think expert specific applies, but I'm thinking of instances where the article is new, it may not have shown up on the radar of other interested parties as yet. But that's a quibbl we can go one way or the other on. Anything else there that needs to be tweaked? It's mostly a merge of what we've got now woth what we had in the rewrite and what we have at WP:N and WP:GTD. Hiding T 10:22, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Many points disputed
There are more than two points at issue.

first, with respect to significance: Then, with respect to structure:" further, with respect to procedure"
 * 1) . The meaning of the term 'real-world significance" Does it mean primarily the authorship, sales, reception, or does it includes discussion in the real world about the plot, characters and setting?
 * 2) . The meaning of "in-universe" Does the mean anything talking about the universe of the fiction, or does it mean only the prohibition about writing in a fan-fiction fashion as if the universe of the fiction were actual reality\?
 * 3) . The extent of plot information. is this to be minimal, or detailed, or somewhere in the middle.? Should the rule be that it should not predominate mean that it should not be more than 50%, or that it should not be 95%?
 * 4) . The source for information about the plot and characters and setting. Must this come from secondary sources, or should it come, alternatively or even preferable, directly from he work of fiction? If so, is this an exception to the basic rule about primary sources, or does the current meaning of the rule in general permit primary sources in such situations?
 * 5) . The source for secondary information. Must it come only from conventionally published sources, or may it includes information from accepted informal sources appropriate to the type of material? If so, is this an exception to the rule, or the interpretation to which the practice is heading over material in general?
 * 6) . Do we treat all material the same, ir do we recognize the differences between different types of fiction? Do we ignore academic sources talking about popular culture, or take account of where the actual critical literature is? do we ignore the significance of a work in formal or informal culture, or pay special attention to the iconic works of film and literature--and computer gaming?
 * 1) . The basic principle that each work of fiction should have a single article. Or should we instead have the number of articles appropriate to its importance and the extent of material available?
 * 2) . should major characters only have a separate article in special cases, or should all individual major characters in major works have a separate article? Should this depend upon formal sourcing, or should we assume that major characters in such works will always have a substantial critical discussion?
 * 3) . Should we just mention the names of the less important characters in important works, or a listing, or should we write combination articles with a substantial section to each of them, length according to how much there is to say? Does this apply to all minor character, or in some exceptional works, such as Shakespeare, is there sufficient critical discussion that essentially every named character can justifiably have an article?
 * 4) . Is setting and background relatively unimportant, as compared to plot and character, or does this represent at least as important aspects of works, and to be discussed on the same principles as character? Does the geography of major imaginary worlds merit only a general discussion, or should major settings be presented in appropriate detail? Do the minor settings just get listed or ignored, or do they merit sections of a combination article for the more important works fof fiction?
 * 5) . Are the details of setting and cultural cross references unimportant, or are they part of the essence of at least some forms of fiction such as film? Do we treat all such works equally, or emphasize strongly the settings used in major works of fiction, and the major settings used in multiple works? Do we need secondary sources explicitly treating each such element, or can we use the same primary sources we would use for plot and character?
 * 6) . Do we deal with excessive size by compressing the treatment, or dividing the article? If there are too many minor characters to devote a paragraph to each, do we shorten the paragraphs, or find some way of separating them into two or more articles?
 * 7) . Do we rely on specialist wikis for all specific details, or do we try to make WP self contained, using specialist wikis only for the true minutia that only specialized fans discuss (e.g., the speculative detailed genealogy of Frodo's relatives)?
 * 1) . Do we just let AfDs settle everything including article structure, or do we keep editing questions to article or project talk pages?
 * 2) . Do we follow the majority of whomever is present at a particular discussion, or do we attempt to form a stable and generally acceptable consensus?
 * 3) . Do we renominate for deletion articles that have already obtained consensus to keep, or do we spend our time writing and improving articles?
 * 4) . If we cannot obtain consensus on details, do we argue till we have them, or do we attempt to get consensus on more general points?
 * 5) . Do we attempt to write policy so our favorit works get the treatment we want them to have, or do we look more generally at all media and genres?
 * 6) . Do we depend only upon formal sourcing, or also upon importance?
 * 7) . Do we delete on the basis of no response to tagging after a time, or do we accept that growth is slow and irregular? Do we thing of deletion as a trivial concern, or do we recognize that it is much easier to build upon existing stub articles?
 * 8) . Do we accept failure of routine attempts at sourcing though tools like Google Scholar, or do we accept that sourcing in this area is sometimes difficult, and that nothing should be considered unsourcable until the popular and academic materials have been thoroughly examined?

