Wikipedia talk:Notability (fiction)/Archive 57

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

does anyone remember the name of the cat in bewitched. if so. please email me at [email protected] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.218.13.240 (talk) 10:44, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

• Basement Cat? --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 20:34, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I rolled back a recent edit by Gavin Collins. My reasoning is that it was trying to use WP:Verifiability#Sources to imply that is how we define independence when its not; indeed there is no clear definition of it and to say there is (except in extraordinary cases) goes against the majority consensus that people cannot agree on one definition because its a complex issue.

All that the link above states is that these are types of sources that can verify a statement-they do not have to be independent to do so. Indeed a primary source can do so.陣内_Jinnai 23:00, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

As a basis for inclusion, the statement that "The character has been given a major award" is completely misleading guidance. For starters, awards to fictional characters are a form of literary trope, they aren't awards per se. Secondly, there no "major" awards given to fictional characters. We have disucsused this before, and there is no evidence to suggest that awards to fictional characters impart notability. I propose this be removed, as awards to fictional characters have to be judged in exactly the same way as any other source. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 09:30, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I still maintain that listing specific attributes is a recipe for AfD bickering about whether XYZ source makes it pass WP:FICT or not, rather than evaluating the topic as a whole. The whole list of examples should be struck; I honestly think we should be past the point where we're evaluating the "likelihood" of sources existing. Nifboy (talk) 17:28, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Gavin, your view did not hold up when I looked at the RfC - and that is what matters, not your personal view. If you think the RfC didn't get a broad enough spectrum, you can of course start a new one and try to get more input. However, I think you'll find the results the same. That said, you'll notice I did add to it that their could be an attempt to popularize the work, which no one seemed to dispute, so that is why their is a notation added. As for deciding major, that has been disputed. It was said, like awards for actors, that would be hashed out in an AfD as to what is "major" and what isn't. So no, it wasn't decided; just you decided. There were a few others who wondered what would qualify, but no one other than you has said there isn't.

I propose you back up your proposal to remove with consensus from the RfC. Your view on it being a literary troupe and thus an award not mattering was pretty much universally rejected FE.陣内_Jinnai 21:45, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Funny, I thought the consensus at the RfC was that an award was a source, but it wasn't an "attribute that generally indicates that the required sources are likely to exist", which is the lead-in to the list it was interred into (and why the heck are there two separate lists with the exact same lead-in?). Gavin's reasoning aside, my impression was that there were no such attributes, and the stuff in those lists were just components of #Articles that don't meet the inclusion criteria. Nifboy (talk) 18:30, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

That was an assumption proved false by several uses of various awards for characters we know have RSes. I took ones at random so this wasn't cherry-picking either. If you feel differently, find some such awards at random that could potentially be deemed "major'. In essence, it was just people self-selectively ignoring evidence to the contrary because they didn't want to hear it.陣内_Jinnai 23:05, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Eh? When did that happen? Nifboy (talk) 02:46, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Read the archives. There were 3 main reasons given not use them; they are literary troupes (this argument was soundly rejected as not being a valid exclusionary criteria), they awards could be seen as promotional material (there was some debate and no clear consensus), and that they aren't good indicators of notability like other award, ie they are likely to have critical commentary on them or will in the near future. That later has been shown time and again, like other awards, to be a false assumption.陣内_Jinnai 03:55, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

If you're referring to this RfC in the most recent archives, no, I don't see your "proof", much less any consensus at all for awards, just the same goddamn "last man standing makes consensus" mentality that makes guideline pages suck so much. Nifboy (talk) 05:19, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

The last person who contested it, aside from Gavin (who would contest it even if it did) was Kww. I directed him to check the archives in that the claim already had been proven. No one, other than Gavin again, claimed that those did not; the only question was what would be considered "major" and, as with other guidelines, we leave that to AfDs to decide on a case-by-case basis.陣内_Jinnai 07:06, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

One of the reasons why this is being contested is the example given by Jinnai himself, which was particularly damning. The Anime award which Jinnai cited included "Category 08: Best Male Character is L" [1] is a form of trivial and unreliable coverage to say the least. No one could ever be convinced that these awards provide a shred of evidence of notability. I propose this be removed, as awards to fictional characters have to be judged as sources in their own right, i.e. exactly the same way as any other source. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 13:06, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

So let's judge the source: the awards are given by the Society for the Promotion of Japanese Animation, the non-profit that run the Anime Expo, which has run for nearly 20 years. Clearly, they are one of the most noted expert groups on anime (specifically, anime in North America). They are not a random collection of fans (though I am sure there are fans on their staff). The awards are chosen by that group, not by a popularity poll of expo attendees or the like. Hence, they seem likely a perfectly qualified source to be giving awards in the same manner as the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences does for Oscars. --MASEM (t) 15:07, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

The Anime Expo awards use public polling: "Public voting for the 2009 SPJA Industry Awards will be held via online". Thus, I wouldn't trust them as much as I would, say, the Hugo Award, even though the Hugo is essentially a poll of the pepole who go to Worldcon each year. Nifboy (talk) 17:43, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I would be less accepting of a user-based poll result as justification. The site gave the impression it was an expert panel picking this. --MASEM (t) 17:52, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

The staff probably picks the nominees, if for no other reason than to prevent the flavor of the year from getting 100% of the awards (2009 = the year of Death Note). The other main reason I don't care for awards is a matter of usable prose: I'd rather have two decent prose reviews to summarize rather than ten awards at e.g. Girl Genius#Awards, which are essentially fluff. Nifboy (talk) 18:16, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

That particular one, yes the "winner" if it was chosen by fans from online poling I'd say not; the nomniees however don't appear to be (and generally major awards also include the award nomniees). For this particular poll, without further information on how it was conducted (could anyone vote? did you have to register? was it based on your badge number?) etc i would have to say that, yes, the winner of such a result cannot be used.

However, there are other types of awards. Gamespot's Best New Character Awards - note there are 2 picks - user and editors; i'm talking about the latter.陣内_Jinnai 00:42, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Yet for all that, the only coverage is "Category 08: Best Male Character is L". Does that mean that "L" should get its own standalone article? --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 21:20, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Depends on a number of factors: When was this award given? If it was just 2 weeks ago or 2 years ago? Was L a minor character or a major character? How popular is the series L is from (sadly yes, that does matter as press tend to cover more popular series)? Finally, who gave that award?陣内_Jinnai 22:15, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Assuming L is L (Death Note) he actually already does have an article and had one for some time.--76.69.168.164 (talk) 03:50, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

That would be because editors have already done the research and therefore we wouldn't need to have a discussion about whether Award X implies sources Y and Z. We already know those other sources exist. Nifboy (talk) 06:51, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I think a more important question to ask is, is this a case where we don't have the voluntary manpower to give the subject due diligence (and therefore we rely on heuristics like big-N Notability) or are there enough active, experienced editors that, if more sources don't turn up at AfD it's safe to assume they don't exist? Nifboy (talk) 01:50, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

On its own, no. Even if a character has "won" an award (disputed), and the award is "major" (disputed), and we accept the award as "evidence" of notability (disputed), even then, it might be better to not to have a standalone article if 99% of the coverage gives undue weight to plot summary, and fails WP:PLOT. In universe perspective is also a consideration in this regard: awards to fictional characters can't be used as an inclusion criteria that enable contributors to ignore WP:WAF.--Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 10:28, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

If its clear that it is a major award and not some dinky website award and we don't suddenly get a rush on creating said character articles with no follow-through. My basis for having this as a tertiary reason was if their is not enough evidence one way or the other (keep or merge) a character award could be used as an indicator. On its own, if that's all you got, it shouldn't.

So what, could it be used for that isn't already covered by the GNG? 1 other independnat reliable source giving non-trivial commentary, other awards, charting on sales records like NYT bestseller list, etc.陣内_Jinnai 19:38, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

The problem is, there are no major awards given to fictional characters. The statement that "The character has been given a major award" is completely misleading guidance. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 09:07, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

We do not decide here, on this page, what is "major" just as WP:FILM and WP:BOOK don't; AfDs are for that. Your claim that there is none is fine for arguing there, but should not be used here because you cannot assume just because you personally have never heard of a character award that would be considered "major" others would agree with you.陣内_Jinnai 22:48, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm with Gavin here; a guideline that points to something that doesn't exist is a bad guideline. Nifboy (talk) 23:19, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I haveto disagree that there are no major character awards in existence.陣内_Jinnai 01:33, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Whether not there are any major character awards in existence is a matter of speculation. Whether or not they impart any evidence of notability would depend on the quality and the source of coverage they provide. What ever the answers to these questions (and whether they can be truthfuly answered at all, I have deleted the section "Other criteria"[2], as they are too subjective to be credible, and there is no evidence to suggest that they provide any evidence of notability at all.--Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 08:32, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

(outdent)If you have a disagreement with character awards, that's fine; but the other ones do have valid criteria as defined in other SNGs or as commonalities that have often been found relating to specific fictional elements that have proven time and again to pass the GNG, ie being the main character is a best selling series. The only one that has any debate currently is the one I recently added.陣内_Jinnai 18:11, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

They are not valid criteria; they have never been discussed here, nor have any examples been put forward to show how they would work. Whether they have been used anywhere else, or are applicable to works and elements of fiction is a matter of opinion, not fact. My personal view is that they do not provide any verifiable evidence of notability, and I am confident that any arguements put forward to the contrary can be shot down. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 08:54, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

As am I. Reyk _YO! 08:56, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Deleting the entire section

That entire list is opinion-based and screwed up. Characters don't receive awards, the authors do, imparting notability to the novel and author, not the character. Far better to leave it as it was before more Inclusionist Hiveminders swarmed this page, yet again - If a character has received independent and notable critical analysis in reliable sources, then it MAY be suitable for it's own page, in cases where the volume of material is too much for hte parent page, and where the material focuses on the character outside of the context of the story itself. Likewise, the 'character defines a genre' is a rare case indeed, not a common one, and thus only suited to well argued case-by-case instances, not a poorly written and cruft-focused 'rule'. ThuranX (talk) 18:43, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Well an award for a book is no more an award for an author than an award for a character. The book is getting the award, not the author. If they are awarding the author, they would have an award for authors (after all they have one for producer/writers for movies). Furthermore, that will not fly as a viable middle ground and consensus among eveyone involved. It has been shown time and time again making something as strong or stronger than the GNG for fictional elements does not have consensus just as allowing any character or story element its own does not.

I can really understand Phil's deletion of WP:FICT. People like you and Gavin refuse to work for consensus and hold hostage the community if the guideline isn't built exactly like you want it. Guess what? It doesn't exactly suit everything I want either, but unlike people on the more restrictive side, I'm willing to push forward and try to get more people to look at this. Unlike those same people, I actually look at what happens on the ground in addition to what policy and guidelines say because except for core policies and 2 specific policies (Fairuse and BLP), wikipedia's rules are not solely a top-down approach. Sometimes, to improve the core mission statement, those higher tier rules need to be changed to reflect things. Especially WP:N which has never gained consensus on its current version (the most recent large-scale consensus was just that their is a need for some kind of showing of notability, not necessarily the GNG).

That list, except for the item I added, was stable for some time. If you had some complaint about what I added, fine; but that section was hashed out by agreements made here and an RfC.陣内_Jinnai 19:53, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

That list was extremely broad, and I would be hard put to think you would ever have actually found consensus for it. Every major character in a "multi media franchise"? So every character from every manga that ever got adapted into an anime gets an article? The actor receiving an award? So every character that received a "best supporting actor" from any country or film club in the world gets an individual article? Working for consensus is one thing, and I can understand your frustration with some of the people that have been involved in this discussion. Using this particular list as evidence is pretty shaky.—Kww(talk) 00:25, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. The section reads like a protection act for bad articles. It would encourage Wikilawyering at AfD about what qualifies as a protected topic or not, instead of focusing on what's important: finding sources and improving the article. Nifboy (talk) 18:06, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

This is what SNGs do. They give altenate means to establish a presumption of notability so some random indivisual doesn't shoot down someone who creates an article and cites 1 WP:RS with said claims that was just published yesterday. Yes that does happen so don't say it doesn't. Every other SNG has similar such critiera. There is nothing special about this section. Period. Indeed there is support for specific items beyond those who have just showed up recently wanting to craft this in "their own image".

If you have specific issues with specific points that's different.

Kww

• Every major character in a "multi media franchise"? So every character from every manga that ever got adapted into an anime gets an article? I agree that is poorly worded, but every major =/= every last time I checked. Please don't distort words to mean it also allows one-time characters. I do however agree that one should probably be cleaned up. Something like "Principle protagonist or antagonist in a "multi media franchise", which yes, by and large they will have such coverage.
• The actor receiving an award? So every character that received a "best supporting actor" from any country or film club in the world gets an individual article? again look at the change i made to say "major" award. We already have a definition for major a its seen in other SNGs and it holds so there is no reason to expect "major" won't unless you want to assume bad faith. I agree that "any" award is too broad.陣内_Jinnai 23:58, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

• "I agree that is poorly worded, but every major =/= every last time I checked. Please don't distort words to mean it also allows one-time characters."- but this is exactly how it will be distorted, by creators of such articles and by their defenders at AfD. As you must be aware there are incruftionists out there who, if you give them an inch, will take a mile, claim consensus for ten miles and then immediately plot how to seize another light-year. I appreciate that you are trying to codify what you see happening "on the ground", but don't close your eyes to the possibility (nay, inevitability) of deliberate misuse. Reyk _YO! 00:15, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

We cannot make something perfect. If you are trying for "perfect indisputable language" look outside Wikipedia. Clear lines cannot exist because each case must be taken individually. This is why even WP:N is not policy.
That said, it could probably be made clearer if that's the case to give less wiggle room.陣内_Jinnai 03:08, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

• Poorly sourced articles, even articles that meet the GNG, can get shot down because the inclusion standard already in use by projects like Square Enix and Halo is "Does this article have the potential to be a good article?", a question inexorably tied to content guidelines like WP:WAF. I personally would like to see more alignment between inclusion and content, not less. Nifboy (talk) 00:30, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I absolutely oppose this, and I can easily say I would not be alone, because this is suppose to be about what could essentially, at the time of creation, have the potential to be a notable topic. Using the GA requirement goes against even the GNG. When someone creates a topic they should not have to consider "will this one day become a GA" but rather simply "is there a good chance this topic is notable enough to have an article on it or not".
The last time this went to a major RfC that language was stricken with near universal support as clouding the issue of processes inside Wikipedia's quality with what notability as not belonging. As this hasn't been added to the GNG I doubt their has been a change in consensus.陣内_Jinnai 03:11, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm not proposing to rewrite the GNG just yet. But I do believe that's where we're heading, especially in subject matters where we have a critical mass of experienced, research-oriented editors to properly assess topics for inclusion instead of making crude approximations using the heuristics here and at WP:N. Nifboy (talk) 03:47, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I have also removed the crystal ball gazing criteria[3] that have not been discussed here. We cannot include inclusion criteria that relax the requirement for verifiable evidence of notability to the point that the existence of sources is a matter of speculation, not fact. This guideline cannot infer that an element of fiction is notable if it hasn't actually been noted. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 09:12, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Hoo boy, you're going to get pilloried for this. But I 99% agree with you. The only concession I would make is that exceptions to this rule are possible but if the community is going to make exceptions they should be decided on a case-by-case basis and not amount to blanket exemptions. Reyk _YO! 10:37, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

No need for a pillory. I merely reverted the change as not being based on consensus. We have many places where we make assumptions about notability, and it is a well established part of the way in which we apply the guidelines of WP:N. DGG ( talk ) 22:48, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I still don't understand how that entire list isn't redundant with the section explicitly for Articles that don't meet the inclusion criteria. Nifboy (talk) 23:55, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I have reverted the removal of the other critera, except for my addition on character awards. Those were reverted by Gavin when he removed the section and while I disagree with the interpretation, I'm willing to let that go for now on the assumption that based on the last RfC there has been no consensus to remove that section, just a couple editors, which doesn't invalidate a whole RfC. Therefore when there is no consensus, the status quo should win by default, which is why my additions were removed. To Gavin and Reyk, I realize you think there is a consensus, but the communal body that came up with those criteria was from the last RfC and SNGs have historically had alternate criteria (and restrictions) and I can point to existing ones right now that use such similar critiera. If you want those items removed, have a similar level RfC making a case why they should be removed and the arguments for and against it (so its neutral). Also to Gavin directly, your comment that such elements, specifically characters, are literary troupes, while valid, held absolutely no water when it came to reasoning why other methods to confer notability could not be used. Not one person in the last RfC really supported that notion. Finally, the other guidelines to not define "major awards" instead letting the community and AfD do so and neither should we. The is WP:CREEP.陣内_Jinnai 17:28, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

It is not true that these "criteria" represent consensus at all. Each and everyone of them was introduced without any discussion. The fact that they all conflict with Wikipedia's content polices makes them untenable. These are not notability criteria, they are simply exemptions from the concept of notability, because topics which meet them don't have to meet the requirement for significant coverage from reliable secondary sources that are independent of the primary source. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 17:43, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

No they weren't. There was an entire RfC, which you participated in, that followed exhaustive discussion before those logs. I can go back and drag up logs to prove it too. Nor do they violate any content policies. We aren't saying you can just slap down any article without verification.陣内_Jinnai 17:46, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Then in fairness, you will have to show where the RFC discusses each one of these "criteria" and where the consensus was reached. I recall that Hiding added them[4] without any consultation, and they were objected to at the time. I am happy go through them one at time if there is any doubt. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 17:50, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Here's my problem. Right now (before Gavin's changes) there are three sets of criteria in the guideline:

1. "As with all subjects, an element should satisfy the general notability guideline." This is fine.
2. "The following are attributes that generally indicate, when supported with reliable sources, that the required sources are likely to exist:", the entire list which Gavin removed, including stuff like cultural icons.
3. "Articles covering fictional elements that are deletion candidates are generally merged or retained temporarily if their coverage can meet some of these criteria:", including stuff like real-world info. This is also fine, because it talks explicitly about articles that don't meet criteria.

In my mind the criteria in set 2 are, essentially, examples of meeting set 3 criteria, because we only fall back to either if the GNG is not satisfied in the current article. I'm with Gavin in saying a topic that "probably" has sources doesn't yet meet the inclusion criteria because verifiability is policy, and "probably" isn't verifiable. That isn't to say we should delete all unsourced articles; rather, we should better differentiate between articles that are safe because they satisfy policy, and articles we keep around for other reasons. Nifboy (talk) 18:05, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Nifboy, the problem with that section is it doesn't follow what a guideline should do, ie allow for exceptions. The main notability guideline does this by its wording. That section essentially says here's what you do with those items that don't meet the GNG: you can only ever merge, redirect or delete them; no ifs, ands or buts. That's not what a guideline should do.陣内_Jinnai 06:48, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Except for items that are retained temporarily. If, after we've thrown dozens of hours of volunteer research and discussion at them, and they still don't meet the GNG, the only acceptable outcomes are merge, redirect, or delete. Period. The reason we use SNGs to make exceptions in any subject area is we don't have the manpower or expertise to give a topic its due diligence before its seven-day period at AfD is up. The situation at fiction-related projects is not so dire that it requires us to make blanket exceptions in order to make sure Ash Ketchum gets his own article. I'm willing to accept that sometimes AfD will ignore policy in favor of increased coverage, and I can accept that that decision is usually based on subjective criteria, and I can even accept writing some of the basic subjective measurements into a guideline like this, without drawing a line. But I cannot accept a guideline that gives blanket protection without emphasizing the need to improve those articles and eventually make a decision if the sources ultimately don't turn up. Nifboy (talk) 18:56, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Archived the discussion. Recommend all parties have a nice cup of tea and a sit down. Nifboy (talk) 01:34, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Other critera aka crystal ball gazing

I don't agree with the basis of the "other criteria" section at all. The idea that subjective inclusion criteria can "generally indicate, when supported with reliable sources, that the required sources are likely to exist" is unproven, and is a matter of opinion only. This section represents a highly novel and orginal spin on notability, i.e. verifiable evidence of notability might appear in the future. This is misleading guidance that topics can be the subject of their own standalone provided they satisfy WP:ATA#Crystal. I am not saying we should use Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions as the basis for this guideline, but it does show that subjective inclusion criteria are a double edged sword.

