Wikipedia talk:Notability (fictional characters)/Archives/2019/May

Expand and improve
Greetings, all. Movies, video games, and books, all full of fictional characters, become more and more popular across the world. Consequently, Wikipedia is deluged by fictional-character texts, which range from the most obscure subject to the most known, hopping over to the main space. This proposal, if strenghtened, would be a serious boost to the evaluation of those texts and merits a revision. -The Gnome (talk) 10:55, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Maybe I am missing it, what is the proposal?Slatersteven (talk) 11:58, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
 * You are in the talk page of the very proposal. -The Gnome (talk) 12:42, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry, came here from a link.Slatersteven (talk) 14:13, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes I can see a use for this.Slatersteven (talk) 14:14, 5 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Note we have Notability (fiction) which is an essay that came out of several attempts to define notability for fictional concepts (not just characters). And I would say that essay still holds : that the GNG is the only tool to be used for determining notability. --M asem (t) 14:39, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Greetings, Masem. Characters are the most common element in fiction, especially in an encyhclopaedic context. I believe we should have a separate set of guidelines for fictional characters. This proposal here would be a good start if we revive it. -The Gnome (talk) 16:57, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't see any need to treat characters any different from any other fictional element. Yes, there are usually more articles on characters than other elements, but the same principle is at work - GNG applies only, discuss the topic from a real world perspective, etc. --M asem (t) 19:38, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
 * But is WP:GNG is the be-all and end-all why would we have assitional sets of qualifications needed for categories of article subjects? -The Gnome (talk) 09:38, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Other subject-specific notability guidelines exist to give criteria of cases where a topic is likely going to be notable by the GNG, but may be difficult to locate sources for or that sources will come about due to so point of merit. For example, a person winning a Nobel prize. We know such people get coverage after the award, so we allow articles on those people to be created even if the only thing we can say is they won the Nobel. Now for fictional characters or other things, there is no real such thing. WP:NFICT is the subject of about 3 years of debate of whether any fictional element has such capabilities and the result was responding "No". The only reason NFICT exists is to let editors know we've been through the challenge of defining notability guidelines for fictional elements and could not come up with any special cases where the GNG otherwise worked, and without allowing too much fiction fluff to get in. --M asem  (t) 15:30, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Heh, yes I remember the long-winded negotiations we used to have at WT:Notability (fiction), . Prongs! Remember that? The arguing went on for such a stupidly long time but it seemed like we were fumbling our way towards a compromise and I'm still a little peeved at getting the rug pulled out from under my feet at the last second. Reyk YO! 07:54, 22 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Don't see anything wrong with the proposed guidance but is it needed as well as WP:GNG? not sure Atlantic306 (talk) 18:32, 6 May 2019 (UTC)