I have tried to write it so the alternative in each clause is my preferred position, but at the least, each point i have raised here is a point where i think we do not yet have agreement. i strong dislike any attempt to pretend we have agreement on one particular person's position otherwise. Ned does not recognize the degree to which his views do not have general acceptance--not just about details, but about general principles. However, i do very strongly agree with him on the practical advisability of trying to get at least some general rules on which we might have agreement, and reserve the details for another place, possibly in the format of examples presented explicitly as an essay. DGG (talk) 00:24, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

1. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia grounded in the real world. Sales, reception, reviews and interviews (and other ways we discuss the fiction in the real world) all seem to apply.
 * Real world information

2. in-univierse- originally meaning a perspective of writing, we've also used the word to simply describe the plot itself, and the importance of things as seen if the plot were real.

3. Hard rules about the exact amount of plot information are likely to be too stiff for a general guideline on fiction. I like to think of it like this: we give the fundamental understanding of what the story is about, and what goes on. Our job is not to retell the work of fiction, but to use summaries to give the fundamental information and to give context for other examples. The longer a work is, the more I can see fundamental information being justified. When you start adding real world information, you can justify even more summary. There are some guidelines used by some WikiProjects about a number of words per minute (for shows and movies). Maybe some of those examples can help guide, without hard rules.

4. I'm not sure I follow you here. The first source is normally seen as the fictional story itself. We don't have sourcing problems for plot summary, and citing the work of fiction itself is more than acceptable. Since we want real-world information, we obviously look to other sources, since the story itself is fictional.

5. I would stay away from fan-sites and keep closer to WP:RS. There are some exceptions from time to time, but this is an issue of verifiability.

6. I'm not sure what you're trying to say in this section. This seems like a repeat of question 5.

1. The number of articles can't be decided arbitrarily like that. Like with anything else, the number of articles is more likely dependent on the amount of appropriate information, and how to present that information, which can and does change for many different works of fiction.
 * Structure

2. same as 1

3. same as 1

..... ok this is all just asking for things we can't decide arbitrarily. No matter how badly you want it, you don't get a generic green light to make a set number of articles for fiction.