1. One the one hand it is possible to agrue that the "required sources are likely to exist", but it is equally valid to ask the question "if the required sources do exist, then where are they?". I think this section is open to endless disagreement, and needs to eliminated so that we can discuss fictional topics that are supported by evidence of notability, which is really what this guideline is all about.
2. The effect of this section is to allow the inclusion of articles based on specualtion whose content is inferior to those which do provide evidence of notability. For example, once we allow articles about characters such as Gaius Baltar just because an the actor who portrays him (James Callis) has won an award (which he has), then that seems to me to be allow the creation of plot only articles without the need to cite significant coverage from reliable sources that address the charcter itself.
3. It also allows the inclusion of articles based on press releases, promotional content and other inferior sources of coverage such as List of D.Gray-man chapters. The idea that a sources is somehow the subject of coverage from a "source in the industry" is just another way of saying "spam can be used as evidence of notability".

In short, this section has to go, because it is just pure poison in terms of fictional topics, and leads to confilict with Wikipedia's content policies in general, and WP:NOT#PLOT in particular. We need to move away from inclusion criteria that are listed in WP:ATA as they are not generally accepted anywhere in Wikipedia. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 09:31, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

1. That's isn't how we treat every other article. If it's brought to an AfD it can survive without showing such sources exist, but showing the could exist. Dragon Quest Retsuden: Roto no Monshō survived deletion inspite not showing even 1 secondary source to show notability because it was "assumed" that sources must exist. This practice is used elsewhere and so there is no compelling reason to allow limited use here. We aren't saying every Pokemon can have their article, but that one must have a compelling reason to ignore the GNG and these are criteria that likely meet it.
2. Sadly Gavin, that's a straw man, and you certainly know it. Plot only articles violate WP:NOTPLOT. If all they have is the plot with a blurb about the actor's award it will eventually be merged (likely for Gaius Baltar) or deleted. However, it does give a window for everyone deletionists hawks to keep from swarming over and marking it for deletion 2 seconds after it is created because "it fails the GNG".
3. Show me where it does so specifically. The exact wording, not some of your conjecture. There is no mention that "promotional works, press release, etc except in items that are specifically excluded. You would know this if you actually read the whole thing instead of specific points you personally have an agenda against.陣内_Jinnai 21:44, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

For sake of accuracy, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dragon Quest Retsuden: Roto no Monshō did not generate a consensus to keep: it couldn't generate a consensus at all. The primary reason for that seems to be the number of people using the very logic that Gavin complains about: that somehow, somewhere, there has to be a source that all of us are missing. They were even willing to go to some pretty amazing leaps of faith: that it was our lack of Japanese literacy that prevented us from finding them, for example. This belies the fact that we have a decent subset of editors with varying degrees of Japanese literacy, and that neither Japanese Wikipedia nor Chinese Wikipedia has a single independent reliable source about it. People started espousing McDonald's notability: "if it sold 15,000,000 copies, it's notable no matter what anyone says." The last thing that needs to happen is for a guideline to be written that suggests that such thinking is appropriate.—Kww(talk) 00:09, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, the article might have escaped deletion, but the text of the close goes to great lengths to emphasize the temporary nature of the outcome. It's not assuming sources exist, but simply saying there's enough probable cause to give it a little more time to make sure due diligence is performed. I'd say that puts it pretty squarely in the category of articles that don't meet the inclusion criteria that are, nevertheless, retained temporarily. Nifboy (talk) 01:10, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

• As before, I interpret subjective and objective exactly the reverse of what Gavin does. subjective, which is indeed wrong, is going one;s impression of the substantiality of what secondary sources seem to be immediately available, without thinking about whether its a topic that needs secondary sourcing at all. (That such thinking is completely subjective and non-rational is demonstrated by the fact that people wishing to delete fictional topics articles normally simply deny the significance of any and all sources presented.) objective, which is right, is going by the actual role the fictional element plays in the work as a whole, and the degree of importance of the work. People can agree on those--they are capable of rational analysis. DGG ( talk ) 04:06, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

• I think you are the one that has it backwards. You are arguing that the personal evaluation of a Wikipedia editor is the best way to judge basic notability. Gavin (and I, and others) argue that a simple go/no-go test of "did people unconnected to the topic talk about it?" is the first standard. There's a minor amount of fuzz in determining whether a source is independent or not, but it's generally a pretty simple determination. I note that you only use the word "secondary", and that isn't really the key. It's "independent" that's important, and that is the kind of source that most of the character and episode articles lack.—Kww(talk) 04:22, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Nifboy: That's all I'm saying the 2 criteria I'm currently arguing for inclusion would be. Tempoary holds for zealot deletions from plastering some page with an AfD becuase it got an award 2 days ago or just had a piece published by a RS that claimed it was important to creating a convention because it does happen and no amount of sticking ones head in the sand can deny that.

DGG - the whole idea of objective is a farce. The crietia in the GNG are based on people's subjective ideas of what constitutes various aspects, such as a RS. Yes the criteria themselves are objective for a means test, but they are subjective because they are one groups opinions as to what constitutes notability - other groups have other ideas and they too could be objective (such as requiring 5 academic sources or 2 blog by at least 2 different people. Both of those can be objectively measured, but they are subjective for whether they create notability.

I, and others) argue that a simple go/no-go test of "did people unconnected to the topic talk about it?" Yes, but this is never a straight-forward test (even ignoring the problem of independence). If it weren't, WP:N would be policy, not a guideline. Therefore local consensus is also a factor as well. FE, is something encyclopedic even with 1 source, or are 2 independent RSes with significant coverage enough for everything? Are their likely more sources out there? Those decisions are made locally with a guideline to help "guide" them. If they weren't, there would never be no consensus ruling in AfDs.陣内_Jinnai 05:52, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't think SNG's can substitute measures of subjective importance for the generally agreed requirement for verifiable evidence of notability because there is no evidence that subjective criteria actually work in the way you describe. If a "fictional element has established a tradition in a particular genre", then there will be signficant coverage from reliable secondary sources that are independent of the works creators and promoters that will shown this. Without such sources, such a claim is at best questionable, and at worst, made up.
Notability is based on Wikipedia's contnent polices, and the components of WP:GNG (significant coverage, reliable sources, indpendence) exist to eliminate any claim to notability that is simply a pretence, a sham or based on editorial opinion in the absence of external validiation.
This is why an award, or coverage of an award given to an actor is not necessarily evidence of the character being notable. If the character is not mentioned at all in the award coverage, there is no evidence to support the view that the character is notable. For instance James Callis did not even mention his character when receiving his award[5], so this claim to being "local consensus" is just not sufficient to make this arbitary criteria to work. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 12:31, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

It's fine if you don't agree SNGs can't substitute outlining crtieria, but there is broad support that they can (not quite consensus except that SNGs can outline sources that assert notability). Therefore, while I understand your viewpoint, there is a need to find a middle ground and their a larger number (outside the immediate pool of people here) that would support some level of subjective criteria. They need to be address. Wikipedia's rules are not authoritarian top-down, rigid and immovable. If they were, then WP:N would not be so contentious and we would not have had an attempt last year to remove it entirely. Yes, FICT should try to follow policy, but sometimes policy needs to bend a little, like WP:PLOT because of it isn't working.陣内_Jinnai 20:44, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Jinnai: I wouldn't mind that, if that particular section actually reflected that idea. As it stands, the whole "other criteria" section gives off the impression that they are somehow equal to the GNG. They aren't; those criteria are only relevant if the answer to the big go/no-go question of the GNG is "I don't know" or some variation thereof (and I'm sure Gavin or others at this point would chime in to say that means "no-go", but that doesn't follow from case study). Nifboy (talk) 22:19, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree that Wikipedia's rules are not authoritarian top-down, rigid and immovable. I see where Jinnai is coming from, but subjective inclusion criteria are not the way to go, because at the end of the day, they are just based on hot air. If WP:PLOT is not working, go to WT:NOT and say so, and why you think it is a policy that stymies the coverage of ficitonal topics. If you do so, I will give you as much support as I feel I can. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 00:02, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I think WP:PLOT is fine now. The issue that was raised last year has imo largely been settled (ie we don't want articles entirely made of plot, but some plot info is nessasary in articles about fiction). The issue I have is related to the way notability is applied to fictional elements. For a large part, I believe that the GNG is fine, but not when it comes to fictional elements. It was never designed to handle such items. You can go back to the discussions there and before and its clear it was never designed with that intent. That's why there are SNGs to help refine the GNG, sometimes by restricting it further and sometimes by opening it up because you can't force every square peg into a round hole.陣内_Jinnai 05:27, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

This is the source of our disagreement: I think undue weight is being given to the elements of fiction, rather than the work itself. There is currently a thread at the Village Pump on the issue of broadening the inclusion criteria for fictional elements to allow more comprehensive coverage than existing policies and guidelines currently allow. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 08:37, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I left a very long comment at the Village Pump discussion Gavin linked to. It explains why I think judicious and sparing use of "ignore all rules" is a better way to get the occasional square peg into a round hole, than blanket exemptions. Reyk _YO! 10:49, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

going back a comment, Gavin has said precisely what the dispute is really about: I think undue weight is being given to the elements of fiction, rather than the work itself. Some of us, such as myself, think the exact opposite. All of our talk about which rules to follow are really discussions about what rules will give the result we want. That makes a certain amount of sense, because we can make whatever rules we think will help the encyclopedia. If we have differences of what the encyclopedia should be like, we would naturally support somewhat different rules. There is no intrinsic virtue in the GNG--it was initially adopted as a way of restricting article content. Realizing that it restricted it either too far or insufficiently far in various cases, other criteria were used to supplement it, either for notability, or as limitations in WP:NOT. In practice, much of the effect of these rules depend on the interpretation given them--for example, NOT DIRECTORY as applied to lists can be interpreted very restrictively or very broadly. To take a related example, whether WP:V limits the coverage of fiction depends entirely upon whether primary sources are accepted for facts about plot, or otherwise.

so the question, Gavin, is whether you will accept a compromise about what should be in this section of the encyclopedia. I will---I am willing to compromise my view that we should have full articles about every named character in notable fiction very far, as long as we include full sections at least on major characters and list & identify the others. I am willing to compromise my view that every episode of a fiction should be described in full detail, to that it should be described in moderate detail of two or three paragraphs. If you are willing to compromise we can settle this issue. If not, we will be fighting it in individual cases as long as we have the encyclopedia. (as always, I use me and you as shorthand for the people who agree with the positions, not as if the two of us could actually decide here for everybody.). DGG ( talk ) 19:41, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

The reason I think the way Gavin does is, even with the most lenient interpretations of our policies, we can't ever be as comprehensive as an external wiki like, say, the Touhou wiki. Thus, I'd like to shift our emphasis away from things that are internal to fiction (episodes and characters), where similarly comprehensive guides are a dime a dozen, and towards emphasizing the real-world stuff at WP:WAF, something nobody else on the internet does. Nifboy (talk) 01:12, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

A valid argument, but I don't think you'd have consensus on just focusing on that. Yea there'd be consensus on not having a Buster Sword (Final Fantasy 7 weapon) with all the game info, the size, weight, etc, but for character and episodes and sometimes for worlds there is not that same Consensus. We often have works that reuse the same characters and worlds and those overlap. The information, if copied and pasted (with some tweaking) in each article would repeat a lot of plot info in each one. That is a valid argument for having separate list/article because we want to limit the amount of repeat plot.陣内_Jinnai 04:42, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

There is a lot of evidence to suggest that what Nifboy says actually represents the consenus other than just his opinion. Wikipedia can't provide comprehensive coverage of every fictional element (e.g. characters and episodes) for the following reasons:

• Notability provides an externally validated basis for incluision of standalone articles and lists is widely accepted, whereas the only alternative, suibjective importance is not accepted, and does not provide a reliable defence against deletion at WP:AFD;
• It is the consensus at Wikipedia is that articles about fictional works should not be split and split again with each split normally lowering the level of notability. What this means is that while a fictional work may be notable, it is not normally advisable to have a separate article on a character or an episode, and it is often the case that despite the work being manifestly notable, a derivative article that does not provide any claim to notability may be speedily deleted under WP:CSD#A7;
• In the absence of significant coverage from reliable secondary sources that are independent of the creators and promoters of the fictional work, undue weight (from an external viewpoint) will given to elements and not to the notable work of fiction that are the subject of real world coverage in the form of commentary, criticism and analysis;
• In the absence of real world coverage, such the content of articles that contain only plot conflict with both content policy (WP:NOT#PLOT) and style guidelines (WP:INUNIVERSE): the consensus is that plot only coverage is not encyclopedic, and that Wikipedia should not operate in the same way as Wookiepedia.

My primary reasons for rejecting their suggestion that Wikipedia can be used to provide coverage of every fictional element is two fold:

1. Subjective importance cannot be used as a basis for inclusion as there is no mechanism for resolving editorial disputes without reference to evidence of notability;
2. Notability provides an effective control over the quality of content and sourcing that is entirely absent from trivial coverage from questionable sources in general, and in particular notability provides prevents spam and excessive coverage of promotional content.

The comprehensive coverage approach conflicts with Wikipedia's existing policies and guidelines, a problem that Masem, DGG nor Jinnai seem willing to acknowledge let alone address, and the idea that their views are the "consensus" is completely misleading. The problems I address above are obvious from articles such as Gaius Baltar, whereby undue weight (by a factor of at least 10:1) is given to plot heavy coverage of characters and episodes rather than the real-world coverage given to the work itself. The fact is, elements of fictional elements do not exist in either a real nor fictional sense outside the fictional works from which they are derived, and should be discussed within the context of the work itself. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 11:01, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

This presumes the viewpoint that policies and guidelines are inflexible and cannot be changed, which is wrong. The other problem is that no one knows, given WP's nature and mission, how to appropriately cover fiction. Some claim to know, but their viewpoints are the extreme of where consensus appears to sit. We need to go back and understand exactly what would be included through consensus in a single, large, unbounded (by SIZE) article on a work of fiction would include to meet the goals of WP and the general framework of policy and guidelines. I don't think this would be long, lengthy reiterations of the plotline for every character from a work, but I would also not expect that to be a simple list of character names with no additional information about that - eg, character coverage is somewhere in between those, unless of course the character is truly notable. Repeat for all other aspects. Once that is figured out, then it is dealing with the SIZE issue, and understanding when splitting off certain aspects is going to be seen in a negative light (again, stress that most likely, the only thing would be split off would be character lists, not individual characters, unless they are notable in of themselves). Without asking these questions, we cannot guess where the consensus sits. --MASEM (t) 14:45, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Whether or not policies and guidelines are flexible or not (they change all the time in my experience) is not the issue, it is just that the approach that you are proposing conflicts with so many of them. It is the wide scope of guidance that indicates a comprehensive apporach is just not feasilble, let alone has sufficient support to over turn the generally accepted view that plot summary on its own is not encyclopedic. Not only does this approach conflict with Wikipedia's content policies, but it also conflicts with the notability guidelines (including the long established SNG WP:BK which frowns on derivative articles without notability), but also the style guidelines WP:INUNIVERSE and WP:AVOIDSPLIT. Imagining that we can change such a wide array of well established policy and guidance to accomodate more articles on Pokémon characters seems to me to be a pipe dream. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 15:49, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

You're making a presumption of what I believe is the middle grounds. What I am saying is that no one can point to what appropriate comprehensive coverage is for the average bit of fictional work that is suitable for WP because no one has asked that question yet, and we have few if any examples to follow from using established encyclopedic resources. There are several possible schemas that keep within the present bounds of what policy is, as well as several schemas that would require rethinking policy. I can't say which one is right, only that the schema where every character and episode gets an article is likely wrong (and certainly not a position I would propose), and the schema where we bury the plot elements completely is also likely wrong. But we can't tell what is the right schema that consensus would say is correct, and certainly can't be making presumptions that certain ways are "wrong" because would otherwise require small changes to established policy. --MASEM (t) 16:06, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

You know what the middle ground is: you helped to write the current wording for WP:PLOT, and that is now generally accepted policy, but more than that, it is supported by content policy, notability guidelines and style guidelines. There is only one agreed, common sense approach to writing about fiction, and that is to provide the reader with balanced coverage that provides real world context as well as a summary of the plot.
The problem with a comprehensive apporach is virtually all fictional elements are the subject of plot only coverage, i.e. are wholly reliant on the primary source. You can't write a notability guideline based on verifiable evidences on the one hand, and on the other say that they are exempt from the need to provide the same evidence on the other. This is why this "other criteria" section must go. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 16:14, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

WP:PLOT has nothing to do with notability, or even the overall picture of coverage. It does set an endpoint that we know we can't go past: we don't cover works of fiction by reiterating the plot and leave it at that. But there's a lot of possible coverage between that extreme and "no plot whatsoever" extreme on the far end, and which we have no idea where the middle ground is. --MASEM (t) 17:02, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

If WP:PLOT has nothing to do with notability, then you are going to have to concede that these "other criteria" don't have a lot to do with notability either. We don't cover works of fiction by reiterating whether or not an actor has won an award, nor by trivia such as whether a character is the subject of "Roy of the Rovers moment" nor wears "Harry Potter glasees" nor is a "unique component of the Pokémon franchise". These subjective criteria are not acceptable substitutes for verifiable evidence. They have to go so we can move on to discussing what notability for fictional topics is really about. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 17:29, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I may disagree with some of the specific criteria, but I certainly see these as aspects of notability; WP:PLOT only has to do with the content of the coverage of a topic. While there may be disagreement about if a character can be given an award, it is clearly true that winning an award significantly increases the likelihood of a topic being notable; similarly, having a character's name enter the language vernacular is also a similar likeliness of notability. The issue here is whether we can even clarify these include usable language and criteria that won't be stretched to their limit or mis-interpreted, and whether there is verification of these in the first place. That's all up to consensus, and does not require to meet any objective measure. --MASEM (t) 17:42, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Except "probability of notability" isn't a meaningful measurement of actual notability, and is only useful at all if there's sufficient reason to believe the required sources exist but cannot be found by the time the AfD closes. TV Tropes was created because we eventually figured out that tropes, for which the "probability of notability" measures very high (i.e. these are ubiquitous concepts throughout popular media), tend not to be forthcoming with genuine sources. That isn't to say we don't do them (e.g. Fantasy tropes and conventions) but we don't try to be comprehensive about it. Fictional characters, I feel, are basically in the same boat. (edit) In other words, the correlation between "probably notable" and "actually notable" isn't strong enough to justify "Keep it no matter how bad a shape it's in". Nifboy (talk) 21:36, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I would have to reiterate that points made by Nifboy make good sense. Not only is "Likeliness of notability" not a measurement of actual notability, but it isn't a meaningful in an editorial dispute either, nor is it defense against deletion, as it is based on hearsay and unsupported speculation, and will never carry any weight. All of these "Other criteria" have got go, otherwise this guideline will be only SNG to based on arguments not to use in deletion debates. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 08:52, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

A lot of this comes back to the key point that wikt:notable topics are not defined by the presence of sources, but the presence of sources is the usual result of a topic being notable. Some topics can be notable without a wealth of sources behind it. That said, this is probably only true for very academic topics; for fictional elements, the topics that are likely wikt:notable but lack easy-to-find sources are a extremely exceptional case (if not non-existent, but I don't want to close out good discussion before that point). So any criteria that allows for an article on a singular fictional element to be considered notable without the immediate presence of secondary sources (per the GNG) has to be well vetted to assure that the criteria can be shown true and that secondary sources will likely come into light with more research or more time. I don't think every one of the proposed cases necessarily works for this, but some do. I don't think the list of possible criteria for fictional elements would be anywhere close in length to what other SNGs have, but I don't think we can immediately rule out that list as empty of any criteria.

At the end of the day, the GNG is going guide all but a few of any articles on fictional elements on whether they should be included or not. I can't disagree with that ,but I can't agree to presume the GNG is the only inclusion guideline for fictional elements - there are some fictional elements that we would include because of other measures, though it is very difficult to isolate what those measures would be. --MASEM (t) 14:40, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Which ones do work, and why? --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 15:44, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I keep trying to reiterate that there's an entire section already in the proposed guideline, Articles that don't meet the inclusion criteria, that covers the few edge cases better than trying to squeeze specific potential criteria into the main guideline:

• A "titular" or "major" character (why two separate criteria?) in a series demonstrates "Role within the fictional work" and "Importance of the fictional work"
• "Historically notable", "Cultural icon", and "Taught in schools" are all basically the same thing as "Real-world coverage".
• "Establishing a tradition" is the same as "Importance of the fictional work"
• "The element has entered the cultural lexicon" and "winning an award" are both just more "Real-world coverage".

