For information about writing articles on fiction, see Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction).
For the previous version of this page, see Wikipedia:Notability (fiction)/2008 proposal.
For specific examples where you may be able to help, see Wikipedia:Fiction/Noticeboard.
Notability
Inclusion guidelines
Academics
Books
Films
Music
Numbers
Organizations & companies
People
Web content
Active proposals
Buildings, structures, and landmarks
Criminal acts
Fiction
See also
Common deletion outcomes
Why was my page deleted?

Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) is a guideline that defines the inclusion criteria for topics about fiction, including individual and serialized works (such as television episodes or comic book series), as well the elements of fiction that appear in them.

Works of fiction distributed through the media of books and film are also (but not exclusively) the subject of separate notability guidelines for books and films respectively.

In all cases, if a topic relating to a work or element of fiction meets the requirement of the General notability guideline, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article, provided that the content of the article meets Wikipedia's content policies. In practice, a topic on an element of fiction may still be considered notable if there is significant verifiable evidence that it is an important aspect of an important fictional work, and if there is significant verifiable information about its production and reception. Note that articles need to demonstrate their subject's notability, but do not need to be perfect.

Contents

Three-pronged test for notability

An element of fiction can qualify for a stand-alone article if it meets the general notability guideline. Alternatively, it can qualify via the following three-pronged test. This alternative test is a balance of three factors: the importance of the fictional work, the importance of the element within that work, and the availability of real-world information. All three must be addressed to some extent. An article is unlikely to be kept on the basis of one factor. Nor is it sufficient to satisfy each factor in a trivial way, with a single sentence from a television critic. That said, depth in one factor can at times make up for weakness in another, so long as all factors are addressed to some extent.

#1: Importance of the fictional work

We are more willing to include articles on specific aspects when the work itself is considered more culturally or historically significant. This importance is most often evinced through coverage of the work in multiple sources, especially sources which go into greater depth than a short-form review of the work. These sources may cover the work exhaustively, meaning that fictional elements within the work can be considered to be the subject of significant coverage. Where they do not cover the fictional elements completely, the coverage of the overall work may indicate that the existence of an article on a fictional subject may not represent undue coverage of that subject.

In practice, the best method to evaluate this is through a thorough examination of the sources covering the main fictional work. These sources may be present in the main article, though their absence there is not a sign that such coverage does not exist. If those sources present clear claims for the artistic or cultural importance of the fictional work, it is a good sign that the work is important enough to merit deeper coverage.

#2: Importance within the fictional work

We are more likely to have articles on important and/or central elements of a fictional work, rather than peripheral ones. An article on such an element may place the subject in proper context without simply repeating plot details. Such elements may be characters, episodes, or other important elements of a work.

Assessing the importance involves researching commentary on the topic. Commentary should come from adequately reliable sources, even if they are not strictly independent third-party sources as required by the general notability guideline. Important aspects of a fictional work may be highlighted in places such as DVD commentaries, interviews, developer blogs, journals, etc. Importance through commentary is not the same as importance through complexity. Narrative complexity may lead to claims of artistic significance and can also fuel critical commentaries, though complex plots may just be baroque rather than deep. The fact that a lot can be written on a subject is not evidence that a lot should be written on the subject. Importance is not demonstrated by the amount that can be written.

Contextualizing a particular fictional element requires a balance between concise and thorough coverage of the notable fictional work, avoiding creation of a walled garden.[1] Questions to ask in determining this balance are: "How does a reader's understanding suffer if this fictional element is not described at all?" "...if it is merely summarized in the main article?" "...if it is merely summarized in a list?" Some elements require relatively detailed information in order to explain the work's overall plot and impact. Thus, some particular elements of the work become vital to understand the overall complex work. But explaining a complex plot is not the same as providing exhaustive detail and What Wikipedia is not states that "a concise plot summary is appropriate as part of the larger coverage of a fictional work." Exhaustive detail can even impair understanding.

#3: Availability of real world perspective

A particular element's article is much more likely to be kept if it provides some real-world perspective instead of purely in-universe perspective. Information on production and reception is important for a quality article. The desired result is listed in WP:PLOT, stating "Wikipedia treats fiction in an encyclopedic manner; discussing the reception, impact and significance of notable works." This is most easily achieved when the subject of an article is covered by reliable third-party sources in significant detail. However, reliable third-party sources are only a tool for providing a real world perspective. Sometimes this real world perspective can be established through the use of sources with a connection to the fictional work, such as DVD commentary, developer blogs, and so on.

Note that a simple listing of the production team, release date, and a blurb about whether a given critic liked or disliked a work do not constitute adequate real-world perspective; that information is expected to be substantial and informative, providing a broader context for the subject. Depending on the subject, a good article generally has more real-world information than in-universe.

In practice, real-world perspective and verifiability have the biggest influence on whether an article is kept. An article with a verifiable real-world perspective to establish real-world notability will rarely be deleted.

Rationale: looking at actual practice

Articles on elements of a fictional work are sometimes preserved even if they do no clearly meet the the general notability guideline. They are not, however, kept indiscriminately. With such articles, some balance must be struck based on the subject's importance to the fictional work, the real world context that the spinout article retains, and the importance of the fictional work as a whole. This three-pronged test offers a way to judge the appropriateness of a given article.