It's simple, yet not simple, because it's a guideline and not a bible. When you want to make additional sub articles for a work of fiction, you need real-world information to justify it. In some cases we bend a little for unique plots, or ones that have great cultural and historical impact, or that have simply been around for a long time, but the same idea applies. -- Ned Scott 01:42, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I'll respond to some points in particular below, but I will respond to the procedural issues in general. We need to recognize that some classes of article will probably never be acceptable. An article summarizing a single issue of a manga or a single episode of a TV show will only be an acceptable article in an extremely small percentage of cases. It's reasonable to treat these as essentially "shoot on sight" ... if they don't assert some reason that the episode or issue has some extraordinary outside impact, redirect them the moment they appear. Articles summarizing series, seasons, genres, etc. can be given a lot more latitude. On to your points.
 * The meaning of the term real-world significance Does it mean primarily the authorship, sales, reception, or does it includes discussion in the real world about the plot, characters and setting? Primarily reception, but I would generally prefer the plot summary and character descriptions to come from secondary sources.
 *  The meaning of "in-universe" Does the mean anything talking about the universe of the fiction, or does it mean only the prohibition about writing in a fan-fiction fashion as if the universe of the fiction were actual reality\? Writing in a fan-fiction fashion as if the universe of the fiction were actual reality,
 * The extent of plot information. is this to be minimal. Absolutely minimal. Needs to be sufficient to understand the response and criticism, but no more.
 * The source for information about the plot and characters and setting. Secondary sources only. It should never come directly from the editor watching the show or reading the book. That violates It is extremely easy for such things to violate WP:OR.
 * The source for secondary information. Must it come only from conventionally published sources Yes. Verifiable, conventionally published sources.
 * The basic principle that each work of fiction should have a single article. Or should we instead have the number of articles appropriate to its importance and the extent of material available? I think that most TV series should have a series article and another article per season. Novels generally get an article, and manga series generally get an article. So I guess, yes, appropriate to its importance.
 * should major characters only have a separate article in special cases If the character gets written up in secondary sources as the primary topic of articles, then fine, give him an article. If it's only in the context of articles about the movie or series as a whole, then no. Hawkeye Pierce had articles written directly about him, with the show as a backdrop, and Alan Alda would talk about him individually. The same can't be said for most characters on most TV shows.
 * Do we rely on specialist wikis for all specific details, or do we try to make WP self contained WP should not try to be self-contained in this aspect at all. Specialist wikis are where detailed descriptions of Pokemon monsters, every student in South Park, and every boyfriend in Sex and the City belong.
 * Kww (talk) 01:47, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The source for information about the plot and characters and setting. Using primary source doesn't violate WP:NOR which states as follow: We can make descriptive claims about the information found in the primary source, the accuracy and applicability of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge, but we are not allowed to make analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims about the information found in the primary source, unless such claims are verifiable from another source. We can use primary source to describe a fictional character or setting. To interpret, analyse or assert anything other than the description is what you need secondary source for, the reliability of that source judged in line with the level of the assertion per WP:V. So you can sat Bilbo Baggins was a hobbit who lived in a hole in the ground and found a ring.  If you want to assert Baggins was gay you'd need to source an academic paper or essay in a large national paper.  If you wanted to assert that Bilbo coveted the ring, you can use the work itself.  Whether these things belong in an article is up to editorial judgement, not guidance or policy.  Such things are content disputes and dispute resolution should be followed. Hiding T 10:33, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Edited my statement to correspond to reality. I still believe that directly summarizing a plot easily drifts into original research with just a few poorly chosen adjective. One man's "god-fearing minister" is another's "deluded religious fanatic."Kww (talk) 17:20, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I can summarize all my answers by comparing a fiction-related subarticle to any similar Featured Article and argue from there. In fact, I approach any article as in how far its content would currently contribute to making the whole multi-article topic a Featured Topic. That may make me a valuable contributor or an illusionary fool. Now, if you look at the video game Kingdom Hearts (Featured Topic for the whole series), you'll notice that it can cover its whole in-universe elements in 4 articles (plus 6 for the individual games). Compare that to any popular TV show that literally has 10+ articles for characters (almost all consisting of fictional biographies), 50+ episode articles with almost nothing but plot, and a variety of other articles like fictional machineries, Lists of planets, Lists of fictional brands, List of relationships, or fictional organizations. If I were to project how much material there was to turn the existing information into a Featured Topic, I'd get maybe 8-10 articles like with KH. And one may now compare that to 70++ poor articles and say why this guideline would/should encourage the latter and not the former approach. The only thing that I think can/could/should be improved in this guideline is in respect to procedure, where, objectionable as it may be, AfDs bring results faster and more clearly than endless discussions among fans that accomplish little to nothing (unfortunately). So, about the Procedure:

– sgeureka t•c 03:30, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 1. First tag and raise discussions, then go to AfD if nothing happens after a few weeks (to avoid gaming the system, which unfortunately happens too often to be ignored).
 * 2. The majority only counts if they can provide reasonable proof that the issues of an article are and/or can be actively worked upon.
 * 3. If some time has passed without improvement (my estimation: three months), then the old AfD consensus is void. Remember that a trim&merge is often preferable to another AfD, but this only works if local consensus collaborates.
 * 4. Discuss the main points first (notability), then proceed with minor points (plot depth, sourcing) if notability has been established. If notability has not been established, then plot and sourcing deficiencies are even worse.
 * 5. Neither. Try to think if the article can achieve at least GA (updated rules). If it can't, it shouldn't exist. If it can't any time soon except for crystal-ballery, merge.
 * 6. The sourcing decides how much we can write. The sourcing doesn't need to be traditional; it can also be podcasts or forum posts and blogs by the producers, to name a few. Obviously, main characters are allowed to have more plot coverage than minor characters etc.
 * 7. Depends. If there is no hope in making the article encyclopedic, deletion is alright (this often happens with lists). If it's just uncertain if sources exist for an in-universe-notable element, I prefer to merge/redirect anyway until individual notability can be established.
 * 8. My experience says anything can be sourced with enough determination, but it's the job of the people in favor of keeping to provide these obscure sources, not the other editors. Again, tagging/discussion first, then proposing merging/redirecting/userfying, then AfD'ing in such a case unless it's a hopeless case (e.g. when even the "mother" article cannot establish notability as a merge target, as happened with the individual Warcraft(?) races).
 * I agree with basically everything you have written. However I still question whether or not these are notability issues or policy issues relating with fiction. I really do not think this is the place to be dealing with these issues.  Ridernyc (talk) 03:52, 12 December 2007 (UTC)#