It's just a bunch of lines arbitrarily drawn in the sand. Yes, they're measures of wikt:notable, which can sometimes be used as a proxy for verifiable, but if you're at an AfD where you need to dump the GNG, there's no sense trying to create exacting rules for when you're already ignoring the big one. We're not trying to mechanically "solve" all AfDs and merge discussions that ever will be. Just lay out the criteria and let AfD figure it out on a case-by-case basis, don't try to figure it out for everyone and just cause more confusion and hostility on everyone's end. Nifboy (talk) 15:53, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Approach

I can't disagree, but I am concerned that this approach is backwards compared with other SNGs which assert specific conditions where specific evidence of notability (beyond secondary coverage) can be provided. Maybe this is a better way for fiction, per some of your points above, because of how wide the arena is of possible fictional elements within it, but I have a feeling that this will confuse editors that are less involved with this discussion. The fact these fall under a "not allowed" section heading will lead people to misread these. If anything, I'd at least like to list out examples of how the three criteria are met with certain verifiable facets as listed above (the stuff like "cultural icon", etc.), though again, under the framework that meeting these is not a guarantee of notability if the claims are weak. --MASEM (t) 16:32, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Masem here; it seems the process here is just one sided, ie what don't we want to include that the GNG might not flesh out well enough and how do we go about doing that rather than also asking the question what do we want to include that the GNG might not flesh out well enough and how do we go about doing that.陣内_Jinnai 20:45, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I can't help but read the question as "What do we want to do but Wikipedia really sucks at because we're bound by policies like WP:V and WP:NOR?". I think it's OK that Wikipedia sucks at describing fiction the way Wikia does it, because Wikia does it better. I don't want to turn Wikipedia into Wikia Lite at the expense of losing what makes us Wikipedia. Nifboy (talk) 21:01, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

There's actually a lot you can describe in fiction bound by WP:V and WP:OR, though there likely will be more reliance on primary sources than other types. That's actually not against WP policies. --MASEM (t) 21:07, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

You can describe a lot using primary sources, but nothing that provides a rationale for inclusion of a standalone article or list, and certainly nothing to demonstrate that the appropriate weight is being given to the elements of a work of fiction over and above the work itself. It seems to me that Masem is deliberately ignoring WP:NPOV#Undue Weight, and his reading of Wikipedia's content is entirely disingenious in the sense that he is choosing only to recognise those policies that support his arguments and is deliberately ignore those that are more pertinent to this discussion. Without evidence of notability, the topic of a standalone article, or a sub-topic within a standalone article or list has no rationale for inclusion other than arbitrary personal opinion, nor is is possible to gauge whether that element should be mentioned at all.
Examples of undue weight being given to elements of fiction are the articles Gaius Baltar and the List of D.Gray-man chapters, which are essentially based on the primary work and are devoid of any rationale for inclusion, real world context, and whose content fails Wikipedia content policy. A complete lack of external validation is why Wikia and Wookiepedia are such poor quality, and it is there where crappy content that does "not flesh out well enough" should be parked, not Wikipedia. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 22:11, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Undue Weight is a big part, yeah. Fan interpretation is another huge problem with doing things the Wikia way. The source material for e.g. Touhou is very thin, so a character's profile might be a tangled mess of fans' interpretations of a handful of lines of dialog: basically OR. If you try to build a coherent profile that way, saying, "Reimu is typically portrayed as..." then you're layering OR on top of OR, and now your sources are neither primary nor reliable-secondary. Nifboy (talk) 22:21, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

When you have something that relies on fan info and source material alone you're probably not going to get something worthy of inclusion. That's basically the extreme end of what we don't want as far as WP:PLOT is concerned.
What I think Masem was trying to say here was that with just the primary work you can build enough basic info in many cases to present a decent amount of detail on most notable elements, like major characters, episodes, etc. That doesn't equate to it meaning that's all we need to rely upon, but rather a lot of material of such articles can come from primary sources or related secondary sources and we haven't nailed down, beyond the most extreme cases, except on indivisual WPs, what we don't want to see spinout articles on that doesn't violate WP:PLOT (ignoing GNG because a lot of members dispute using that alone for deciding what fictional element articles we want).陣内_Jinnai 00:16, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm well aware of undue weight and certainly know we need to stay within it; I'm not proposing ignoring it, nor am I saying a topic that is only backed by (at best) third-party primary sourcing is appropriate - but I think it is important to note that it is possible to write about a topic (not necessarily just fiction) from third-party primary source; that topic may fail notability guidelines but it won't automatically fail policy either.

What I am still trying to come down to is understanding what is appropriate weight of coverage of the fictional side of a fictional work within WP. One extreme is a page for every character, episode, etc., regardless of the source, which I certain can't agree is acceptable. But the other extreme that seems to be suggested is to compress, what may be for some works, hundreds of hours or the text equivalent for written works into a few short paragraphs. There are rare occasions this is actually appropriate, but that's exceptional. In most cases there's a balance between that. That point is where we, as a whole, consider the fictional part of coverage to be comprehensive. That point will be farther towards the "fewer words" side of this scale compared to what I'd expect to see on Wikia or a fan-wiki (where every elements gets its own page), but it is not at the point of summarizing everything of a long-running fictional work down to a few paragraphs. There is a holistic approach to covering fiction that does not do disservice to the plot but without also doing a disservice to the rest of the notability of the work. Where that point is, we cannot guess - we have not made an effort to find that through consensus. --MASEM (t) 00:26, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

To be frank I'm not sure what fiction needs is a notability guideline. At least, not anymore now that things have settled down and the range of contentious articles has narrowed a fair bit, helped along by per-project guidance. WP:VG has had for a long time a very succinct way of addressing appropriate weight: if the info is only of value to someone playing the game, it was unsuitable. That simple rule drives the vast majority of our coverage of video games: see WP:VG/GL#Content. I don't know if an analogous rule would work for other projects, but I feel the results at WP:VG, especially sub-projects like WP:HALO and WP:SE have been stellar. Nifboy (talk) 04:02, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

if that's the case, maybe we should look to seeing what local consensus at the various WikiProjects has come to agree that is common for elements of a work and start building from there. This would likely require a well publicized RfC on every one of those pages (and perhaps on the news ticker) if we do so to make certain we are getting enough input from across the spectrum.

Looking at the various guidlines each has can help, but it doesn't always give a reason why they are like that which is needed in part when crafting a guideline like this.陣内_Jinnai 23:48, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

This guideline is already largely based on WP:BK, so in some ways that work is complete. What is not needed is a fishing exercise that involves searching for subjective inclusion criteria that have nothing to do with notability. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 09:01, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Book, and by extension, wasn't designed for elements within fiction and their notability in mind and that is why this guideline proposal as it stands is fundamentally flawed.陣内_Jinnai 15:21, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't know how you jump to that conclusion, as the section on Derivative articles is taken almost verbatim from the eqivalent section in WP:BK. If you think the guideline is flawed, then do say why and how this deficiency can be addressed. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 17:22, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

The entire point of an SNG is to address issues unique to its subject matter. Crafting a new one by copy-pasting from the GNG and a different SNG, even a related one, seems kind of silly. Nifboy (talk) 23:16, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I am not really sure what this section is trying to achieve:

The following are attributes that generally indicate, when supported with reliable sources, that the required sources are likely to exist:

1. The element is a titular character in a number of widely distributed works which have received full length reviews by two or more nationally known critics.
2. The element is historically notable, as evidenced by one or more of the following:
   • Publication of at least two non-trivial articles.
   • The element was deemed notable by a broad survey of critics, academics, or professionals, or a poll of the public organised by a national broadcaster or publication, when such a poll was conducted at least five years after the work's release.^[1]
   • The element has been the subject of a television retrospective, at least five years after initial release.
   • The element was featured as part of a documentary, program, or retrospective on the history of fiction or a particular genre or form.
3. The element was selected as a cultural icon by a national body.See Icons:A Portrait of England for one example. Any nation with a comparable selection would equally meet our standards.
4. The element is "taught" as a subject at an accredited university or college with a notable program relevant to the form.

My understanding is, that if sources exist, then all well and good. If sources about a topic don't exist, then Wikipedia does not need to have an article about it at this time. However, this sections seems to be suggesting that topics can be included based on WP:ATA#Crystal, which is an argument to avoid at deletion debates, not a basis for article inclusion. I proose we get rid of this section as well, as its meaning and rationale are unclear. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 09:07, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

It's the same reason why unsourced BLPs aren't CSD criteria (yet): it's meant to be a catch-all for articles for which the search for sources would take longer than seven days to reasonably rule out the existence of sources. Others have cited WP:BEFORE before, and it tends to generate AfD results that look like "keep for now, without prejudice to another nomination in the future". Me, I feel it's more complicated than just the criteria above. There are a variety of other things that get looked at, typically language barriers, pre-internet era topics (WP:RECENT), or if the article has been sitting in Category:All unreferenced BLPs or some other cleanup category for years. Nifboy (talk) 13:24, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

These are the same type of lines that most of the other SNGs have - criteria (that require some type of verification), as an alternative to presenting mulitple secondary sources, that shows a topic is wikt:notable and thus appropriate for inclusion. By being notable, there will likely be other sources but they may not be immediately available or easily accessible, but over time will likely gain these. This mirrors the practice of other SNGs. Again, it is important to stress that the property of being wikt:notable is not defined by existence of sources, only that the existence of sources is a common end result when a topic is wikt:notable. --MASEM (t) 13:33, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Maybe its me, I am just not understanding the thinking behind this section. For example, the second point is that the guidance makes no sense one way or another:

The following generally indicate...that the required sources are likely to exist: Publication of at least two non-trivial articles.

My reading of this is that publication of at least two non-trivial articles generally indicates that...at least two non-trivial articles exist. Have I missed something?
I have been in many editorial disputes where editors have claimed that a character "must be notable", but never once has an editor had the guts to make such an extraordinary claim that it "is taught as a subject at an accredited university". How could anyone make such a claim unless they could cite a source to prove it? It seems to me this whole section goes against the principle that "extraordinary claims should be backed up with high quality sources".
What this section looks like is a fishing exercise collecting inclusion criteria that are used for real, observable subjects and attempted to apply them to fiction. It contains claims about fictional topics that are so extraordinarily strong as to be almost impossible to support, even if the topic is the subject were the subject of extensive coverage, e.g. I don't think such extraordinary claims are even made about Hamlet, King Lear or even the Simpsons. For heaven's sake, there is not even a category of "titular" characters.
The conclusion I draw from this section is that you can't make a silken purse out of a pig's ear. This is the wrong guidance for the subject matter of fiction elements which are not inherently real. Common guys, admit it: the "guidance" in this section is deeply flawed and is completely impractical in terms of application. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 15:12, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

First off, I am not saying that every point outlined is necessary right, so I'm not say, as written, this section is perfect. But I am supporting that there are likely similar verifiable criteria that show that a fictional topic is notable in the same manner that other SNGs have verifiable criteria for notability; and, most importantly, in neither case are secondary sources required by meeting these criteria. Take, for example, the "fictional subject is taught as part of a university course" one. If such a case is true (for example, there are legitimate claims for the Klingon language), we must back that the fictional element is taught in a course with at least one third-party source. That source may not be secondary (as there is no analysis or the like implied by this condition). A resulting article would likely have at least a handful of primary sources that will describe the fictional element and at least this one third-party source to show it to be notable due to meeting this criteria. We still need to worry about things like PLOT and UNDUE - a one sentence statement of notability doesn't mean we can go into 100k bytes of fictional stuff. But this still means we can have an article on the topic since it has verifiable notability.

There is still the question of whether all these are good criteria that not only show notability but the basis of having more to discuss in an article than just that point. Some, like the "taught at university" one, I could accept, because if it is being taught as a significant part of a course, there are likely materials that are part of the course that are secondary references themselves on the topic or lead to more secondary references. Those references may not be obvious or immediately available should someone make an article on the element based on showing that criteria is met, but the nature of the criteria strongly suggests there are. All and any such criteria proposed need to be considered in that light - if the criteria for notability is only likely going to end up with no further sources for that topic, its a bad criteria. (Eg. the criteria "The character is a major character of a television show" fails because not every major character, much less every show, received deep coverage beyond the fiction-aspects.) --MASEM (t) 00:08, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I have never heard the claim that a topic is "taught" as a subject at an accredited university or college used even for the most notable of topics. It is such a roundabout way of asserting that a topic is notable, it is basically hearsay. Whether it is taught in a college, university or kindergarden has really very little to do with the topic itself. It is almost a meaningless, because whether a topic is taught or not provides no significant coverage that provides evidence of notability. In short, this has nothing to do with notability, and more to do with giving WP:IKNOWIT a patina of respectability. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 08:41, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

If a topic is taught at a university then it will most likely have course notes and prescribed texts- and these can act as actual sources. For instance, I did a unit on astronomy years ago for which the prescribed text was a really terrific textbook. I have kept that book and used it several times as a source on Wikipedia; I didn't just go "I heard about it at uni once". The point is that these kinds of sources are readily accessible, so claiming they're likely to exist isn't particularly convincing if you put in even a moderate effort to find them and come up short. Reyk _YO! 10:04, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

What Reyk says is common sense: claiming that sources exist without evidence is just not acceptable. None of this section makes any sense, either in terms of guidance, nor has it any practical application, hence I am removing it. There is not a single topic in existence which these so called "attributes" apply. Until we can agree which, if any, have any application to actual article topics, then they have no place in this guideline[6]. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 09:01, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

This is exactly what most others SNGs allow for - criteria that can be verified that allow for an article on a topic to show it is notable. If you don't see this, go review WP:MUSIC or WP:BIO or WP:BK and understand where the logic behind this section. Remember, notability is not defined by the existence of secondary sources; the existence of secondary sources is only a happenstance of what happens with most notable topics. Yes, ideally, end of the day, we want most than third-party, primary sources to go into critical analysis of a topic, but that is not required; as long as the topic is shown to be notable and straight-forwards facts that do not introduce original research or POVism into an article, there is no conflict with any policy. Now, we can still argue which points are appropriate or not, but wholesale removal of this section is inappropriate. --MASEM (t) 13:21, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

In fairness, there is no logic behind this section. It is one thing to say that notability is not defined by the existence of secondary sources, but Masem's statement flatly contradicts the guidance given by the general notability guideline, and is purely his own opinion. There is no way to demonstrate that an article that contains any sort of commentary or opinion does not contain original research or POVism without secondary sources, as both WP:OR and WP:NPOV make clear. This guideline can't be based on guidance based on the view that sources "might exist", as this is just hearsay, which is not a substitute for verfiable evidence of notability. In short, this whole section is unacceptable in general because it based on WP:IKNOWIT, which is little more than unverifiable opinion.
However, when the individual arguements in this section are examined (e.g. the nonsensical "The required sources are likely to exist..if at least two non-trivial sources exist") are deeply flawed and is completely impractical in terms of application. I challenge Masem to provide instances of how any one of them can actually applied to any Wikipedia article. Where a topic is "titular", "historically notable", "deemed notable", "televised", "is a cultural icon" or "taught at university" is a matter of opinion that must be supported by secondary sources.
None of the SNG's make these sweeping judgements in the absense of evidence at all, and it is entirely misleading to suggest that they are relevant to this guideline because they are entirely subjective and cannot be verified. The exceptional claims made in this section must be backed up by strong evidence; using hearsay to support these claims is just not acceptable. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 13:54, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Again, as I've stated, I don't agree with each point listed, and the one you specifically point out, the "two non-trivial sources" is awkwardly circular (though there may be logic that I don't see behind it that needs word clarity). But other ones are completely fair signs of a fictional topic being notable. For example, [7] this article lists five courses based on fictional works. While I'm not familiar with the last two schools, there's certainly no question that if "Star Trek" or various superheroes are being studied at places like Georgetown or UCIrving, then there must be something notable about those topics. Now, of course these specific topics are already notable without the need of this requirement, but what if a course taught about a topic that wasn't yet shown notable (by GNG standards) at WP? I would argue most of the rest are of the same type.

Or lets approach this a different way. For fictional elements, the most common way to show they are notable is to meet the GNG, and the only way that elements are going to meet the GNG is that we are going to have articles that describe the creation and inspiration of the elements, or the critical reception of the elements. That's fine. But notice how the specific points here have very little to do with element creation or critical reception? There are legacy/historical issues, but the statement "This character is a nationally-recognized symbol" (backed by a source) is not a statement of analysis and evaluation, it is just a statement of fact. All these cases are geared to the demonstration of notability by factually-true criteria (and can be backed by sources) that are not covered by what we would normally expect from the GNG. Now there is still the aspect that one fact does not a good article make, but again, most of these cases seem to suggest that if that criteria is true, there are likely sources to at explain how that element came to meet that criteria, but that may require a significant amount of time and effort to get (for example, why did Georgetown U decide to offer a course on Star Trek? We may have to ask the department or the professor teaching it directly, and likely that won't be immediately written down).

And again, I point that that most fictional element articles can be sources to the primary work. An article only sourced to the primary work is bad and likely not appropriate. But primary works can be used as sources to augment an article that already contains other third-party (and hopefully secondary) sources. --MASEM (t) 14:13, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

It does not matter if signs of a fictional topic being notable are "completely fair", "semi-fair" or "slightly fair", as this is a matter of opinion in the absence of evidence. The primary source cannot be used to support a claim that fictional character is "titular", as this is a strong statement of opinion that must be externally validated. This whole section has to go, as notability can't be based on hearsay. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 14:36, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

So is determining if the available secondary sources are appropriate for meeting the GNG. Like all aspects of WP, subjective opinions and consensus are the end results, not objective measures.

Take a theoretical example: someone comes along and creates an article about a fictional character that, according to that editor, is a major character across all the works, and maybe finds one or two non-secondary sources (such as reviews of the individual books) to back up that statement. You come along and find this article (in fact, I know you have since you keep citing Gaius Baltar every chance you get). You don't believe that the character meets this guideline. What do you do? You seek deletion for it, presuming that you have considered WP:BEFORE. Now three things can likely happen from an AFD here:

• Editors see the article is going to be deleted and help to save it by adding appropriate (possibly insufficient) secondary sources; characters that are "titular" are likely going to have additional sources to support that. The article is usually kept due to that effort - though again, if the sources are weak and insufficient, they may still be deleted.
• The article is not improved, and thus merged or deleted. In this case, it is presumed that the assertion that the character was "titular" is obviously flawed.
• Editors will come to justify why the article should be kept, usually supporting the claim of the "titular" character though they cannot immediately supply secondary sources. Here's the iffy case, where its usually up to the closing admin to determine if the arguments are fair. (This is generally if there's going to be a !vote-rush, you'll see it too, but closing admins need to take that into account). Usually, this closure, when made appropriately by the closing admin, does take into account the "obviousness" of the claim of "titular" character. I'd argue this would not necessary be the case for Baltar - eg his character being "titular" is not obvious, and thus an AFD that is mostly filled with "character is notable but I have no evidence to support that" will likely close as "delete".

In each case, it is based on consensus whether the topic met the criteria at hand. This same logic would happen with each of the other criteria given in FICT, and is also true for the GNG in general (I remember the AFD for the Balloon boy incident and how that eventually led to the creation/revamping of WP:EVENT).

The point here is that most of these criteria are evidence of notability for fictional elements, just not the type of notability we'd normally expect by the GNG. How well a given fictional topic meets one of the criteria is a topic that can be debated just as we can debate if an article meets the GNG. The ability to debate that is part of the "wiki" part of "wikipedia" - it is a community driven decision whether something is notable or not. Remember, an editor that is intent on creating what are clearly non-notable articles cannot be stopped from doing so barring administrative action. The best we can do for any notability guideline is to outline where we consider the clear bounds to be, but that at any time someone can still challenge the existence of that article. The criteria given here are to set bounds for fictional elements that act as alternative considerations to the standard GNG. --MASEM (t) 15:34, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree that Wikipedia is a community driven encyclopedia, but one of its key principles decided upon by the community is verifiability. It clearly says if no third party sources exists for topic, then there should be no article - this is a clear boundry. What Masem is suggesting is that one editor can simply assert that such sources are "likely" to exist, and in so doing can invalidate this principle. If this is the case, then we have taken a step backwards to the point where external validation as a prerequisite for inclusion no longer applies, only editoral opinion matters. The Balloon boy incident is now well documented, so its notability is not in doubt, and in any case it does not invalidate the principle that crystal ball gazing is not allowable.
I must rebuke this crystal ball gazing approach, because notability is for all intents and purposes an extension of Wikipedia's policy on verfiability. Assertions of notability without evidence is simply an exercise in opinion pushing, whether it is dressed up as crystal ball gazing or given some other rationale. At the end of the day, it makes no matter how many editors in the community express a view that a topic is notable if such a claim can't be backed up by verifable evidence. In the absense of coverage, none of these criteria can't be verified (except of course that one that says "sources exist..if two sources exist"). The burden to provide evidence can't be over ridden, which is why this section must go, as it conflicts with the existing consensus on content policy. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 16:23, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Notability and verifiability are two different things altogether. Verification is to show that we are not creating information out of the blue and that we are being a summary of what information is out there. Notability is WP's application of avoiding indiscriminate information, as indiscriminate information can still be verified. The GNG more specifically also helps to meet NOR and NPOV, but at the same time, a topic can be considered community-notable, have no secondary sources and yet still avoid issues with NOR and NPOV - this article may be purely factual but if the topic is notable, it'll be kept.