Specific tendencies

Although the three-pronged test provides a good basis for evaluation of a given article, certain trends in inclusion and deletion can also be noted for general categories.

Episodes

Main article: Wikipedia:Television episodes

Wikipedia often includes articles on episodes of television series. Such articles may consist of a short plot summary, a cast and crew list, and information about production or reception. Articles must conform to Wikipedia:Writing about fiction, and not contain unsourced speculation or interpretation. Articles overwhelmed with speculation, or with have excessively over-detailed plot summaries are often deleted. For guidance on writing an effective plot summary, consult Wikipedia:Plot summaries and Wikipedia:How to write a plot summary.

If possible, it is often preferable to cover multiple episodes via a combination or list article, rather than individual articles for each episode. Such lists are much less controversial than individual episode articles, though care must be taken to ensure that those list articles themselves satisfy the appropriate standards of notability. When merging existing articles into such a list, it is important to make sure that all verifiable and appropriate information is preserved, and that the plot is described fully enough to be comprehensible.

In other serialized works of fiction, similar attitudes exist, with varying tendencies. With comics, we generally avoid articles on individual issues or storylines. WIth series of novels, we usually use individual articles unless the individual books are relatively trivial. With games, each game is usually given their own separate article, unless the games are closely related, like Pokémon Red and Blue.

Characters

Wikipedia sometimes includes articles on major characters of fictional works. Such articles may consist of a short fictional biography, and available information about the development of that character or reception of the character. Articles must conform to writing about fiction, and must not contain speculation or interpretation unless it is sourced. Articles that are overwhelmed with speculation, or that have excessively long biographies are often deleted. For guidance on writing an effective plot summary, consult Wikipedia:Plot summaries and Wikipedia:How to write a plot summary.

For character articles, the second aspect of the three-pronged test, importance to the overall subject, is particularly important. Articles about fictional characters who are not deemed "major characters" are generally deleted or merged. Based on the third prong, articles on characters from a single work (such as a movie or a video game) are generally discouraged, while a character that spans multiple works (a television series, or a movie or video game franchise) are likely to be kept.

If it is possible, it is generally preferable to cover characters either in the main article for the work of fiction or in a list of characters articles. Such articles are much less controversial than individual character articles, which should only be created when the alternatives are not feasible. When dealing with character articles that have been created, there is often consensus to merge them into list articles, though care must be taken to ensure that those list articles themselves satisfy the appropriate standards of notability. When merging, it is important to make sure that all verifiable and appropriate information is preserved.

Other fictional objects

Beyond episodes and characters, little consensus exists to have articles on specific aspects of fictional works that do not meet the general notability guideline. Exceptions exist, but are rare, and generally must demonstrate extraordinary compliance with all aspects of the three-pronged test.

Specific WikiProjects that deal with works of fiction may also restrict such content. For example, the Video Games Wikiproject, in following the content guideline that Wikipedia is not a guidebook, discourages discussion of specific in-game weapons, objects, or levels, though does not prevent their inclusion when such topics meet the general notability guideline or the above three-pronged test.

Use of sources

Any article on a fictional element must be sourced to show verifiable information. However, the use of sources for articles on fictional subjects is a complex issue. As with any main article, significant coverage in secondary sources is a prerequisite for inclusion. However, for fictional subjects, notability can often be satisfied with sources that do not meet the strictest standards required for other areas.

Semi-independent sources

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

As a result, some of the three-prong test may be satisfied through the use of non-promotional sources which may or may not be independent from the content creators. These may include interviews, production blogs, writings (even self-published ones) by creators, officially licensed "behind the scenes" guidebooks, etc.

Reviews as sources

Editors should check specific WikiProjects for that type of fiction as they may provide a partial list of sources that have been determined to be reliable through community consensus. Likewise the Reliable sources noticeboard may contain archived discussions of these websites which point to community consensus on their reliability or may be used to form the basis of what a community might consider a reliable source.

Primary sources

Further information: Primary, secondary and tertiary sources

Plot summaries are one of the areas where primary sources are most important for use on Wikipedia. Although it is often possible to find secondary sources that offer plot summaries, given the degree to which a plot summary consists of straightforward description, it is rarely preferable to draw only upon those secondary sources.

Remember though that Wikipedia is an encycloepdia; it is our primary goal to summarize sources rather than present commentary or recapitulation. When writing plot summary for an fictional subject that if the considerable bulk of the article is gleaned from primary sources, it may be a sign that the subject itself might not meet the three-pronged test above. Even if the article is notable it probably needs more real-world perspective.

It is particularly important not to stray into speculation, interpretation, or commentary that is based on primary sources. Describing what happens in a novel or game and even describing connections between connections between various elements is an essential part of providing good coverage. However, it is crucial to avoid speculative unreliable, unsourced claims about what is merely implied. However, there is no firm line between the two and sometimes implication is perfectly obvious—for example, it does not require any difficult or controversial leaps to observe the ambiguity in the final episode of The Sopranos or the in the speculative title Chrono Break.

See also

Notes

  1. ^ The term, from the MeatballWiki, means a group of articles having links extensively within the group but none without.
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(fiction)"


Comments

No comments have been added.



Your name:

City:

Country:

Your comments:

Security check *
(Please enter the number into adjoining box)