 * It's terrifying that certain Japanese RPGs (at best, a genre of medium importance) are taken as the 'standard'. The Kingdom Hearts and Final Fantasy articles are not that great. They rarely use offline sources, they inflate their references with dialogue fragments, criticism is usually muted, cool-looking promotional artwork is always preferred and large in-universe sections are commonplace.-- Nydas (Talk) 09:30, 12 December 2007 (UTC)


 * What's really terrifying is that this RPG is the only fiction-related Featured Topic for a whole series, and that therefore no other other standard exists. Still, I've been actively working on making Carnivàle, an obscure and convoluted 24-episode TV show, a Featured Topic also, and if everything works out, we'll have another standard example with 4 articles covering everything by the middle of January. I don't think that it will have a major impact on the fiction-related wiki scene, but I hope it inspires at least some editors. Because, as I said, 70+ articles can only be worse when there simply aren't that many sources (and fans, including me, often completely overrate the number of usable sources). – sgeureka t•c 10:27, 12 December 2007 (UTC)


 * 7 out of 26 featured topics are fiction-related. That's pretty high, probably underscoring how little interest there is in featured topics generally.-- Nydas (Talk) 18:07, 12 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Most featured topics cover lists of something, and, as I said, there is only one FT that comprises the whole multi-article topic. And I believe many fans would like to showcase their favorite TV show/movie franchise/video game as a FT, but showing that you have 250 articles instead only 200 is so much easier than actually working on the problem, which is getting rid of extensive in-universe information and finding and adding real-world information. But we're getting further away from the point of this discussion. – sgeureka t•c 18:25, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Interesting to see the different points of view. I agree that many of these are not strictly notability issues, but they are all points that have been raised in the present discussion or in some of the proposed policies. Each of these would appropriately take a separate discussion at some length, here or elsewhere. sop, even that essentially everything needs discussion, how shall we proceed? Are there any issues where we can agree? Then we can write a page containing only those, and say that everything else is not yet arrived at consensus. And then continue. Frankly I am not sure we haver anything agreed except that we should have articles on notable fiction, and they should be sourced in some manner, and not written from a perspective pretending them to be reality. DGG (talk) 04:37, 12 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I think fictional notability is not a valid sub-catagory for general notability. Everything I would write for Notability fiction would just be a rehash of notability. Lets face you can sum in up in one sentence. "A fictional subject is considered notable if it has been discussed in a real world context by multiple secondary sources." That's it right there. all the rest of the debates have nothing to do with notability. Ridernyc (talk) 05:01, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
 * That works fine until you start splitting articles in line with WP:SS, at which point you have to consider finer balancing. How detailed do we want to get.  Do we only want to detail aspects which have received coverage in "multiple secondary sources", or would we be happy with a sub-article based on a combination of primary and secondary sourcing?  Our policies aren't this tight, so I'm not sure our guidance needs to be. Topics tend to get included if they survive an afd.  Topics tend to be worthy of note where they receive coverage outside of Wikipedia and themselves.  But exceptions exist, and the main thing to be considered at deletion debates is whether the article improves Wikipedia or not.  It is far better to reason that an article should be deleted because you're not sure it's within our remit than to reason it should be deleted because if we allow this, we allow that.  Articles are to be considered on their merits.  That's always been a principle of Wikipedia.  We allow exceptions to our guidance and policies when we collectively decide that Wikipedia is improved by ignoring those guidelines and policies.  People need to learn to trust afd and Wikipedia and other editors rather than attempting to rig guidance so it suits their view.  Some of us can't see a harm in well written encyclopedic treatments on topics like Spoo, and we have to reflect that.  Hiding T 10:08, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