I've continually said that these criteria still needs sourcing from third-parties to show that it is met. The sources may be third-party primary sources (noting, importantly, that primary sources simply report facts and do not attempt analysis) and not give any analysis. Clearly if one creates an article without any third-party sourcing, and it goes to AFD and no new sources are added, you bet that it will very much likely be deleted.

And here's the crux of the issue. Notability cannot be applied to articles as created, it is only a principle to be considered when deletion and merge discussions arise. If we felt there was a need to catch articles on creation, we'd figure out a WP:CSD criteria that would quick-fail an inappropriate article on fiction. I doubt this could happen but I can't rule it out. Yes, we'd love it if every editor reviewed notability and determined if their article was meeting it, or what the potential of the article to be challenged as an AFD, but we can't being a volunteer project that anyone can edit. Thus, we need to understand that notability should be a means to judge an article after its creation, but cannot be used to block article creation. Of course, we still want reasonable guidelines to help guide proper AFD discussion, and thus we need to be clear when notability is shown by a topic, whether through the GNG or through SNG criteria (like these in FICT). And thus we need to be sure the SNG criteria are good assessments of a notable topic within that field. And there, that's one reason why at least some of these FICT criteria need to stay, because they are demonstration of notability.

End of the day - until someone challenges an article, it seems pointless to be complaining about how they fail notability. For example, given how much you've gone on about Gaius, why haven't you filed an AFD on it? That's perfectly within your capability and your interpretation of notability should be done. --MASEM (t) 16:46, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Just because WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, that does not validate these inclusion criteria one little bit. In fact, all of the other arguments put forward by Masem can be traced back to Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions in one form or another. This section has to go because these arguements are not valid inclusion criteria, then are weak excuses used at AFD to avoid to deletion of poorly sourced articles. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 17:00, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Same could be said for your arguments. WP:ATA works both ways.

Yes, the best solution is to provide many sources, including secondary, to avoid deletion due to notability concerns. But at the same time, we are a wiki - we want to encourage readers to become editors and add more information where they can. It is better in the long run to keep an article where there is some sourced demonstration of notability but otherwise a lack of sources and hope that readers will come and improve on them, than to delete that article because there are otherwise not enough sources. Understanding that these criteria here in FICT are appropriate signs of a fictional topic being notable - and thus set a base point for an article to grow from - is what is critical here. --MASEM (t) 17:08, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

In fairness, my views are not based on any of the arguments in WP:ATA, but on content policy, from which these attributes are far removed:

• The arguments that an element of fiction is notable because, say, it is a titular character or is of historic interest, is a very strong claim that can only be supported by reliable secondary sources in accordance with WP:GNG, and can't be made where there is a lack of sources;
• Editor's opinions about the signicance, importance count for nothing unless externally validated by secondary sources, and an edtior's claim that a particular fictional element is more notable than another must be supported by verifiable sources, not hearsay;
• Whether editors can improve articles or not is dependent on the citation of reliable sources, not hearsay or crystal ball gazing, as this is notverifable evidence of notability.
• At the end of the day, all of these attributes fall down dead if there is a total absence of coverage for a particular topic. In short, all the attributes amount to opinions that cannot be externally validated where sources are lacking.

This section has to go because it based upon spurious arguments that sources might exist, when there is no evidence to suggest that they do. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 10:09, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Preface: I'm not arguing for each of the current criteria listed, but most of them are applicable.

Starting with your first point, that the claims made by the criteria can only be satisfied by secondary sources is incorrect. Take for example the article Archie Bunker. There is a term that you can search for called the "Archie Bunker vote" which arose during the 1972 presidential election, specifically referring to that character as the stereotype of a certain bloc of voters. A reliable third-party primary source that, say, may have been published in the 2000s, that stated what the meaning of the "Archie Bunker vote" was but otherwise not getting into any details about the character (or at least, secondary details like analysis and criticism) would be sufficient proof that the subject of Archie Bunker is notable (Mind you, I note that there is no criteria for a fictional element name that has entered a lexicon, such as this case, which I think would be one to add, but that's a different issue altogether). Of course I can make this stronger by proving more evidence of the "Archie Bunker vote" (more third-party primary sources) or explaining how the term became connected to the character (more secondary sources). The point is, if there were a criteria that asserted that an element was notable if it entered a national lexicon (as the term "Archie Bunker vote" did), then a primary source to show that is the evidence required to objectively meet that criteria.

Mind you, there's a reason for the proper selection of criteria, and that is that if that criteria is met, then there is a strong assurance that sources can be found; this is not crystal ball gazing, "oh I hope they will come" type wishy-washy-ness, but the fact that with the right criteria, there must be a rationale for why that fictional element met that criteria, necessitating the existence of secondary sources with which to build an article. Again, returning to Archie Bunker, the fact that the character name was associated with this voting bloc means there must be why that character was selected as the stereotype, and that likely requires going back through newspapers and journals of the time to find the origin and expansion of the term. Most of the other proposed criteria have similar type of logical rationale why secondary sources are nearly assured to exist or will exist in the short term if it is a more recent subject. That's why these are so strong criteria - not claims of being a main character or existing across multiple works, but that they have been recognized as important and notable by third-parties.

Now, you may question, "well, if you say there are secondary sources, why not just include them and avoid the criteria altogether?" which is a valid point, but it ignores the fact that this is a volunteer project with no deadline. For Archie Bunker, even a casual google search reveals lots of articles but to really get down to it, I would need to access articles from the 1960s and 70s. That would require time and money investment to seek out libraries with those articles. If I had created the Archie Bunker article with the only third-party source talking about the "Archie Bunker vote" term, and someone came along and attempted to AFD it claiming there weren't secondary sources, I may have a difficult time finding and acquiring those sources in the 7 day period. By having criteria that show that a topic is notable via an alternate path from the GNG, we avoid these types of situations, remaining in spirit with the volunteer nature of the project. And this is just for a topic in the 70s; what if someone challenged a fictional element from the early part of the 20th century, or even earlier? The Internet makes it easier to source contemporary topics, but anything pre-1990s is going to require legwork to really get a hold of. And yet, these are the fictional elements that are more likely going to meet the proposed criteria due to age.

I need to stress: this criteria are subjectively chosen (and need to be affirmed by consensus), but they expect objective evidence from, at minimum, a third-party primary source. Someone can attempt to make an article and subjectively assert it meets that criteria, but should that arise at AFD, it would likely be deleted. Furthermore, while objective evidence is required, the reliability of the sources are still up for debate. There is a huge difference in the assertion that "John Q Smith is the titular character in "Generic Series"" if stated by the New York Times, by TV Guide, or by a personal blog. If the presented objective evidence is not up to snuff, AFD is still a possible route to remove these articles despite their claims of meeting the criteria.

What this all comes down to is that these criteria are no different in their practice than those listed at WP:BIO, WP:MUSIC (particular the WP:BAND section), or WP:BK - evidence is required to show the criteria is met, meeting WP:V, but this needs to be at worst a third-party primary source. The important part here is to make sure the criteria we select for fictional elements are ones that clearly show notability, particular if they do have an large impact on the real-world (showing they transcend the boundaries of the work of fiction itself). The criteria are only subjective for what we chose and allow for by consensus to assure we're not considering too broad a range of "notable" fictional elements (to avoid indiscriminate information, eg if we allowed "every major character" to be presumed notable); beyond that, we expect objective metrics to convince us that the topic satisfies that criteria. --MASEM (t) 15:35, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

• Surely if an article for fictional character gets nominated for deletion and people state that the character is notable. Surely it is incumbent on inclusionists if they believe that an article is notable that they display maybe 2 or 3 third person sources which clearly discuss the fictional character. Too many times when I have either nominated either C.O.P.S. or Masters of the Universe characters for deletion the argument has been the fiction itself is the evidence of notability or that its a main character in the show so by extension its notable as a solo article.

See evidence

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Baldwin P. "Bulletproof" Vess
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Squeeky Kleen
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mace and Nightshade
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spikor
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rio Blast

Dwanyewest (talk) 16:52, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I will assert that I do not believe we can ever assume elements are inherently notable if the work is notable. This is a fallacy to otherwise assume that. --MASEM (t) 17:05, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

While Masem may believe that these attributes are applied in other SNG's, I must dispute this. The fact that the attributes are all based on arguments from WP:ATA makes them little more than useless, as experienced editors (and more importantly administrators closing AFD debates) can see right through these arguments, which offer no defense against deletion. This guideline can't be platform for defective guidance, no matter how well intentioned.
I know that Masem wants to broaden the critieria for inclusion for fictional topics, but using defective arguments, one of which Dwanyewest has highlighted ("the fiction itself is the evidence of notability") hold no weight because they are not supported by content policy.
It one thing to claim that sources are "likely" to exist, but in the absense of reliable secondary sources, it is impossible to write a decent article. Its no wonder the articles identified by Dwanyewest came up for deletion; no amount of hearsay can improve them if there is a complete lack of sources.
Notability is not simply an arbitary threshold that has to be met for a topic to be included in Wikipedia, it is an important requisite for writing an article that contains significant coverage from sources that are both reliable and non-promotional. Another way of putting this is that provding verifiable evidence of notability provides external validation that undue weight is not being given to topics that are the subject of purely trivial content, and these "attributes" in this section do not provide this validation.
The fact remains, if a topic is not the subject of reliable third party sources, Wikipedia should not have an article about it, not matter whose crystal ball shines the brightest. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 18:07, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

To put it another way, even though these characters might be worth discussing in some context, they don't make for good Wikipedia articles. Nifboy (talk) 18:38, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Refusing to see these criteria in the same manner as the other noted SNGs is treating fiction to a higher standard than other works. Either you need to refute the other SNGs or stop arguing against these because they are exactly the same thing. We can argue on the specific criteria if they are appropriate, but to deny that we should even consider criteria at all is at odds when the other SNGs enjoy consensus. --MASEM (t) 18:45, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

The subjects aren't the same, though. There is no "fictional characters" WikiProject. Individual characters simply don't get the same treatment famous novels, films, or other actual works do. The article titled Pac-Man is about the game despite being the character one of the most well-known characters in existence because there's very little to say about the character. Nifboy (talk) 19:06, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

The various SNGs of interest are not tied to any Wikiproject - or if they are, they have been guidelines that have sought global consensus to vet them and have grown beyond the project bounds. It's been clearly established that we do not want WProject's defining their own local consensus for notability alternatives (further restrictions on the GNG, yes, but not looser allowances). Thus, the presence of a WikiProject's involvement makes no matter here. --MASEM (t) 19:28, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

In fairness to Masem, I think ambiguous inclusion criteria used by SNG's like WP:ATHLETE that don't make the requirement for reliable secondary sources explicit are defective, as they fall down dead in the total absence of coverage, and one day I am sure WP:ATHLETE will be modified to make the need for verifable evidence more explicit. However, having said that, athletes do have one advantage over fictional elements: they can be observed in the flesh and some editors (count me out) believe that if professional atheletes can be seen to participate at a high level, then they are notable. By contrast, evidence of notability for fictional topics can't be observed; it can only come from commentary, criticism and analysis, not through observation, as Nifboys example of the Pac-man demonstrates. Sure, you can play a game, watch a film, read a book or listen to a radio show, and while a computer game, actor or book might be notable, that is not the same as providing evidence that an element from the work is notable, for these works are the media through which elements of fiction are transmitted, i.e. the primary source that can't provide evidence of notability.
The key to understanding why this guideline is not stricter than other SNG's is because these "attributes" do not apply to fictional topics; for in the absence of significant coverage, there is no topic to write about. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 19:17, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

You can "watch" a character in the same fashion you can watch an athlete, and you're tied by the same policies and guidelines - you can state facts from your primary observations but you cannot make synthesis without secondary sources. The only difference here is that there is a huge body of reliable sources of sports journalism; such a body exists for fiction, but it is smaller. But that is not any reason to attempt to treat fiction elements any different.

But, mind you, the primary ATHLETE consideration - participation at a professional level - is very much akin to a fiction element criteria of the type "is a major character in the work" - and both are terrible criteria at the end of the day because these are not good assurances of coverage of that player or character. Either would falls into the idea of inherent notability in that being a member of a broad class cannot automatically make the topic notable. Instead, I would point to more discriminating criteria like those found in WP:MUSIC or WP:BK, where membership is not something that easily happens. --MASEM (t) 19:28, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

That's just it, though. I don't want to write rules that don't work at the end of the day because then it's an obstacle to the discussion about whether we should have an article or not, instead of genuine guidance. Nifboy (talk) 19:45, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Which is exactly what I want avoid as well. Which is why I don't want to support criteria like "the character is a major character in a notable work" because editors will stick that claim among 100k of fictography and call it good. Criteria selected should be obvious signs of the topic being notable (not GNG-notable, but notable in general), which most of the ones given here in FICT, and presented in BK and MUSIC and others are. (The one ATHLETE one is our sore thumb in all this). These (or at least the most appropriate ones) are not criteria that one can shoehorn a character into easily as one could with "major character". --MASEM (t) 20:03, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I understand that, but you can't just say that its stricter than the GNG because it doesn't allow for alternate ways to show notability. That won't work. It's requiring the cart to come before the horse when we do not do that for other SNGs. There is an assumption here that 1 person can magically come up with all the sources upon demand to meet anyone's criteria, regardless of the difficulty and cost in direct defiance of WP:DEADLINE. This isn't to say its a cop-out for saying "well maybe sources exist somewhere," but give the community a chance to come up with any sources that could improve the article without elocutionist hawks slamming {{prod}} or {{afd}} on the article because they see it, it doesn't meet the GNG.
If 3 months later or so it comes around and there's no new info that has come along to warrant a continued inclusion criteria, it may be merged, redirected or deleted-or maybe it won't (but admittedly it would have to have a strong rational).
An article that remains a stub, short start article or 95% plot is likely not to stay around without a good reason.陣内_Jinnai 20:25, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Re:Masem - The problem with applying the particular criteria in that list is either that they don't apply universally very well ("titular character in a series" goes counter to my experience at WP:VG where there are a number of series whose titular protagonist is simply a vehicle for the gameplay) or they are so rare for fictional characters that you practically have to pass the GNG in the first place to get a pass at AfD.

Re:Jinnai - I don't mind giving some articles a temporary reprieve, but I'd rather focus the discussion at those articles on how to improve the article rather than rules-lawyering over whether the subject is "important enough". I think the current solution du jour at AfD is the opposite: Redirect first, use a parent article or list as a kind of incubator, and bring it back out once it's improved enough. Nifboy (talk) 20:47, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

And I agree that not all the criteria are great and we should debate them. But some of the others listed, like being a cultural icon of a national body, seem to be very difficult to "cheat". Which is why wholesale dismissal of this section is not appropriate as has been suggested, at least before a larger consensus is made about them. If global consensus agrees none of these are appropriate, then, of course we can dismiss it, but that hasn't been shown yet. We should at least make sure we've got the right criteria that make the most sense in their demonstration of notability. --MASEM (t) 20:59, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

To support an opinion that a fictional character is a cultural icon of a national body requires not just one, but significant coverage from multiple reliable sources to back up an exceptionally stong claim, not hearsay. The example given (www.icons.org.uk) is an unpublished source, without any attribution from a particular author, and is not reliable per se. This is defective guidance of the worst kind. Dressing up unattributable content as being reliable is bad guidance, but trying to dress up trivial coverage as somehow being significant is worse. This whole section has to go, as it is a quagmire of defects, contradictions and irrelevancies. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 22:56, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

That's your opinion of the source, but since it is a group that is backed by a UK gov't agency, I'm hardpressed to not consider them reliable. But that's not the issue; you're wrong about what evidence is required. All that is required to justify that a fictional element is a cultural icon by a national body is a reliable verified source that affirms that is the case. To explain why that is the case would require finding secondary sources to understand the selection process to avoid original research, but to simply demonstrate that criteria is met only needs a reliable primary source that reports on that statement. Just as, for example, if I were to use WP:BK as an example, I would only need to show a reliable source that reports a book has won a major award per criteria #2 to demonstrate notability.

Even going further: both BK and the criteria here have one that goes "has been considered by reliable sources as important to its field". Now, first read, I would expect that that means secondary sources. But again, here, a third-party primary reliable source that repeats the claims is sufficient demonstration. Ideally, we'd source the original claims (in this case, they would be secondary) but that may not be immediately or easily possible due to age, available, and lack of references to go on (imaging trying to search newspaper articles from the start of the 20th century to find a specific article, for example). This is why good criteria will generally necessitate that secondary sources are somewhere available to explain the "why" of the criteria, but we don't require those secondary sources off the bat. Third-party primary sources are sufficient for demonstration of appropriate criteria. --MASEM (t) 23:20, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

No author, no date of publication, its just not reliable - even if it comes from the Queen's own website, it is not good if she does not provide attribution. As such, its just a self-published source that could be written, amended, or withdrawn by anybody at anytime. I don't care whose nation it is, if it is not published by a reliable source, then it questionable. Exceptional claims to notability need to backed up by high quality sources, and this is not even an acceptable source. This section has to go. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 00:54, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Fortunately, the rest of Wikipedia disagrees with you. There's a reason accessdate is a parameter in the cite web template. --MASEM (t) 01:51, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

That makes no difference, as the author is not known and since it has not been published, it is not subject to peer review, fact-checking nor any accuracy assurance. In fact, any claim to be being a reliable source is waived in the disclaimer. This is very poor guidance, because it enters into the realm of self-published sources without considering the issues. It has to go. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 09:30, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Titular character of a series

Let me tackle this separately, because it's the only one that hasn't been cribbed from WP:BK and thus doesn't feel like a square guideline in a round subject area. Here it is in its entirety:

The element is a titular character in a number of widely distributed works which have received full length reviews by two or more nationally known critics.

Ignore for a moment any concerns you might have about the wording or definitions above, because they don't matter and AfD when not in wiki-lawyer mode can figure out what is meant. It's a perfectly acceptable criterion... for a series article. That's the problem. For certain series, the main character is synonymous with the series he appears in. And because the main character has no personality or associated plot, there may not be a whole lot to say about that character that wouldn't be repeating what the series article says. Pac-Man (character), an article for which there are a lot of good arguments for existing, was less than 1kb when that article was redirected to Pac-Man. You could pad it out, but you'd do so by copying a lot of the information at Pac-Man (series). And there are a fair number of series in a similar situation, especially the "mascot games" of the 90s, when everyone was trying to get in on the success of Mario and Sonic. Some make for good articles, like Crash Bandicoot (character), but others don't, like Gex.