 * again policy issue and not a notability issue and should not be handled by this guideline. You will never be able to quantify these situations. Things are going to be handled through AFD no mater what this guideline says.  Ridernyc (talk) 14:55, 12 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Again, prior to all the changes, the guideline had that - a subarticle could be broken out per WP:SS as long as it was determined by consensus of the main article editors to be the best option, and that the article is written in guidance with SS, with good faith effort to maintain the page to all of WP's other policies/guidelines and effort to demonstrate stand-alone notability of the topic.  Basically, this means that if you're writing about a TV show and including a list of characters is too large for the main article, then when agreed upon a new article is created.  This clause does not mean that if a new work of fiction come along you want to write about that you don't go and create the sub-articles for characters before or concurrent to the main page, since the amount of fictional detail you will go into between the main and sub-articles should not unbalance the amount of real-world notability.  This is also a function of the length of the work of fiction - a single movie or video game should not dedicate more than 700-1000 words to the plot (in line with how Films and TV projects do things) and should not have sub-articles at all unless the sub-topics have notable coverage, while a long running TV show will likely benefit from a sub-article about characters, unique terms to the series that come in various plot descriptions, and the show's setting; again, while notability in these may be not be available, there's a more probably chance of establishing notability for longer series.  A single character or fictional element never get their own page unless the character/element has demonstrable notability.
 * But the key point again is that any sub-article should either be able to demonstrate its own notability as a separate topic of the main article (that is, secondary sources that may talk how well a film was received may make no mention of characters; this would NOT be a valid source for character notability), or otherwise must be carefully agreed to and written in a way to be broken out as a sub-article per SS.  (I even offered a template that could be used to tag such articles on the talk page,similar in concept to a fair-use rationale, as to discourage aggressive editors from AfD'ing such articles away immediately.)
 * I agree that what we try to rewrite here has to consider articles like these, but I would surmise that Spoo's status is not commonly agreed-to aspect among editors (I disagree it satisfying notability or the guidelines I propose above), and should be treated as a special case; instead, we should look to efforts elsewhere for guidance (such as the reduction of each pokemon into short list instead of a page for each) --M ASEM 15:17, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree Spoo is an exception, but I think at some point we have to come out and say Spoo is an exception, because otherwise people will just keep saying, what about Spoo. Before Ned reverted everything the second time I was about to add a reference to Spoo being an exception made by a number of Wikipedians based on its encyclopedic treatment of the topic.  I also agree with everything you've written. The original WP:FICT was written mainly to deal with Pokemon. We had a huge poll on the issue. Hiding T 16:10, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
 * A number of people disagree about Spoo being an example of an article we except, so it would not have been wise to add it to the guideline as an exception. This is another example of why you shouldn't be making widespread changes without a consensus. -- Ned Scott 17:56, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Meh, I just add it and see if it files. If it doesn't then it gets discussed and we all know where it stands. What I always find interestoing is that because some people don't agree with Spoo being an exception, even though it is, we aren;t allowed to mention it, but when some people disagree that this page is a guideline, they aren't allowed to change it. It's almost like there are different standards in operation. Either Spoo is an exception or it is not an exception.  If it is not an exception, then we should base the guideline on it.  Almost everyone agrees Spoo is an exception, it's just the people who wish ot was deleted don't want to mention it in case it encourages people.  What they seem to miss is that by not telling people that it is an exception, people think it is the norm and thus they seek to emulate it.  Still, it's a no win situation.  I wish you all the best with it. Hiding T 00:35, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Spoo's defenders have never claimed it was an exception.-- Nydas (Talk) 10:55, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I know they haven't said it, but when you compare Spoo's FAR and AfD reviews to say several other AfDs on characters/elements lacking notability, the general consensus seems to be the same (the topic is non-notable for lack of secondary sources), yet Spoo has passed both for some reason (neither closing admin states what this is beyond passing). I have not seen any other article of that nature that has received an equivalent analysis of its notability-ness and yet stay (compare with the delisting of Bulbasaur which was done, which I believe is tied with the general change in the notability requirements because of the heavy reliance the article had on primary sources).
 * Basically, when I consider what everything else is being proposed or various concerns with fictional notability and set up a framework in my mind, Spoo always fails to follow that frameowrk. Mind you, the system is allowed to have exceptions per WP:IAR, so basically I'm saying that we should not try to write the framework around Spoo but instead around the general process for most articles. --M ASEM  14:13, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

--M ASEM 14:13, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I have updated the proposal to address some of DGG's points, where they refer to notability. It's my personal view of course. Feel free to edit where you disagree. --B. Wolterding (talk) 20:59, 12 December 2007 (UTC)