My point being, there are no characters whose articles are indispensable, because they are indelibly tied to the works they belong to. Thus, I don't see the need to explicitly encourage the creation or retention of articles based on criteria other than "how good is the article?" or "how good can the article be?". Nifboy (talk) 00:17, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

That argument holds very little water because you could say that about every article that is spun out of another article, including ones that become feature articles.陣内_Jinnai 00:36, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

I have to agree with that reasons for this specific criteria. Being the namesake character of a notable work is not evidence of notability for that character. I'm sure there's more examples but, for example, while Welcome Back Kotter is notable as a show, the character of Kotter is not. --MASEM (t) 00:53, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

I have to disagree because it is not an acceptable attribute of notability if there is a complete lack of coverage, in which case whether a character is titular or not makes no difference as there is a complete absence of verifable evidence to support the claim that character is notable.
Nifboy is entirely correct when he says that no character whose article is indispensable: the classic example is Lady Chatterley's Lover, who is not notable in his own right. Nor is Jim Graham, the lead character in Empire of the Sun, despite the fact he is at the centre of the book and the film of the same name, nor is the character Godot from the play Waiting for Godot notable in his own right, because even though he is the titular character, he never makes an appearance.
The bottom line is that whether a character is titular or not (and there are some wokrs of fiction where it is not clear who is the titular character) is a matter of opinion not fact, and any opinion has to be backed up be reliable secondary sources. This "atrribute" is entirely defective, and like the rest of this section, it has to go. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 01:07, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Removale of alternate criteria for assessing notability does not have consensus as shown by 2 arbcom rulings. That is not a middle ground, but an extreme viewpoint. The criteria themselves can be changed, but removale of anything that isn't just "The GNG and maybe stricter" flies in the very face of those rulings. nor can you claim consensus allows you to do so because of those rulings and previous RfCs.陣内_Jinnai 01:27, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

So what you're suggesting is that, due to procedural grounds, we are obliged to retain guidelines that are pointless and counterproductive, as these indisputably are? No. Just no. Reyk _YO! 01:34, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Gavin, you do realize I agree with you on this one specific criteria? --MASEM (t) 01:56, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

I think it was Jinnai that Gavin was disagreeing with. Reyk _YO! 02:08, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Re:Jinnai - Yes. I will say that about every spinout article. If we're doing things in accordance with summary style, the topic of the spinout is covered elsewhere, even if not to the same amount of comprehensiveness. If the spinout article justifies itself by way of improvement, then it can stay. Otherwise it's just a mix of undue weight and redundant content. Nifboy (talk) 04:35, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Exactly. If a topic is spun out of its parent article because of space concerns, or because there are enough sources that cover it in its own right, then well and good. But we do not spin a class of articles out just as a matter of course. If we spin out character articles from the articles on their parent works of fiction just because some horrific blanket exemption like the one you're defending says we should, then we'll end up with a slew of terrible articles that either just rehash the parent, or just consist of plot summary to the exclusion of any sort of balanced coverage. There is widespread consensus that this is a bad thing; just look at AfD if you don't believe me. And just because some character is the titular character doesn't mean a spinout is appropriate or should be allowed in every case. Reyk _YO! 05:52, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely. The one issue that Masem and Jinnai have deliberately ignored throughout this debate is WP:UNDUE, and the excellent guidance given in the Derivative articles section: articles about fictional works should not be split and split again into ever more minutiae of detail treatment, with each split resulting in undue weight being given to insignificant details or trivial coverage. How do we know whether or not an element of fiction should be split out? If there is evidence of notability in the form significant coverage from a reliable secondary source that provides external validation that a character is important or significant in some way. Significant coverage is also a check against, as Reyk says, terrible articles that either just rehash the parent, or just consist of plot summary to the exclusion of any sort of balanced coverage. Whether or not an editor claims that character is titular means nothing without verifiable evidence to back up this claim. This whole section must go, as it is entirely defective and the guidance it contains is entirely misleading. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 09:42, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Please stop trying to characterize what I've been saying because you are completely misrepresenting it, at this point. I am strongly against splitting out individual elements unless notability has been established. --MASEM (t) 12:06, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Then I think it would be fair to say that Masem and Jinnai are seeking to widen the notability criteria to such an extent that Wikipedia's content polices (such as WP:UNDUE) can no longer be applied because they do not require external validation. The "attributes" in this section are all subjective are not based on verifiable evidence, such that there is nothing but editorial opinion to rely on when deciding which topics are suitable for inclusion. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 18:09, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Again, you're absolutely wrong in what I believe is the best solution. I have kept saying that the criteria have to be met with verifiable evidence. --MASEM (t) 18:13, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Then you are agreed we can get rid of this section (because it is not based on verifiable evidence)? --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 22:44, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

I've explained how some of these criteria can be verified, just like with most of the other SNGs, so obviously no, we cannot get rid of this section without wider consensus. --MASEM (t) 22:54, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

I am afraid you have not, in fairness, since they all contain statements of opinion that can only be verified by significant coverage from reliable secondary sources; editorial opinions on whether a character is titular, historically notable, a cultural icon or taught at university need to be supported by evidence, not hearsay. I am still not getting the connect between verifiable sources and hearsay or have I missed something? --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 10:04, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm also beginning to get the feeling we are talking past each other. I for one would like to know how these additional criteria can be met with verifiable evidence without that verification amounting to coverage in reliable independent sources. That hasn't exactly been clear so far. Reyk _YO! 10:37, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

But that's exactly right - they can be met with reliable independent sources - but importantly, these sources can be primary (stating only fact and not attempting analysis or synthesis). Gavin's claim is that only secondary sources can do this, but that's wrong. Again, I point to most of the other SNGs that have exactly the same type of criteria, where we require reliable independent sources - but they do not need to be secondary - to show the criteria has been met. --MASEM (t) 12:25, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't believe any of those extraordinary claims if it came from a primary source, though. That's the entire point of independent confirmation. Nifboy (talk) 16:08, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

That be part of the confusion and issue. A primary source can be third-party and independent - primary sources, compared to secondary sources, are ones that simply reiterate the facts without further analysis, so things like news reports and the like usually fall into this. Now, using the claim from a first-party or dependent primary source -yeah, that's not going to fly. --MASEM (t) 16:47, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

See, that's what I don't get. All the non-titular criteria are about recognition by an independent third party. That recognition isn't a primary source because the recognizing body is not the subject of the article, nor an agent or affiliate thereof, and therefore also counts towards the GNG. If it doesn't, then it shouldn't count towards notability anyway. Nifboy (talk) 18:13, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

A primary source is defined by the type of coverage, not by its affiliation or independence of the topic. Primary sources simply report facts; secondary sources go into more depth of coverage and make original claims, include analysis, synthesis, or criticism. Thus, for example, were TV Guide to provide a recap of a television episode, that is a third-party, primary source; the episode itself is a first-party primary source. --MASEM (t) 19:02, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

According to WP:PRIMARY: "Primary sources are very close to an event, often accounts written by people who are directly involved, offering an insider's view of an event, a period of history, a work of art, a political decision, and so on." (emphasis mine). TV Guide is not directly involved in the plot of a TV episode. That doesn't necessarily make it useful for notability purposes (WP:NOTDIR would apply, IMO), but it's not a primary source. Nifboy (talk) 19:20, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Primary uses a vague and thus faulty definition. Primary sources are those that are directly related to an event. For example, a baseball game would be the manager, the players, the umpire, etc. A secondary source would be the commentator, even the live-broadcast commentator because they are directly involved with the game play, ie no matter what the commentator cannot affect the outcome of the game, even if he is reporting it live and at the event. A tertiary source is a yearly almanac that compiles the data from those sources, along with other games, to create its information.陣内_Jinnai 19:50, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

This version of primary source still fits within the WP:PSTS approach, and furthermore, it is necessary to consider to avoid, for the purposes of the GNG, the use several third-party sources just name-dropping a topic and thus claiming it notable. That definition of primary is necessary to understand why routine news coverage - which most often is primary - is not appropriate to definite notability via the GNG. It's also necessary to justify most other SNGs; if, say, I had a source that I could use to claim #2 (major award) for a book under WP:BK, and the source - which may simply be a news article stating that fact - was considered secondary, then there's no reason to have #2; you can iterate the same logic through all the other SNGs with criteria. --MASEM (t) 19:58, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

That's exactly how I understand it, though. An award would count towards the GNG, because it's removed from the subject (therefore secondary). Routine news coverage doesn't count, because it's simply the company telling the news organizations what to say via press release; it's not removed from the subject (therefore primary). And no, I don't see the justification of most other SNGs, other than as a baseline that was useful when we still had exponential growth. It's not 2006 anymore. Nifboy (talk) 21:58, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

It seems to me that 2006 was a very dark time in Wikipedia history. Lets face it, all statements of opinion, such as a claim that a character is a titular, historically notable, a cultural icon/artefact or taught at kindergarten/university need to be supported by significant coverage from a reliable secondary source that is independent of the creators and promoters of the fictional element, otherwise that claim is not externally validated, in which case it is not credible. Exceptional claims require high quality sourcing; this guideline can't promote exceptional claims (or stong editorials opinions) if there is nothing to back them up. I concur with Nifyboy: recognition of notability can't come from a primary source, nor editorial opinion. The "attributes section has to go. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 22:07, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

(←) This probably represents the heart of the problem on notability. There are various level of definitions of "secondary sources"; if they were taken in the broad sense (which is generally the "one step removed" advice), most of the criteria in the other SNGs (and in fact the ones proposed here for fiction) could be collapsed into "obvious" extensions of the GNG - these would be all notability confirmed from parties well removed from the actual topic. Unfortunately, there is also the more narrow approach definition ("analysis and synthesis") that to which statements of the SNG criteria would not fit into (eg a newspaper article stating a book won a major award). (There are also many intermediate versions). I know there have been attempts to clarify better at PSTS but these seem to always struggle in the details, so we can't assume it's going to be fixed there. My sense, from seeing how AFDs go, is that more people go for the narrower definition of a secondary source, which means that a statement of fact that would have otherwise satisfied the SNGs would fail as a source for considering the GNG. Because more people take the narrow definition, it thus makes sense that we have SNGs that have sensible criteria that can be satisfied by "primary sources" (when considering the narrow secondary def) that necessitate further expansion once more sources can be identified and added. --MASEM (t) 22:24, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

And I will state this: I am willing to cede on the issue (that is, dropping this section) if it is clear that, for example, a NYTimes article that states that Homer Simpsons is taught at a university level is considered to be a secondary source for the topic "Homer Simpsons", as Nifboy suggests, as opposed to primary how I presently see it. I'm seeking more advice at PSTS to check this out. --MASEM (t) 22:46, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

In principle, that would be fine, as long as significant coverage were afforded to Homer Simpson in the NYT article. But without decent coverage, a mere mention in passing is not evidence of notability. The chances of Homer Simpson being the subject an article regarding university curriculum is absurdly remote; a university is likely to be teaching thousands of subjects at any one time, and changes in the ciriculum are almost continuous, and hardly likely to be noticed, even in passing.
In reality, I have never read a single article discuss whether or not a particlar fictional topic is or is not taught at university; elements within university curricula have probably never been discussed in such a fine level of detail, at least not in significant terms.
If it has not occured to Masem, I think we have discussed this section in detail, and found its guidance to be wholly defective and entirely worthless and it is about time to remove it. For me, the killer is that, in the abence of sources, there is no subject to write about, and no amount of crystal ball gazing can rectify this deficiency. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 18:24, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

While I cannot say that Homer Simpson has been taught at such a level of detail, I can say Universities do teach classes devoted to particularly narrow subjects which may largely use one particular character. Indeed, I was in one such this semester where it was about Superheros, but the majority of the class used Superman as its core example with Batman as a secondary example of how they have impacted the sub-genre. It also touched on other figures, from the past, all of whom do meet the GNG as well. My point here being that if it is taught at a university it is taught in a level of depth and coverage at least as detailed as a review from say the NYT; likely more. Even if just a single class focuses on one character, episode, or element, that is above and beyond what most reviews give such characters unless they are the next Robin Hood.陣内_Jinnai 20:38, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Per Gavin, the principle is fine so long as the source is useful in building a Wikipedia article. I think I understand the issue now, at least, because those are two separate questions in my mind: primary/secondary and useful/not useful. Nifboy (talk) 21:36, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

In answer to Jinnai, that is fine in principle, but to find a source, as Nifboy puts it, that would be useful in writing an article about a fictional element is remote in reality and doubt there is even such an example in all of Wikipedia. The reality is that works, genres or authors are taught in university, but you will never find an element of fiction taught in isolation for its own sake. The idea about university teaching comes from WP:BK, and I have never seen it used in any article. If it is an attribute of anything, it is an attribute that can only be supported by an editor's opinion, not by verifiable evidence. This whole section needs to be removed, as it is just based on hearsay and has no practical application, and there is only a snowballs chance in hell of finding significant coverage to support even just one instance of where this would apply. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 00:24, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

You're argument that these criteria have no sources, but I've constantly stated that evidence that the criteria is met needs to be put forth; we're not talking about crystal-ball gazing here.

First, I would hope that you'd agree that, ignoring anything about Wikipedia, that most of these criteria are ways of measuring a fictional element's notability. Again, some do not do that, such as titular character. But others, like being taught as a subject as an accredited university (and yes, I would qualify that further as needed), or being considered as a historical element of a nation by that nation, are signs that the element is notable. Again, ignoring the Wikipedia issue, that makes these statement true. This would be the same case turning to most of the other SNGs; a book or film winning a major award for example - most of these other criteria are examples of that type of topic being notable. (To that end, I counter that WP:ATHLETE is a very poor criteria and we really need to do something about it, because just playing professionally is not a sign of notability).

The reason I want to make sure we're on this point is that if we are saying that meeting the (pared down) criteria is true with verified source(s), and that the topic is notable, then we should also agree that if that topic were to get an article on WP, coverage of that criteria would be part of the article's content as part of the secondary coverage for the topic (and more importantly for fiction topics, the evidence of real-world aspects).

The other thing that has to be remembers is that WP is not perfect and there is no deadline. Articles do not need to be perfect and meet all content policies at all times - but we do need to discourage indiscriminate article creation (hence part of the reason of CSD) That's a non-negotiable fact.

If we can agree to this point, then we have two issues. One is resolved by the fact that I'm asking at OR - that if it is the case that a newspaper article that does not go into depth on the topic but accurately states that details needed to confirm the notability aspect can be considered "secondary". In that case, we have a secondary source, and the GNG is (to some degree) met. Mind you, I believe that approach sets a dangerous position for routine news coverage also being used to assert notability, but let's not worry about that: the fact that if we can show a topic's notability through one of these criteria with any reliable, that's secondary coverage, and we're meeting the GNG. The initial discussion seems to point to this, but there's several naysayers right now, and it is important to clear up. If it is not the case that this is secondary coverage, and instead a primary source, then the need for these criteria becomes more evident - we still have a notable topic, that doesn't change because of how we consider the source, only the fact that reliance on the GNG alone would make it difficult to justify an article. But as WP wants to include notable topics, there is no need to exclude it immediately due to lack of secondary coverage.

That leads to the other aspect, that we are a wiki and encouraging readers to become editors. And this is where we have to learn to ignore rules and instead use common sense. An incomplete article on a topic that has been shown to be notable not by the GNG, but by at least one third-party source is doing zero harm to Wikipedia. It's presence will encourage readers to supply missing information and build out the coverage. It may be that never happens, and if the article is created based on one source for notability and never expands beyond that, hey, then lets merge or delete. And yes, there's also issues of UNDUE, and poor writing against WAF, and a whole host of other issues. Those can be fixed if at least the article exists. Without an article, there is nothing to fix.

I've said this before, but I cannot stress it enough because it is core to why this case needs to be considered: notability is not defined by having secondary sourced coverage; having secondary coverage is a highly likely result, though, from a topic being notable. Notability is a subjective and perceived issue and will vary from person to person. Using sources to assert notability is a good thing, as it removes some of that subjectivity, but it is not a perfect measure of the term. If WP's goal is to cover notable topics, then using the GNG as the only inclusion measure is imperfect. Now, if the example I explained above is something that can fit into the GNG scheme, hey, great, we're closer to avoiding to have SNGs in the first place, but this is not clear, and why understanding the nature of primary and secondary works when it comes to assessing a facet of notability is very important right now.

I will also say again: the listed criteria for FICT notability are by far from perfect (eg. "titular character" is a bad one). If the above WP:OR discussion shows that we need to keep SNGs due to how secondary sources are considered, then we need to audit each one of these, under global subjective consensus, to make sure that we are reiterating the types of criteria that show fictional elements are notable.

Now, if you can't agree to the above, then there's no forward way to go beyond possibly an RFC to see which way consensus sits. --MASEM (t) 00:33, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I must whole heartedly reject your assertion that these attributes are ways of measuring a fictional element's notability, for without sources, editorial opinions cannot be measured/externally validiated/verified. These "attributes" are statements of personal opinion not plain fact, that in the absence of reliable sources, are little more than hearsay. The only way to support such extraordinary claims about fictional elements (e.g. they are titular, historical, or the subject of educational instruction) is to cite high quality secondary sources. Note that none of these "attributes" are given facts: they are all matters of opinion, and only secondary sources can be used to support such extraordinary claims. Primary sources cannot be used to support these claims, as there is no wriggle room when it comes to making interpretations about the significance or importance of a fictional element. These "attributes" must go, because they do not provide any useful guidence that can actually be applied to fictional topics in the absence of secondary sources. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 09:02, 23 March 2010 (UTC

But again, I've stated this before: I can verify that, for example, fictional element is taught at a university through a newspaper article from an independent third-party source. In fact, I've stated that showing a source of this nature to prove that the criteria is met is a necessity; saying that a fictional element meets one of these alone without providing proof is going to lead to a quick AFD. The issue that I'm approaching at WP:PSTS is whether that newspaper article would be a primary source (Because it is simply reporting details and not providing transformation of existing information) or a secondary source (as it is repeating what someone else has already stated in a secondary nature about the topic). But given the reply below, it is not the details that are the issue. --MASEM (t) 14:24, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Let me ask something a different way: Ignore the current criteria, but presume one replacement would be "The fictional element was the topic a published, peer-reviewed academic journal" - would you consider this criteria appropriate now? --MASEM (t) 01:04, 23 March 2010 (UTC))

Yes and No. Yes, if the fictional element was the subject of significant coverage from a published, peer-reviewed academic journal. No, if this is a way of de-emphasising the need for significant coverage. Since it is not explicit what you mean by this, it sounds like an exemption or an attempt to sidestep the requirement for significant coverage. I am quite wary of any divergence from WP:GNG, because de-emphaising aspects it is just playing with words in order to get around the inclusion critiria without having to provide evidence of notability. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 10:53, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

The way I read this and other comments you've made, it seems to me that you're basically against any SNG that provides alternative objectively verifiable standards to show notability as alternatives to showing secondary coverage by the GNG. (SNGs that are based on the GNG and providing further restrictions, such as WP:EVENT, seem to be appropriate for you, as I read it). The reason I point this out is that it needs to be reminded that the last RFC in late '08 (so sufficient recent) shows that consensus believes that SNGs that provides alternative objectively verifiable standards are appropriate and necessary. Now, consensus may have changed - but based on a near-predictable cycle of WP:ATHLETE claims at WP:ANI, I don't its changed that much.

If you're still against the general idea of an SNG, much less the ones for fiction given here, then the only way forward is to RFC this, asking editors to evaluate each one on its own and/or suggesting new ones. --MASEM (t) 14:24, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Simply attaching a label to a fictional element, such as "This character is historically notable" is not evidence of notability, it is a statement of opinion. This approach runs contrary to content policy, as extraordinary claims require high quality sourcing, and this guideline can't be used to give such hearsay a patina of legitimacy. A good example of this approach is used in the article Gaius Baltar, whose lead makes the claim that "He is one of the show's primary characters", without providing any source to support such a claim. This sort of claim is not evidence of notability, and trying to give legitimacy to such unsupported claims in this guideline is the completely wrong approach.
If we were to have an RFC tomorrow, all of these attributes would be thrown out, because such claims are not verifiable if they are not backed up with citations, and may well be original research. You can't have an SNG which effectively says "This character is historically notable...and he is the show's primary character...therefore he is notable" supported only by some editor's opinion.
Whether or not this guideline can provide alternative evidence of notabiliy is yet to be seen, but it can't be based on subjective criteria, because Wikipedia policies does not allow statements of opinion as content, nor as a baisis the inclusion of article topics as standalone articles. I am in favour of this guideline, but not as a platform for hearsay, crystal ball gazing nor original research. These attributes have to go so we can discuss inclusion criteria that do provide evidence of notability. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 16:07, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Again, and again - I have stated that a source to confirm that statement is necessary, a point you keep on missing. Most of the times, the direct secondary sources that go into why they meet this criteria can be used - but if you have that, you have met the GNG. On the other hand, if one or more reliable third party source like the New York Times were to state "This character is historically notable", but otherwise did not expand upon that point but reporting it as a statement of fact, is this not evidence as well?

I'm completely aware someone can put forth one of these criteria in an article without any sourcing (as you use in the example of Gaius), and then complain and battle heavily when it is brought to AFD, complaining that it can't be deleted because it meets the SNG requirement. That is why the criteria need to be "alternative objectively verifiable standards"; you cannot make those claims without some type of reliable source to back it up. That is either going to come from a secondary source (in which case, that's the GNG), or another reliable source reporting on that secondary source. The last part of this statement is what I am trying to get across here; a news story that is reporting summary information from a secondary source is an acceptable verification for these criteria in lieu of being able to access that secondary source easily, freely, or immediately. --MASEM (t) 16:23, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

In fairness, rountine news reports are not classed as significant coverage, so its not evidence of notablity; this is the same as flap copy not being allowable as evidence of notability for books. Just to sumamrise, none of these attributes work, because they fail one or more of requirements of WP:GNG:

• Significant coverage (not trivia or mentions in passing)
• Reliable sources (e.g. not self-published nor unattribuable)
• Secondary sourcing, where extraordinary statements of opinion are made.

The real reason why this section does not work is that the requirements are ridiculously onerous. Its far easier to meet WP:GNG than to provide evidence to support the presence of these attributes. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 16:59, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

But we're in an SNG; we don't need to show that we're meeting the GNG, just that we're showing notability is met through verified sources. Of course, these should at least be reliable and third-party to meet WP:V. That's why these are "alternative objectively verifiable standards" as with the other SNGs. Significant coverage is only a facet of meeting the GNG. Granted, long-term goals for an article should be to expand into significant coverage, but that's not a requirement for article creature at the start if notability is shown another way. What you're basically say goes against what all the other SNG with criteria provide for and the consensus of the RFC. --MASEM (t) 17:05, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

(unindent due to edit conflict) The way I see it, and the way I think Gavin is also seeing it, is that the sourcing requirements at NOTE attempt to describe "Sources that are useful", and sourcing that doesn't meet those requirements fall into the "not useful" category, and should not be used for any notability requirement, SNG or otherwise, because they aren't useful for creating an article that passes policy. For me, a source that is usable for FICT would be equally usable for NOTE, which creates a redundant sourcing requirement for a very narrow set of articles. As I understand it, Masem's position is that the list at FICT exists because those sources aren't usable for NOTE, due to a narrow view of that the "secondary sourcing" requirement is. To me, the "independent of the subject" criterion in NOTE is the secondary sourcing requirement, and the other criteria exist to ensure the source is usable in relation to the article. Hence Gavin's repeated attempts to bring the sourcing requirements here up to the standards at NOTE. Nifboy (talk) 17:20, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Nifboy's point about "useable sourcing", by which I mean significant coverage, without which a topic has not been truely noted, only mentioned in passing. The attributes don't work, because they are basically trying to get around WP:GNG by using personal opinion in lieu of secondary sources. Signifcant coverage and secondary sourcing go hand in hand, because these useable, whereas labeling topics as "titular" or "deemded notable" are not, and provide no benefit to writing decent articles. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 17:49, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

And therein is the problem: "secondary" sources is a term that has several different meanings: Nifboy's (based on independence) is not the same as Gavin's (based on depth) as above. Which is why I think the problem is embedded at WP:PSTS and I'm trying to gain better clarification there. If Nifboy's definition is the appropriate one, then yes, I see no need for the criteria. --17:56, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I think at this point we're more likely to have more consensus on which sources are usable as opposed to why we can use them. I think the two places where sources get investigated in this much depth are FAC.. and AfD. So when I'm using FAR as case study for notability, it's because I see the two as functionally equivalent. Nifboy (talk) 18:12, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

If you're going to use anything as a case study AfD should be the primary key because it is there that notability is questioned and decisions are made to keep or delete. FAC/FAR it is assumed for all but a few select cases they already pass notability.陣内_Jinnai 18:36, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't care about notability in and of itself, though. I just care that a decent article can be written, something that requires good sources. Nifboy (talk) 18:39, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Not a bad thing to care about, but that is beyond WP:FICT's scope. It is about helping define notability. Nothing more. If we try to add more, we will not gain consensus as the last site-wide RfC has shown. Notability doesn't care how things are written so long as what is written can be verified to be notable.陣内_Jinnai 18:42, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

That's my entire objection, though: The current incarnation of WP:FICT doesn't get people thinking about how to write good articles, and which topics make for good articles, the same way the GNG gets people thinking about sourcing, and which topics can be sourced well or not. It's worse than just notability creep, it's counterproductive and just a reason for people to argue against each other at AfD instead of collaborating to write good articles. Nifboy (talk) 19:18, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Again, I have to agree with Nifboy. These "attributes" are all based on lame excuses that have been exposed for what they are at Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. Its no use pretending that this guideline can say crystal ball gazing is allowed, when editors (and administrators closing AFD debates) can see right through these arguments for what they are: hearsay. It is counterproductive for this guideline to be based on arguments such as WP:ATA#Crystal if it just leads to more arguements, but its worse if simply leads to bad articles being written or used to avoid article cleanup. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 20:43, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Wrong and wrong again. I've explained more than enough times there is no crystal balling with these. Sources are required to verify these, and without a source to verify, deletion can be expected. The issue up in the air is that if we can get away with calling a source that is a statement of fact that another source has asserted these criteria as being a secondary source (in which case they aren't needed at all) or if they are primary and thus requiring these statements as alternative objectively verified standards for notability.

Also, notability has nothing to do with article quality - it is a measure of avoiding indiscriminate coverage. It is great that the GNG gives sources that lead to a better article, but the fact that an article on creation may be notable but not have secondary sources or otherwise be considered "good" is no reason to delete. We are looking at an inclusion guideline, not a content guideline. --MASEM (t) 20:54, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Masem is playing with words. Sourcing on its own is not evidence of notability if signficant coverage is absent. So when this section says "The following are attributes that generally indicate, when supported with reliable sources, that the required sources are likely to exist", that is crystal ball gazing, pure and simple. This section moves away from notability because it is relying on hearsay to demonstrate that sources meet WP:GNG, when in fact one they don't because one or more criteria (significant coverage, reliable sources, opnions without secondary sources etc) are missing.
Going back to what Nifyboy said earlier, writing good articles requires all of the GNG criteria, not just the bits Masem likes. Selective cherry picking from the GNG is bad guidence, because it implies that notability can be infered by "joining the dots", and this approach does not work either when it comes to writing articles. Masem and Jinnai would like to think that context can be "infered" if only the reader could "join the dots", but if commentary, criticism or analysis is absent, it is never going to be a good article, as the primary sources on their own can't provide these important ingredients.
Look again at the article Gaius Baltar and you will see that its is devoid of any real world opinion because it is missing any coverage that could demonstrate notability. Even the only real world fact it contains (he is a primary character) is not sourced. How poor is that? --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 21:14, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Nifboy and Gavin, it is you two who are wrong. FICT should not be dictating how to write an article. That is what WP:WAF and other stylistic guidelines are for. We can mention that sources are required for verifiability of a subjects statements and to show its notability, but beyond that, is moves beyond the scope of a notability guideline into areas already covered by other articles. We can point out WAF for how to write a good article, but we will not delete an article simply because it is poorly written and therefore WP:FICT doesn't need to concern itself how it is written beyond the most narrowest sense of clearly defining sources that give evidence to a subjects justification of notability worthy of a separate article. Becoming a load-bearing guideline, what you seem to be implying, does not have any sort of consensus and indeed if anything there is consensus for the opposite; less than what we have now in terms of guidance.陣内_Jinnai 21:17, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Of course articles get deleted if they are poorly written. Employing arguments such as WP:ATA#Crystal will not be a defense at WP:AFD. Its like you are setting up this guideline to provide defective advice by emplying arguements that have been discounted in countless AfD debates. This section must go. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 21:43, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

(EC with gavin) To say that content policies and guidelines have no effect on article inclusion is folly. We delete articles all the freaking time because they suck, and continue to suck despite efforts to improve them, such as Ctrl+Alt+Del. The GNG is just a litmus test for an article's potential to not suck. If an article can't not suck because of sourcing issues, it needs to go, regardless of any perceived "obligation" we have to include it. Nifboy (talk) 21:46, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Getting back on topic for a moment, the argument that a character is "titular" is no substitute for real evidence of notability. As Nifyboy said at the start, just because Jaws (shark) was titular, it may be the case that it makes no sense to create a standalone article in tha absence of signficant coverage about the shark itself. In the absence of "useful" coverage, this "attribute" falls down dead, because you can't write an article if the coverage sucks.--Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 21:56, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

(ec)We do not delete articles because they are poorly written. Poorly written articles are often the ones that lack demonstration of notability, but it is not a sign of deletion. There are plenty of poorly written articles that are notable, should we delete those too?

To Gavin's comment, I am completely fine with getting rid of the titular statement. --MASEM (t) 21:59, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

We don't actually delete articles simply because they are poorly written. They must have other problems like not having any sources that can be shown to show verifiability or notability. In AfDs you don't actually have to edit the article to conform to some standard, just prove the sources exist. That does not have anything on style, which is what you are trying to undermine this content guideline to do, something no other notability guideline address except to punt the issue to the appropriate guidelines.

Yea you can continue to edit an article and it remains poor quality, but that is a separate issue. As long as it meats out content policies for inclusion, it will not be deleted or merged; if it doesn't, it doesn't matter if it is the best written article in existence, it will be removed.陣内_Jinnai 23:00, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm still unsure about a "SNG is strictly for notability" approach to this guideline. Summary Style is another guideline that talks extensively about the inclusion of articles, and is almost universally applicable to fictional characters' articles. So it's really weird to me that this proposal doesn't talk about how SS is applied in practice for these articles, instead only talking about notability, which is only half (at most) of what needs to be puzzled out at AfD. WP:AVOIDSPLIT is the other half, and to me that's the piece for which interpretation varies more between projects, and therefore where guidance would justify the creation of yet another SNG. Pac-Man the character fails this second half, and I feel it would be an error to address article inclusion for fiction without addressing the whole picture. Nifboy (talk) 05:09, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Well if you want to use WP:AVOIDSPLIT, for balance reasons you also need to address WP:Article size for reasons why to split an article.陣内_Jinnai 05:33, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

See, that's why I wanted to talk about content, because that question of why and what to split is content-driven. Conversely, a character article's fate at AfD impacts multiple other articles; most fiction AfDs tend towards merge/redirect and away from simple deletion for that reason. Nifboy (talk) 06:20, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

For your information, Summary Style, WP:AVOIDSPLIT and WP:UNDUE are dealt with in a comprehensive fashion within the Derivative articles section.
Getting back on topic, I have now removed the "Titular character" attribute, as it is unworkable to use labels often do not provide evidence of notability, e.g. Jaws (shark). In any case, whether a character or group of characters such as the Lavender Hill Mob are titular or not requires signficant coverage in the form of analysis from from reliable secondary sources.

Historically notable element

Again, I think labels being applied to fictional elements does not contribute to their notability, as a label such as "historically notable" is a matter of editorial opinion, not fact, and can only be established via significant coverage from reliable secondary sources. This section runs, which runs contrary to WP:EDITORIAL, reads as follows:

The element is historically notable, as evidenced by one or more of the following:

1. Publication of at least two non-trivial articles.
2. The element was deemed notable by a broad survey of critics, academics, or professionals, or a poll of the public organised by a national broadcaster or publication, when such a poll was conducted at least five years after the work's release. Examples would include the Empire Poll etc.
3. The element has been the subject of a television retrospective, at least five years after initial release.
4. The element was featured as part of a documentary, program, or retrospective on the history of fiction or a particular genre or form.

I object to this section because labeling involves conveying to readers an implied viewpoint that may not be supported by any evidence. For instance,

1. If two non-trivial articles mentions a fictional character in passing, then this attribute falls down dead because it actually implies that trivial coverage is evidence of notability.
2. The Empire Poll also lacks significant coverage, but more importantly it is not a reliable source, as its contents are neither published nor is attribution given to its content;
3. The other attributes (retrospective/documentary) may be attributes of notability, but if they don't contain signficant coverage or attribution, then they too fall down dead.

Overall, I see this whole section in purely negative terms ("its notable because its been on TV!") since it gives support to mass attribution of notability that may not exist in reality. Like awards, either the coverage afforded by such attributes meets the requirements of WP:GNG, or it does not; there is nothing special about any of these attributes, and they have to be judged as you would any other source as being evidence of notability (or not). Labeling these attributes gives the impression that notability can sometimes be found in trivial coverage from unreliable sources, and this is bad guidance. I just do not see why an element of fiction has to be "historically notable" before it can be "ordinarily notable". It is just a confusing way of going about providing evidence of notability, and this section has to be removed. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 09:57, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

"Two non-trivial mentions" can go. I would tend to agree that the public poll aspect of #2 is not good by itself to confer notability - but polling by the other groups is an appropriate inclusion. The last two, I read the words "been a subject of" and "featured" as implying more than a passing mention - that is, that the retrospective/documentary/program would be considered one single secondary source on that element. That said, I think both of these need better clarity that we're looking at reliable retrospective (a college station doing their own school project would not count), and that we're talking about entire segments of that work dedicated to that element (if not the whole work itself).

The general issue here is that generally meeting one of these gives you one secondary source, which is something that doesn't meet the GNG. But given the high standards, it is very doubtful that additional secondary sources cannot be found, but only a matter of time and cost to be able to find them, and when you talk "historical" this likely means moving off the net and going to print archives of old magazines and newspapers. So, that is, there is "ordinary notability" of these topics, but only until those other sources are recovered; until then, with evidence of exactly one secondary source under these conditions, we can presume "historic notability" for the element. --MASEM (t) 14:32, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

So what you are suggesting that if a character has been on TV, it should have its own standalone article in the hope that sources might be found. This sounds like a rehash of WP:ATA#Crystal to me. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 15:16, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

You completely misread what I said. I said that if a character (or other element) has been covered in an independent source in a secondary manner (not just trivial or passing mention) as a historical perspective on that character or the genre as a whole by a reliable source, it is presumed notable. However, this is exactly one secondary source that is good to have but alone doesn't meet the GNG (if one source was sufficient by the GNG, we wouldn't need these). However, as being "historical", there are assuredly other sources to help expand past that to make a better article in these particular cases. --MASEM (t) 15:24, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Your interpretation is completely at odds with what this secction actually says, as it does not mention significant coverage or secondary sources at all. In order to prove that an element of fiction is historically notable in some way, there would need to be some form of commentary, criticism or analysis that would put the element in its historical context. Simply lableling an element as "historical" is not evidence of notability, nor does it provide assurance that other sources exist. A good example is the character Jim Graham from Empire of the Sun, whose character is of historical interest. There are no sources that this character is notable in his own right, so I fail to see how this section can work, at any level, historic, biographical, cinematic or otherwise. No matter what label is applied, in the absence of coverage, this section falls down dead. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 08:50, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Ok, there's a critical word missing in these: the show or review work needs to be non-fictional. In other words, the program or material is a non-fiction retrospective, and the character (or other element) is covered in some depth. No work of fiction would apply as a possible source of historic notability (eg your example of Jim Graham). Now, when you narrow it down, I cannot see how non-trivial coverage in a non-fiction retrospective is anything but a secondary source. --MASEM (t) 12:12, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

That is fine, as long as there is significant coverage, since we know that notability cannot be derived from a mere mention in passing, or from trivial coverage. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 08:39, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Cultural icon

I fail to see how labeling an element of fiction as a cultual icon or cultural artifact can be achieved, let alone how this has anything to with notability. This attribute reads as follows:

The following are attributes that generally indicate, when supported with reliable sources, that the required sources are likely to exist:

1. The element was selected as a cultural icon by a national body. See Icons:A Portrait of England for one example. Any nation with a comparable selection would equally meet our standards.

It seems to me that this attribute suggest that, simply by being featured on a website, that an element of fiction can be classed as a cultural icon, and therefore notable, is entirely disengenious. For example, Kim Jong-il of North Korea, but I think you will agree he not a cultual icon despite employement of instruments of culture (such as millions of posters) to project him as such. It seems to me that the dividing line between cultural iconography on the one hand and propoganda/advertising on the other is a very thin line, and that being featured on a website does not distinguish between the two. This attribute has to go. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 09:10, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

You've misread what the criteria is trying to do (it is not just being featured on a website, but it is a icon chosen by a national body - which happens to display its results on a website). That said, I think this one needs a change to be more exact. That is, any fictional element that becomes a cultural icon, as stated by an reliable independent source (not just a national body), should be presumed evidence of notability. (and be aware, I think most would classify Kim Jong-Il as a cultural icon of NK per its definition). Now, I realize someone may use less-than-stellar reliable sources that make the cultural icon claim, but if that's the only evidence of notability, that author can be challenged on the strength of the sources - it is one thing to have the NYTimes assert a character is a culture icon compared to, say, a home town newspaper. Again, like the historic notability aspects above, this gives one secondary source, not sufficient to meet the GNG, but enough to go on to justify the article's existence. --MASEM (t) 12:30, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Can you give an example of where this attribute is actually used? I don't think it has ever been used in practise, as there is no such category as culutral icons. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 14:01, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

You mean this category? (Mind you, it is for anything that can be a cultural icon, not just fictional characters/etc.) --MASEM (t) 23:26, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Japan appoints Doremon as an ambassador. I am certain there is more out there on Doremon. This gives evidence that generally if some element of fiction is chosen by a national body, it will have coverage simply because of its uniqueness. Had it been a normal ambassador assignment, there likely would not have been much coverage, especially in English.陣内_Jinnai 01:05, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

For an element of fiction to be on a barebone list does not seem to impart any notability. For instance, List of cultural icons of England does not contain any significant coverage, and if anything, it is a list or items that are already notable. The Doremon is more interesting, because there is some coverage from a reliable secondary source, but on its own it would fail WP:NTEMP because it is a routine news story. It seems to me that being labeled as cultural icon is still a matter of opinion that can only be backed up by a reliable secondary source, otherwise its hearsay.I still fail to see the utility of this attribute or how it can be applied on a wide scale. It is poor guidance and should be removed. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 08:30, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

You are right that the only type of source that can create the assertion a fictional character as a culture icon is a reliable secondary source - that's not a question. With this, we then have a presumption of notability. But there are a couple different ways that fact - that a secondary source has asserted a fictional element as a cultural icon - can be disseminated. You may have the secondary source directly which is the best solution, but you almost may have a case where another source - likely a news article from a reliable source - that reiterates the secondary source claim. This is exactly what is happening in the Doremon article - the secondary source would be the Foreign Ministry of Japan, but at first glance, there only appears to be a statement from the ministry that they selected it, without any strong rationale of that specific character (they explain why they wanted a cultural icon as an ambassador per the quotes). The fact this appears in a reliable news story demonstrates that the secondary source exists and that the cultural icon label is merited, and thus with this MSNBC source alone, notability would be presumed for the cultural icon case. And no, just because it is a news story does not mean it fails WP:NTEMP, as that has nothing to do with whether the topic appears in a news story or not, only if the topic is simply riding a wave of popularity that will fade and burn quickly. Given that we're talking about a character that has existed in fictional works since at least 1969, I would say its a hard stretch that any NTEMP applies here.

Note that with this criteria, one is still free to argue whether the secondary entity asserting the cultural iconicness is a reliable source. I had to agree to some extent the icons.org.uk group is not the greatest - while a gov't non-profit, the icons are selected from user nominations, which isn't the same as a body of experts or professional making the assertions. It is not that these aren't culture icons on their own via other means (e.g. showing Daleks as cultural icons isn't that hard, I have found at last a few older peer-reviewed papers that make that claim), but as through that specific entity, I'd raise a few questions. --MASEM (t) 13:12, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

I think we are going around in circles on this one. To be a cultural icon, I think it would be fair to say that a character would already have to be notable in accordance with WP:GNG, e.g. Tintin. So labeling a character as being a cultural icon is sort of putting the horse before the cart. Proving that an element of fiction is a cultural icon is like a level above notable, not just in terms of GNG, but notable in an even broader sense. It seems to me that this attribute is onerous; not only would have to prove that character is notable, but it is notable in the context of a nation's identity. I just can't see this working.
The Doremon illustrates this: the character has achieved notability in accordance with GNG, and the newspaper article provides evidence that it notable in terms of Japanese national identity. But if this news paper article where the only source of coverage, then it would fail WP:NTEMP. This is a good example of why labelling does not work; there are too many presumptions being made, whereas there may be insufficient evidence to support them. This attribute needs to go because it defective guidance that is just not workable in practice. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 18:53, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Notability is not defined by the existence of secondary sources; secondary sources are the result of a topic being notable. Until you realize that, asserting that topics have to meet the GNG to be notability is a complete fallacy. --MASEM (t) 19:16, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

I think it is more correct to say that evidence of notability is defined by the existence of secondary sources, not by labels. That is why these attributes are defective and are unworkable in practise. Its one thing to say that element of fiction is notable without evidence, and another (stronger opinion) to claim that it is a cultural icon. But unless these claims can be backed up with evidence, they fall down dead. Proving that a character is a cultural icon seems to me to an onerous undertaking, and probably applies to less than a handful of characters in each country. It seems to me this attribute is little more than useless, because chances are that elements of fiction that can meet this criteria are likely to be notable already. Without evidence, such labels exist only in the minds of the editors making the claims, and just don't work. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 08:32, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

But that's not true either. Evidence of notability can be defined by the existence of secondary sources, and by far the easiest to go by, but it is the only evidence. Of course being a cultural icon is not something that can be stated without backing up it - it requires a measure of analysis and the like that a independent party must make - and likely a party with a high level of reliability as well. The point that needs to be accepted is that we can presume a topic is wikt:notable if it is a cultural icon of a nation. Now, for purposes of WP, we still need evidence of that or that claim will be readily dismissed when the article brought at AFD. This can be from a source published by the entity that deemed the character as a culture icon; ideally secondary but maybe they only listed these without reasoning. As long as the entity is one with the type of reputation or authority to make that claim, that's evidence either way. Or it can come by a news source that is simply reporting on the action; as long as the source is reliable, that's still evidence. Again, all these SNGs with criteria/standards are meaningless without evidence - without that, the criteria fails and the claim of notable can be challenged at AFD. This is no different.

This may at this point only seem to apply to a handful of characters, but it does apply. And we're only going off what's listed in that category on cultural icon lists, which all appear to be generated by a single source. It is quite possible there are other characters that are culture icons stated by other experts (eg professors of cultural studies at universities) that we don't know about. Just because it may only apply to a few cases is not reason to get rid of it, as it may, in the future, lead to other criteria that show notability (once evidence is supplied) to be suggested - eg, I used the example above of a fictional element entering the lexicon, based on the idea of a cultural icon. --MASEM (t) 13:05, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Evidence of notability can be shown in many ways, and one of them is substantial independent reliable sources. Using this as the sole factor runs into problems in many subjects, including this one, where the problem is mainly that the sources talk about more than just the particular object in question, resulting in a very fuzzy meaning of "substantial" . Therefore if we try to use it in all cases we need supplementary manipulation also, either to limit it to specific sorts of sources or degrees of independence or substantiality, or to broaden it to accept other than the usual sorts or degrees of independence or substantiality- The alternate approach is to define certain things as being notable or not notable enough for an article on other grounds entirely (such as NOT NEWS) WP:N does not limit this--it merely says that the GNG is the usual way or doing it. Gavin, to the best of my knowledge, you are the only person who thinks it literally applies here, or that we can not or ought not sometimes make exceptions. Masem, we can try to answer Gavin by adjusting the definitions of what counts as sources for notability, or we can reject the approach altogether, and I think the second is the more direct and the simpler. When I came here more than years ago, there were many people who would never accept other than the GNG, and I became fairly adept at defining it to cover the equivalent of what we now do directly by WP:PROF and many other special cases, It was an interesting exercise in testing my ingenuity at argumentation, and, much as I enjoyed it, it should have been unnecessary, because the notability of a subject should not depend upon the forensic deftness of the people who happen to support it, or upon what happens to be findable by the people interested. This is a very basic distinction and I think it futile to continue arguing the details. We should say such and such are notable , and such and such are not, if there are sufficient RSs to write an article--which is a matter of WP:V, and we all agree on that principle. We shall never convince those who think that the GNG is a foundational principle, though we can try to word things to accommodate them, as when we use the "presumption" of sources. DGG ( talk ) 18:45, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

"Substantial independent evidence" is just more labeling, and does not replace verifiable evidence of notability. Which sources are "substantial" is a matter of opinion, not fact. Simply labeling topics as being notable does not work, because in the absence of coverage, it does not work, as you can't write an article about a topic if none exists. The "presumption" of sources drops down dead if there are none, and this is the point the does not seem to be acknowledged here. Simply applying particularly obscure attritbutes that on rare occasions may be evidence of notability (e.g. "cultural icons") is just bad guidance. Why do we have to beat around the bush, when a perfectly good basis for article inclusion (WP:GNG) already exists? I can understand why you might want to broaden the inclusion criteria for fiction, but creating exemptions, loopholes and labels as proxies for signficant coverage is the wrong approach, becuase significant coverage is useful for writing articles, whereas not exemptions, loopholes and labels are not. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 08:33, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

If the GNG was "perfectly good", there would be no inclusionists vs deletionists conflicts. And these are not exceptions, these are possible ways a fictional element can by notable. Were I to consider the limited number of fiction topics that would probably meet one of these, I would argue there is probably no topic immediately in that list that would not fail to have secondary sources as well. But, that doesn't mean these are redundant - we are looking to the future and to aspects of the past where the same type of notable may be there for an element but lacks additional sources - it would meet the SNG and fail at the time the GNG. It would be completely nonsensical not to include it because we stick to the GNG only. --MASEM (t) 12:17, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Notability is an excellent guideline, because in the event of an editorial dispute, there is no better arbiter of editorial opinion than significant coverage from reliable secondary sources that are indpendent: they trump all hearsay, labels, and personal opinions every time. The key point here is that you can't solve editorial disputes through labels, as the use of editorial opinions to classify topics as notable can always be challenged as just that...opinions without either external validation, or significant coverage to support them. My understanding is these "attributes" are not really about notability at all, they are simply devices that provide partial exemptions from WP:GNG because they don't explicity require one or more of the GNG inclusion criteria such as significant coverage and/or reliable sources and/or independence from the creators and promoters.
I think you have to accept my perfectly valid criticisms that this attribute don't work in the absence of signficant coverage, without which it may not be possible to write an article, which is the key issue for both me and Nifboy. If guidance such as this does not work at all in some circumstances (and lets face it, the circumstances in which the label "cultural icon" can be applied are very few and far between in the real world), then that is a knock out reason from dropping it altoghether. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 12:49, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

"Notability" the word is an excellent standard for inclusion, and the GNG is an excellent measure of meeting that, but it is not complete because the GNG has holes where otherwise wikt:notable topics will fall through. In addition, this is a community-built encyclopedia, not one defined by laws or rules. It is what the community wants to include that should be included. If the community feels that a fictional element that is called a cultural icon by a verified source should be included, it should be includes, screw whatever other sources exist. That is what every other SNG with criteria and standards sets forth - how something like a person, book, or musical artist can be considered notable beyond just looking at secondary sources. There is no reason why similar standards cannot exist for fiction - what those standards are we can debate, but they can exist, nevertheless. That is the whole point of these, and something you are refusing to even acknowledge. You have to let it go that we should only live by the GNG for inclusion because that is a fundamentally flawed definition of notability. You are saying "All A (topics with secondary sources) are B (notable topics), thus all B are A", which is logically wrong. Until you understand that, and why the other SNGs exist and why we have articles on nearly every population center on the planet and every road and the like, you cannot dismiss the possibility of other means of showing fictional topics notable beyond the GNG. I'm all for arguing on the specifics of these other standards/criteria, but you keep trying to wipe all of them off the table, and that will not work without creating a bias against fiction coverage. --MASEM (t) 23:10, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't agree with your point of view, because it relies on your opinion of what is notable. I don't accept that this guideline should be a platform for your points of view about what is or is not notable - I think that can only be determined by consensus by editors examining the verifiable evidence of notability for themselves. For instance, if there is an absence of significant coverage, then there isn't any evidence that cultural icon is notable, because it has not been noted in any shape or form. It might have been talked about, mentioned in passing, or even been popular, yet we know these are not the same as being "noted", even in its broadest sense. Labeling a fictional element as a cultural icon, or iconic in any other way (say within a game franchise or film series) is a matter of opinion, not truth. Opinions such as iconic status are extraordinary claims, and must be backed up by strong sourcing in accordance with WP:GNG - this is a generally accepted principle set out in WP:REDFLAG. This is why these attributes, if they cannot be substantiated by reliable secondary sources, don't work. This guideline should not contain defective or misleading attributes that have don't any intellectual basis because they are based on arguments that are generally accepted as being defective as spelt out at WP:ATA. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 09:14, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Over and over and over again, I have pointed out how these require evidence because they can't be taken for granted. You keep ignoring this point or trying to morph it into a GNG requirement. It is no longer appropriate to keep arguing "well, there's no verifiable evidence of the element being a cultural icon" because that is a requirement for that criteria to be passed. --MASEM (t) 11:56, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

In fairness, the example given of a cultural icon (Icons:A Portrait of England) is not evidence by any standard, its just a website, without significant coverage or authorship attribution. If there is another attribution of notability other than WP:GNG, this is not it. This is entirely defective and misleading guidance, because it goes against Wikipedia content policies. Its one say that there is verfiable evidence other than GNG, but to present a website which is not evidence in accordance with WP:RS#Questionable sources is just not acceptable, and this attribute must be withdrawn. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 13:08, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I've already agreed icons.org.uk is probably a bad source because it is based on user-generated input for selection (however, your argument "a website, without significant coverage or authorship attribution" is bogus. None of those are required for reliable sources. It may not make it strongly reliable, but it doesn't disqualify the source from being reliable to start)

Here's a working example. Japan's government has announced that Doreamon is their cultural icon and ambassador to the world. Is now Doreamon wikt:notable? Very much so; if you deny that, they you are not attempting any sort of compromise here. Can we have an article on it on WP? Presumably yes if I have proof that Japan has announced that (in this case the MSN article). There are a whole host of content issues that could come up - if the only piece I can say about the character beyond it's fictional details is that it is Japan's ambassador, for example, and I've got 90k of character description text to 1k of this aspect, yea, that's an UNDUE problem. But that's never a reason to delete, it means trim and consider merging if no more sources appear. But notability is still there, it's been shown already.

Notability cannot be driven by the existence of sources (as you keep pushing on the GNG for) but by the evidence that a topic is actually notable from verified sources. That can be debated for all that it is worth - if the notability is truly something notable, or if the source is accurate, or whatever - on article talk pages or at AFD discussions, the only time that notability guidelines can really be used. We'd love for people to consider notability when generating content, but that's impossible to enforce. But we can encourage people if they really think a topic is notable to provide a bare minimum of independent sources to assert that fact to avoid the challenge of AFD. --MASEM (t) 23:19, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I am glad Masem can agree that icons.org.uk is a bad source; the lack of attribution certainly disqualifies it as a reliable source, as (a) we don't who or when the content of the site was written, (b) we don't know if it was peer reviewed, and (c) the disclaimer in the terms of use makes it perfectly clear that the organisation takes no responsibility for any errors or omissions. Its a questionable source at best, and has to be examined for reliability, just like any other source. The same goes for the Doreamon article; it is not notable in the broadest sense if it has not been the subject of significant coverage, and routine government announcements do not qualify as such in accordance with WP:NTEMP. On its own, notability has to be validated. We know that mere mentions in passing or routine announcements (even by government departments) are trivial coverage, and do not confer notability, even in broadest wikt:notable sense of the word. This attribute is not a defence against deletion at AFD, because such an extraordinary claim to notability has to be backed up with high quality sources in accordance with WP:REDFLAG: In 1758, David Hume wrote in An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding: "No testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such a kind, that its falsehood would be more miraculous than the fact which it endeavors to establish". --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 05:16, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

A one time event is sufficient to make something notable - see any other SNG where winning a notable award makes the topic notable, for xample. This is exactly the same thing - a fictional element getting named as a culture icon is not a routine event nor the type of thing that will go away in terms of notable.. Evidence is satisfied easily through a news article reporting that event - just because it appears in the news does not make it fail NTEMP. The fact you cannot agree that being called a cultural icon by a government is an indicator of a wikt:notable topic tells me there's a larger problem than this at hand.

You obvious have a strong dislike of fiction on WP because you're failing to give it a fair treatment just like we would for other topic, including the possibility of criteria or standards or alternate sources of notability, and you are getting in the way of making practical consensus for getting FICT up to guideline per the last ArbCom case. There is nothing here that is making a special case for FICT compared to the other SNGs, yet you're fighting against it, and seemingly because "fiction isn't real", which is a nonsense argument; WP deals with lots of intangible subjects. I don't disagree that fiction can easily get out of hand, but at the same time, it needs to be given its fair due for what consensus wants it to be. You need to assume good faith with the guideline, that editors are not going to twist the language here and suddenly assert every minor character is notable, and let it be. You don't have to like fiction, but you should not be fighting against what other people want to have via consensus in the work. --MASEM (t) 05:33, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Forget what happens elsewhere, lets talk about cultural icons; any claim that an element of fiction is a cultural icon can only be supported by significant coverage from reliable secondary sources in accordance with WP:REDFLAG - this is the consensus when it comes to extraordinary claims of this nature. Unattributeable websites and routine news reports cannot be used to support such a claim. Please remove this attribute which conflicts with this long established principle. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 05:43, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

You are right on the unreliable website aspect, but you are absolutely wrong on a news report. The Doreamon article is 100% proof that Japan appointed this character as a cultural ambassador, satisfying the evidence requirement. It's also an independent source, and a reliable source. Remember, it is not the newspaper claiming that the character is the icon, it is them reporting that the Japanese government is claiming the character is the icon. That is not "routine news coverage", that is an appropriate source for a rather unique occurrence. The claim itself is something that does have to consider REDFLAG, but because it is covered in a mainstream, known-to-be-reliable source, that issue is resolved. --MASEM (t) 11:53, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

In fairness, a cultural icon is not the same thing as a cultural ambassador, and this is where labeling falls down. The only way that the extraordinary claim that a fictional character is a cultural icon (or is an iconographic in any way) is through signficant coverage from reliable secondary sources in accordance with WP:REDFLAG. By labeling an element of fiction as being iconographic, these sources must preceed the claim, not the other way round. Please remove this attribute. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 15:04, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

The difference between a cultural ambassador and icon is trivial; it is evidence of notability of a fictional character either way.

But here is what you are saying, from everything above: "There is a significant difference in the verification of that aspect of notability when it comes directly from the secondary source that makes the claim, compared to the verification from a reliable source, unconnected to that secondary source, that is making that claim, to the point where the latter cannot be used to demonstrate notability". Do you know know how wrong that statement in, particularly in light of WP:V (we seek verifiability) and WP:FAILN. There is no difference in the information towards the notability demonstration - it has been proven and can be verified either way. End of discussion. The fact you don't see the problem with what you're stating implies you have a fundamental misunderstanding of how sources are used on WP, and makes any type of compromise with your view impossible. --MASEM (t) 22:54, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I can't agree with Masem's conclusions, since cultural icon and cultural ambassador are seperate and distinct topics in their own right, with their own sources and share only the adjective "cultural" in their title. Masem would be inadvised to use sources about one topic to arrive at conclusions about another, it is just not going to stand up to peer review. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 08:56, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

If this guideline only said "cultural icon", and someone created an article on a character based on the fact it became a cultural ambassador for a country as proof of its notability, it is not difficult to realize the guidance of being a cultural icon can be applied to a cultural ambassador. Policies and guidelines are not meant to be taken absolutely literally word for word. --MASEM (t) 17:14, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

The principle is the same: such an extraordinary claim would have to be supported by significant coverage from reliable secondary sources. This attribute uses labels, which are not acceptable substitutes for high quality evidence. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 07:05, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

We need to show the fact that a government body, or an established, reliable expert source in the field, has called a fictional element as a "cultural icon", to verify this claim. The entity making that statement or claim is the secondary source; calling a fictional element a "cultural icon" is a very opinionated statement and could be considered synthesis and original research if made by anyone else. To this point I think there is agreement; claiming an element is a cultural icon is an extraordinary claim.

The point of divergence which I have been trying to get across is verifying that claim. The best possible source is the secondary source directly, whether a government document in the case of a gov't agent, or a journal paper or other manner for the established expert in the field. This is, in part, to avoid the middleman and use the most direct source available, as well as the fact that there may be more information or reasoning to explain that element was selected. But this is gravy - above and beyond the bare requirement - on top of the establishment of the element as a cultural icon and not needed to establish the claim above.

But an equally good source for the verification that the secondary source has claimed that the element is a cultural icon is a news article about the secondary source stating the cultural icon claim in a public manner. Again, the fact that the entity has called out this claim already has not changed because we're using a news report. The news report is not making the claim either - they're simply reporting on it. No actual events have changed because it is being written in a news report - the secondary group (the gov't or expert source) still has made the extraordinary claim that the character is a cultural icon. Of course, if one has this news report, it should be possible to work through sources to get to the aforementioned document from the secondary source to avoid the "middleman" of the news agency and use that source directly, but this takes time and money to do. It also may be the case the secondary source document doesn't exist at all, or in a manner we can't use directly (in the case of the Doreamon article, I would expect any official document to be in Japanese, and thus we'd have to rely on translation to including it appropriately in en.wiki). Irregardless, no actual events have changed just because of the nature of the sourcing - the element has still been claimed as a cultural icon by an entity that has the expert authority to make that claim. That is the fact that is needed to pass the "cultural icon" claim.

This is why the news report that is reporting on the secondary source making the claim is acceptable evidence of supporting the "cultural icon" criteria - it is not coming from the secondary source's mouth directly, but reporting on what the secondary source has said. Of course, one can challenge if the news agency is truly reliable and reporting exactly what the source had said (hence the different between MSNBC reporting it and Aint It Cool News reporting it), just as one can challenge whether the secondary source making the claim is of sufficient expertise to make said claim (eg why we agree that icons.org.uk is probably not an appropriate source to make that claim). That's why we'd prefer if we can use the secondary source directly, as that's only one source we need to evaluate as reliable as opposed to both the news agency and the secondary source in the case of a news article, but we don't require this as it is not always readily possible, and sometimes even impossible, to track down to the most direct source.

It would be a totally different situation if the news article (written by some people that is not a field expert) came around and made the claim outright of the element being a cultural icon themselves. In that case, of course I would consider this a failure to meet the criteria and challenge the notability if that were the only claim of it within the WP article. But that is not the situation we are talking about here. --MASEM (t) 12:08, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

To demonstrate that an element of fiction is a cultural icon will require significant coverage from reliable secondary source - there can be no exception, unless we ignore WP:REDFLAG. It does not matter whether the source is a government, or well known cultural body or an academic institution or a newspaper, the coverage still has to show that the coverage is significant, not trivial, nor mere mentions in passing, promotional coverage nor as part of routine news report, otherwise its not truly notable. We can't pretend that an element is notable if it has not been "noted" in the widest sense of the word. Its a big claim to make, and it can't be made up from sources that don't substantiate the claim. As I have said before, it would be far better if we just drop this attribute altogether, as it is very onerous to prove that an element of fiction is a cultural icon in its own right, and in any case, it applies to only handful of iconic characters in every country, so its a very rare occurrence. Because this attribute conflicts with WP:REDFLAG, it needs to be removed. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 08:30, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

No, there is no requirement for coverage to be "significant" otherwise we are repeating the GNG and making this and any other SNG useless. Review all the other SNGs with criteria (BIO, MUSIC, etc.) The criteria is not "significant" coverage but simple verification of facts. Some of those facts can only be asserted by specific entities or bodies that are experts or other qualifications (eg government body). But none of them require "significant coverage". As long as that fact is shown true, REDFLAG is not an issue. "Significant coverage" is an important quality when a topic does not fall into the SNGs to judge notability, but by far it is not a truism that notability requires significant coverage, despite how much you insist it is. In time, we hope an article that is being called notable will develop significant coverage, but that is not a requirement if notability is shown another way. --MASEM (t) 13:39, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

How can trivial coverage provide evidence of notability if it is not significant? --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 20:48, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Notability is not defined by significant coverage; significant coverage is a likely happenstance of a topic being notable. Thus significant coverage is not needed for a notable topic.--MASEM (t) 21:12, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Your right, notability is not defined solely by significant coverage, but a topic can't be notable if it is absent. Trivial coverage, promotional material, flap copy, routine news reports and mentions in passing are not evidence of notability. The only way to demonstrate that a fictional element is a cultural icon (or iconographic in any other way) is through significant coverage as stong claims require high quality sources. Please remove this attribute. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 07:43, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes it can. Notability is not defined by the presence of sources. Sourcing comes as an after effect of a topic being notable, because then people will have a reason to write about it. We use the concepts of secondary sources as one consideration to determine a topic's notability, but again, the logic is not "since all B are A, all A are B", as I described above.

Here's a thought experiment. I have created a stub article on Doreamon that consists of two sentences. "Doreamon is a fictional cartoon cat character from Japan created in the 1960's. In 2009 Doreamon was selected as a cultural ambassador by Japan." There is one source, the MSNBC article. Considering this, would you think article would fail at AFD? (Don't think about what you would say, think about the current consensus for everyone on WP). --MASEM (t) 13:24, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I am sorry Masem, I can't accept your opinion on whether an element of fiction is a cultural icon if your claim is not supported by evidence in accordance with WP:REDFLAG. As regards your Doreamon example, I don't beleive you would actually create an article based on a routine news report from one source, as this runs contrary to WP:NTEMP and WP:NOT#NEWS. If it did go to AfD, the covergage would probably be merged into the article about the relevant Japanese government department, such as Cultural or Foreign Affairs. Get rid of this attribute, it just does not work in the absence of sigificiant coverage from reliable secondary sources that are independent of the work's creators and promoters. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 09:31, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Eliminated subjective criteria

I have eliminated these subjective criteria[8], since the arguments they are based on have all been repudiated at WP:ATA and do not standup to critical review since they are based purely on personal opinion, not content policy. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 08:44, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

You know I more or less agree with you on this, but I predict your changes will not last long. Reyk _YO! 08:48, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Yup, because this is still a work in progress and there is no consensus to remove them yet, I've put them back. Gavin's application of logic above is completely wrong and cannot be tolerated. --MASEM (t) 13:10, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I've decided that its best to do the path of least resistance here, based on the fact that we've yet to find an example of a case where if one of the criteria is met that there are zero secondary sources for it otherwise. I've rewritten that section to keep the "criteria" but now only as examples of "real-world notability" (secondary sources are still required). This is to help explain to the reader of what type of information we are looking for notability of fictional elements. I hope it can be agreed that as long as we're backing this on secondary sources, these are appropriate examples of (and no longer criteria) notability. --MASEM (t) 13:44, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

It is Masem's logic that is flawed and is giving rise to this misleading guidance. These "attributes" are simply devices to get around WP:GNG, by implying that trivial coverage, or questionable sources or editorial opinion or a mix of these can be used as substitutes for evidence of notability, but they can't. The guideline can't be used to infer that an element or work of fiction is notable, if there is no evidence to support this claim; an element of fiction can only be "considered notable" is there is evidence to show it is. We've yet to find a single example of a case where any of these attributes can be applied in the real world; for this reason I find the title of this section to be ironic. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 17:12, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Did you even read what I changed or wrote? I am no longer pushing for the attributes, and dropping back to the blank GNG statement, but only leaving those attributes as examples of what secondary sources will provide for real-world notability. You are not demonstrating good faith in your approach here. --MASEM (t) 17:19, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

In fairness, I did read them, and you have not addressed my concerns: we've yet to find a single example of a case where any of these attributes can be applied in the real world. The fact that Masem has never provided specific examples of articles which rely on them independently of WP:GNG. As far as I am concened the issues are the same: this section is just a pile of subjective junk because it is defective guidance that can't actually be applied to any article topic. We need good faith evidence that they actually work, not platitudes and vague mutterings. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 08:47, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

So its very obvious you did not read what I put because it reads exactly how you want it. It says "notability for fiction elements is shown by meeting the GNG" (paraphrasing). It then goes on to further enforce that this must be based on real-world notability, and examples (but not GNG-bypassing! secondary sources are still required) of where this notability can be found. In other words, it now is at least as, if not more demanding than the GNG in requiring significant coverage in secondary sources. --MASEM (t) 13:09, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

You still have not addressed my concerns: we've yet to find a single example of a case where any of these attributes can be applied in the real world. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 10:21, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

The Doreamon example is just such a case. But note, with the changed version, just saying and one source saying its a cultural icon is not sufficient for notability in order to satisfy your wishes. The point of these examples is not to step past the GNG nor specifically to be notability for these elements, but that if a fictional element meets one of these examples, then before you write the article you can likely go out and find more sources in addition to that one aspect to build something that will meet the GNG. (Eg: the current state of the actual Doraemon article, while not perfect, shows many other sources in support of its general notability which I would likely have found if I had started research from just knowing it was a cultural icon). This would also apply to something like TARDIS or Dalek, most of the shorts on The 50 Greatest Cartoons, and so forth; just the fact (even if provided by one secondary source) is a good facet of notability to include, but additional coverage by secondary sources to meet the GNG is still required; the examples given only are cases were you will likely have no major problem locating these additional sources. --MASEM (t) 13:05, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

You will have to spell out how these elements provide evidence of notability are not already notable, because as far as I can see, these elements already meet WP:GNG. As far as I can see, Doreamon, Dalek, and TARDIS are all notable topics in their own right, whilst The 50 Greatest Cartoons is not a notable book per se, and is not cited in any of the cartoons listed in it, so if anything this is good example of these attributes not working. I sincerely doubt that this is the route to establishing notability: none of these examples is any way clear cut, in fact this seems to be a very tortuous route to demonstrating notability. There seems to be no practical application of these attributes to real articles. We really need to see evidence that these attributes work, rather than Masem's abstract opinions that do. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 14:56, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Gavin, you are completing missing the point. The section "Real-world notability" is not designed to establish workarounds of the GNG. They are instead simply ways to encourage editors to consider what to look for to establish the types of fictional elements that they will likely be able to find additional sources to show the GNG is met before creating the article, or as part of improvements on it if it has been tagged as lacking notability. Fictional elements that possess the listed attributes are bound to have more coverage elsewhere, thus once those sources are found, the GNG can be shown to be met. It is advice to editors and not inclusion guidance. That is, if an article about a character only stated, as its real-world aspect, that it was a cultural icon and did not go into that aspect or anything other real-world aspect further (instead focusing on the fictional aspects of the character), the language I've included would not stop an AFD deletion of that actual since it is lacking GNG coverage. That said, something that is a cultural icon is likely to have more sources about it, so the "Real-world notability" section is meant to direct people to find those sources first before writing the article as to avoid that AFD. --MASEM (t) 15:11, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I am not missing the point, in fairness. None of these attributes can be applied in the real world. They are all abstractions that only work inside the head of Masem, because they can only be applied to elements or works of fiction that already meet the requirements of WP:GNG. Please, enough beating around the bush, get rid of them, for even if they are not designed to evade or avoid having to satisfy GNG, they serve no useful purpose and they provide confusing guidance. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 07:27, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Gavin, you are deleting these for no reason. Again, I've compromised to say that the GNG must be met, period, no special cases, nothing; the reason to have these examples (they are not bypassing criteria or anything to get around the GNG) of meeting the GNG for fictional topics are to help point editors to what they need to look for and find to locate the sources to build out the coverage to meet the GNG, and specifically focusing them on real-world content over plot. Thus, it is not about these "working" as evidence of notability; one just needs to build it up considering coverage that has elements of this nature in them. Even if an editor managed to show one of these points to be true through a single source but had little else to go on, then it would be expected that the GNG is not meet and thus the topic could be delete; there are no special exemptions here. --MASEM (t) 12:59, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

In fairness, these elements are disputed for the reasons I have stated above. I would like to see examples of how they work. So far, the only topics that Masem has put forward for discussion to illustrate how they work are already notable in accordance with WP:GNG. Masem needs to provide solid examples for each element, or withdraw the section altogether. We can't accept Masem's repeated assertions that work if they can't be applied in the real world. Just so as Masem is clear, I think this is rubbish guidance, and a lack of practical application must be obvious to Masem as well, unless he has lost all capacity for critical analysis. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 18:07, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Gavin, you have failed to read and understand their purpose repeatedly. I've explained over and over that these are not there to bypass the GNG, only to explain some common ways for fictional elements to meet the GNG, but still requiring the significant coverage of those aspects as per the GNG. There is no special case or accommodations being asked for for fictional elements here. In this light, these are very practical examples of how to meet GNG. --MASEM (t) 18:29, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

You blame me, yet provide no examples. We need to see how they work in practise (if at all). Provide working examples or take them out. This is not an unreasonable request. Would you buy a used car without a test drive? --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 18:54, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

We've listed plenty of examples of cases where it was impossible to agree that the one-off mention of that notable factor was not sufficient to meet notability, but that when you consider other aspects of the element as a whole, including that one-off mention, you got something that was notable: Doreamon, Daleks, TARDIS, Klingon Language, "What's Opera, Doc". Plus, common sense says that meeting the GNG for fictional characters will likely include one or more of these aspects (specifically discussion by critics). Again, read these as example sources that are part of the necessity of meeting the GNG to show a fictional element notable, not a means of exempting them from the GNG. --MASEM (t) 19:04, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

All of these examples Masem has given are notable in accordance with WP:GNG, with the exception of What's Opera, Doc?, whose sourcing is a bit thin. How do these elements apply to this article? --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 08:46, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Because the elements listed are facets of the GNG coverage in those respective articles, if not when you consider what other existing assuredly-notable fictional element articles on WP already. (That is, if I were to summarize all existing, established-notable fictional elements and pull out common aspects of what type of information in their GNG coverage they had, these examples would be at least a subset of that) Thus, as examples of getting to GNG coverage for a new fictional element, telling a new editor to look for GNG coverage that includes these types of real-world coverage examples among other non-specific secondary coverage will help them know what to look for to build out a strong GNG case for a fictional element.(And for "What's Opera Doc", look at the actual sources listed, as opposed to the inline source, you'll notice a few articles that are specifically dissections of this cartoon) --MASEM (t) 13:48, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

This is nonsense, Masem. If these elements are facets of the WP:GNG then....they would actually appear in WP:N, but they don't. The don't appear there because they are implausible abstractions, without real world equivalents. Whereas GNG applies right across Wikipedia to thousands, if not millions or articles, so far you have not provided a single instance of an example topic to which these "elements" can be applied. This guideline is about the inclusion criteria for fictional topics, not a "how to to build out a strong GNG case for a fictional element". Please get rid of this section. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 14:11, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

No, these would not appear at WP:N because WP:N applies to everything, while this is for how fiction is handled, so these are elements that are specific to fiction. If we are starting from the point that the only inclusion guideline for fiction is the GNG (which I do have to agree seems to be at the present the only working place to start from), then there is nearly no point in having WP:FICT, in the sense that there is no alternative inclusion mechanisms for fiction. But that said, notability for fiction likely needs to be even a notch more narrower than the GNG, requiring that that notability is real-world based as to meet with WP:NOT#PLOT. Thus, there is absolutely nothing wrong with using a guideline for determining the notability of fictional elements to describe what type of facets can be used to build up a good coverage of a fictional element to show real-world notability, particularly when there is otherwise no need for this guideline to exist. Note that several other SNGs have "Resources" sections that are pretty much advice, at minimum. There is no difference here to having "what are good ways to build up GNG coverage". --MASEM (t) 14:44, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

They aren't unique to fiction, though: They're cribbed from guidelines on works and so trying to fit in-universe elements to them still feels like a square peg in a round hole, even after all this discussion. Nifboy (talk) 15:56, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Do you see anyplace in WP:N that iterates what types of coverage (beyond secondary) meets the GNG? We don't have that. That's not to say we need it there, but instead need to focus it on what is the best way to help those that want to create an article on a fictional element to look for to justify that. There are enough cases of AFD where the keepers against a clearly-non-notable character point to "but he's critical to the plot" and provide what they believe are appropriate secondary sources to show this, only to be shown they are still talking about the in-universe aspect and not the real-world aspect. If we go back and presume WP:FICT is the intersection of WP:N and WP:FICT, there must be a tighter GNG requirement in FICT that coverage must be able the real-world aspects instead of just being "notable to the work", and thus listing out examples shows exactly what to look for. The language of the examples is a bit jaunted and I would change it to be vaguer on some numbers, but the concepts are still completely valid - these are what we speak when talking about real-world notability and what's necessary to show for a fictional element. --MASEM (t) 16:33, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

These examples just don't work, no matter how big Masem makes the round hole into which he is trying to fit the square peg. The concept of "real world notability" (as opposed to Wikipedia's version) is just an abstraction from Masem's imagination that can't be applied to writing Wikipedia articles, and can't be tested anywhere except in Masem's mind. This whole section can be boiled down to WP:ATA#Crystal which has been discredited as stock deletion defence that has no substance. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 22:27, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Masem, I understand where you're coming from for transformative/non-transformative, but I think it's best to just make an essay on that and tie it to this page. As to the point about what goes in, your right and we had that discussion when there was the last major RfC with Paul and it was near-universaly rejected that this page should deal with what goes in it other than to point out there needs to be some items in there that will help it pass notability. We can pass the buck here, as we should, to WP:NOT#PLOT and WP:WAF.陣内_Jinnai 02:25, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

First, to Gavin, when I say real-world notable, I do not mean "notability as it relates to the definition of the word outside of wikipedia" but to "wikipedia's definition of notability specifically focusing on the real-world (not in-universe) aspects". And again, this is not anything crystal about this; one is expected to show significant coverage, which include these elements, to meet the GNG. You seem to keep thinking this is the previous approach where these are like criteria of other SNGs, which I've tried over and over to explain it to be different.

Secondly, WAF is the wrong place to discuss notability of fiction if we already have this. And PLOT's definitely the wrong place; moving to an eassy nullifies any need for this page. This page, unless we determine does not need to exists, needs to treat the issue of the intersection of WP:N and WP:NOT#PLOT. At this point, this page starts from requiring WP:N/GNG coverage and restricting it further to make sure the real-world (not in-universe) aspects are addressed. This has zero to do with the primary/secondary/transformative discussion below. That's a completely different discussion. --MASEM (t) 06:02, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Masem has still not provided any working examples that could be used to demonstrate how these elements might work. We cannot base this guideline on obtuse abstractions; not only are they difficult to intepret, but if they can't actually be applied to any fictional topics, then what is the point of having them in this guideline? This elements are of such mind blowing byzantine complexity that you would need to be a Jesuit priest with a PhD in linguistic contortionism to understand them. Get rid of this section now. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 08:07, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Gavin, you are making zero attempts at compromise here and are now running much bad faith. Examples have been given over and over and you chose to ignore them. I don't care if you dislike fiction, but it cannot be treated it differently (particularly stricter) than any other possible topic. --MASEM (t) 14:16, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Masem, bad faith does not enter into it. Without any working examples, there is no way of telling whether these elements are workable or not. We have discussed these elements in terms of abstract concepts, but we don't actually examples of them being applicable to real world articles. You have got to meet me half way on this: we have to prove that they actually work, otherwise they are just making this guideline unclear and verbose. I can't see how you can defend these elements if you can't provide working examples. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 15:00, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I have eliminated the implausible bits of this section for which examples will never be found. In its currect state, I am happy to compromise with Masem[9]. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 16:31, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

First, to Gavin, those changes you made to not have consensus here, let alone globally; indeed it is the opposite, that some other ways of defeining notability outside the GNG is what SNGs are here for. However, just like GNG, those criteria that a SNG are only presumed and in an AfD, especially if sources don't appear for some time, to be non-notable. The same process happens for those items that may meet the bare essentials of the GNG (2 independant secondary sources giving signifigant analysis and commentary on the subject) and could still be found to be non-notable. The alternate methods listed in FICT do the same basic purpose; they ascribe that sense of presumption which can be revoked in time given (the lack of) evidence.

To Masem, yes WP:FICT should deal with notability of fictional elements, but that does not include contnent or style above and beyond the absolute minimum to assert notability.陣内_Jinnai 21:03, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

I was not meaning for them to be interpreted as style or content, but as means of judging notability. If the language is coming off that way, it needs to be fixed. --MASEM (t) 21:23, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

The amendments made by Jinnai do not clarify this section in any way. Some of the examples given, such as being "taught" as a subject at an accredited university, are unworkable. I am yet to see any example articles that show how these "examples of how elements can be considered notable" work in practise. Can anyone enlighten me? --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 08:09, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I cannot see how their removal helps Wikipedia considering one of SNGs goals is to give alternate, and yes, somewhat subjective, criteria for alternate routes. However, the GNG is also subjective with just objective criteria so there is no fundamental problem here.陣内_Jinnai 21:30, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

If alternate means "unreal", then no. I note you have got sucked into this discussion without any workable examples either. I would like to see them work within the context of real articles, not just as abstract concepts. Lets agree to get rid of the implausible examples. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 22:17, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I keep seeing Masem and Jinnai reverting Gavin's changes, saying he needs consensus to remove the contested bits. Well, I can't see where there was ever any consensus to put them in. Am I to understand that people can unilaterally add all the inclusionist wonkery they like, but if anyone objects they need to convene a special assembly of the United Nations before it can be taken out again? My view is that all this stuff does not reflect community practice. Despite being repeatedly challenged, Masem and Jinnai have not been able to provide a single concrete example of how it's going to work, so how can it possibly reflect community practice? It looks to me that the contested sections are a confused and vague idea of what a handful of editors think the community should do, not what it actually does do. Furthermore, my opinion is that the notability guidelines should if anything be stricter than the GNG, for the simple and uncontestable reason that the real universe is inherently more important than any fictional one. Gavin is 100% correct here. Reyk _YO! 02:19, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Because these are not criteria to bypass the GNG requirement or anything else, but instead examples of what editors should be looking for from sources to should that not only are fictional elements notable by the GNG but also for real-world notability. There is no "process" or "community practice" for these, because they are advice to editors, nothing to do with process or practice; they are not to be used as reasons at AFD to keep articles or anything of that nature. This is a change from what they were before say 2 months ago where they were criteria written to allow fictional elements to step around the GNG, which seemed to cause all of Gavin's complaints. --MASEM (t) 02:27, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

And just to emphasize the point to make sure its absolutely clear; this section makes zero attempt to weaken the GNG requirement and perhaps makes it even stronger by the emphasis of real-world notability. --MASEM (t) 02:41, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

The vast, vast majority of articles' notability is built on substantial critical commentary. It forms the basis of so many articles that I think it's misleading to suggest that anything else could establish notability in anything except rare corner cases. For characters whom it's lacking, it often doesn't make sense to have a separate article, regardless of any other consideration (Pac-Man (character)). Nifboy (talk) 02:55, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

But again, that's not what these are doing; they are not there to describe ways of showing notability to bypass the GNG. They are means, in part, to build an appropriate amount of significant coverage required by GNG , specific for fictional elements and focusing on their real-world impact. --MASEM (t) 03:15, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Pretty much all articles on fictional elements that pass the GNG do it through critical commentary. It's not good advice to tell editors to look for rare gems of cultural icons or school subjects, criteria which are not "specific for fictional elements". Nifboy (talk) 04:11, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

They may not be specific for fiction, but they highly the need of real-world information that is unique to fiction. We don't want editors coming along with weak third party sources that assert a character is a notable character of a series, instead we want them to focus outside the work. --MASEM (t) 04:19, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

There are exceptionally few examples of strong third-party sources about fictional elements that aren't more closely tied to the work they represent instead. That has a substantial impact on our coverage, and I think the guideline should reflect that. Nifboy (talk) 04:49, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Of course most sources that will be used as part of the GNG coverage requirement for a fictional character are going to based on that work of fiction; that's fine. What we want is to show through notability why anyone who would otherwise never read or see the work of fiction to care about that character -that means we need to be using real-world notability that goes beyond what happens in the plot. (This is where PLOT comes into play here.) Whether that's the most common aspect, commentary and criticism on the element within the work, or a more tangible examples of being a cultural icon or being taught at a major course, these all take the element out of context enough to evaluate it on its own. This is in contrast to some third-party (possibly secondary) sources that simply assert a character as an important lead character and outline where the character is lead through the work but never ever discusses the character as a separate aspect from the plot - which I think we would agree would not be anywhere close to meeting the GNG (otherwise, any recap or detailed episode summary from sites like Television without Pity would be become fair game and we'd have an unwanted flood of fictional element articles. This section is there to help understand this distinction. --MASEM (t) 06:05, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Took a stab at rewriting the section to match what I believe is a description of current practice. I left the Doraemon example in as an example of a "strong" source and noted WP:SS applies where the element's impact is tied to the work's impact. Nifboy (talk) 17:38, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

What's ironically funny is that we're nearly back to a version of FICT from maybe 2-3 years ago? We classified fictional elements into three classes:

1. Elements that were notable beyond the bounds of their work of fiction, something like Superman - this is where the elements actually had some real-world impacts (note, these met the GNG)
2. Elements that were notable within the context of their works, such as Trapped in the Closet (South Park); that is, while there's real-world sources such as reviews and the like, that entity is still best known for being part of the work of fiction itself and not standalone - that's where criticism and commentary come into play (note, these met the GNG too)
3. Everything else, which is either removed or trimmed and placed in the context of larger articles (this is where the GNG is not met and thus cannot have their own articles).

I don't think the edits cover what the original statements said, because it seems to downplay the first type of notability listed above - which itself it is uncommon, but not exceptional. --MASEM (t) 17:52, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I think they were good rules, but we could never explain what a "major character" was within policy without breaking something. Now we can: Replace "major character" with "character that has substantial reception specific to itself", basically WP:WAF + WP:SS. In contrast, I think the previous version overstated the first type too much because, if they were "borderline" they could still pass a type 2 test with flying colors. Nifboy (talk) 18:11, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh , we definitely don't want to introduce "major character" or the like. Just that I think it is good to distinguish (and maybe that better captures the points of the previous version before Nifboy's edits) between the most common form of fictional element notability - that through reception of the element as part of the work - and that notability that comes from the rarer case of elements that have a real-world impact. I've made a couple edits to Nifboy's language to capture that point better. The third case (all that fall out) drop through and thus handled by the second half of the current proposal. --MASEM (t) 18:24, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I think that covers a substantial chunk of the past few months of discussion. It's exceptionally hard to argue that an element is transcendental at AfD, which is why Gavin and I have been pushing away from it and towards more common/practical sources even if they don't establish "separate" notability; the end result is the same. Nifboy (talk) 18:44, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I must agree. If we make exceptional claims about an element of fiction ("major", "iconic", et al), then to substantiate them, as such claims require high-quality sources, rather than using descriptions of what high quality sources look like. I must commend the new wording. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 20:33, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm just noting that the section is now saying what I was trying to have it say, just in much brevity and fewer words. Everything still needed/needs to be based on sources to affirm GNG notability. --MASEM (t) 22:30, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Most of my own qualms about the page have been resolved, now that the specific examples have been replaced with a broad class of content that we generally look for. Nifboy (talk) 05:19, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Mine too; I am happy with this draft. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 17:44, 9 May 2010 (UTC)