Wikipedia talk:Notability (fiction)

Reducing page to a simply essay with links to guide

Given that as this point, I think the most that watch this page can likely agree there's no special action needed for fiction, I propose to convert this from a failed proposal to an essay that hilights these points:

• Notability from fiction should follow the same guidelines outlined at WP:N and the WP:GNG
• Editors should review WP:WAF for details on writing articles on fiction.
• Editors may seek additional advise from the large projects that deal with fiction (listing out the big ones like WP:TV, WP:FILMS, WP:VG, etc.)

Short, sweet, and barring any major insights of how to approach it better, a way to get closure on all this. --MASEM (t) 19:24, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

It sucks but you're right. Support the essay as phrased... with any further refinements achieved through WP:BRD. Shooterwalker (talk) 13:04, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

That's fine as long as we point out lists are covered by WP:SALAT, not GNG.陣内_Jinnai 16:20, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Please review the major edit to reduce this to a short essay. Also, a note that with the recent RFC on lists closed, we're working in *some* advice about lists into WP:N, though SALAT is still the major hub for list-related notability. --MASEM (t) 20:11, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

• Looks good. I re-sorted it into some headings and tried to write a short lead. Shooterwalker (talk) 00:53, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
• Looks good too. Apart from trivial changes, I've also changed "Non-notable elements of fiction" in #Lists of fictional elements to "Individually non-notable elements of fiction" to better illustrate that a couple of not-notable-enough fiction articles may very well make a fine merged list. A native speaker should review the grammar of the sentence Articles on fiction elements are expected to cover more about "real-world" aspects of the element... though. – sgeureka ^t•c 09:40, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

(Oppose A look at the archives of this m[age should make it clear that there is no consensus that the notability of fictional elements is determined in any useful way by the very general concepts of the guideline WP:N, and in particular by the criterion of th sub-guidline WP:GNG-- whetherin a positive sense, that those elements for which such references can be found are necessarily worth an article, or in the other sense, that distive focused references for the elements prevent an article in they are discussed in general references on the fiction.The history of the last two or three years of this has been the attempt to reach a statement that would guide what we decide in AfD discussions; this not having suceeded in getting teh necessary superconsensuss because of the strident opposition of a few individuals, the attempt has been to describe what we actually decide. This has foundered over the unfortunate fact that what we do is not very consistent, and depends primarily upon the degree to which z a sufficient number of Wikipedians are interested in the fiction. The principle that really applies is WP:BEFORE, that there are alternatives to deletion thatwould apply in almost every instance. There is essentially no character that has been proposed for a separate article for which a redirect at least would not be suitable, and the GNG offers little help in this--andthe proposal here offers no help whatsoever. DGG ( talk ) 06:58, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Have you tried proposing a guideline that represents what you see as this consensus? I'm always in favor of writing down whatever agreements and compromises the community has made. I'm just wondering if you had a role in any of the rejected proposals and why you think they were rejected. Shooterwalker (talk) 14:44, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose Failed proposal seems to summarise its status best. Changing this status might suggest that there is some sort of consensus which is not the case. Colonel Warden (talk) 15:30, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
  • This version of the page is not a proposal. It is simply a placeholder that indicates that at this spot there were several failed proposals, and until someone comes along with something better, here's where you can go to find links to determine notability for fiction. If it were marked failed, people would take the information on this page as false or non-applicable, and thus possibly would ignore notability via the GNG and other set aspects in relationship to fictional works. And there was consensus that the advice - as "Essay" - is appropriate to list out, but as you see, it is not introducing any new statements that don't already exist in other policy or guidelines. --MASEM (t) 15:57, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Fiction related proposal

Hi folks, could people please take a look at [1] and chime in with their thoughts? Hobit (talk) 23:16, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Query about a history-merge

• This history-merge discussion started in Wikipedia:Cut and paste move repair holding pen:-

* Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has revisions. Revisions before the major change on 7 December 2010 must be moved to either WP:notability (fiction)/proposed-12-7-10, WP:notability (fiction)/proposed-12-9-07, User:Phil Sandifer/Fiction proposal, and Wikipedia:Plot-only description of fictional works if possible. --George Ho (talk) 00:30, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

• • The asked-for history-split point in Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) (20:08, 7 December 2010‎ User:Masem (3,158 bytes) (-8,276)‎ (cut out non-essay stuff....) seems to be a text-split point; the end part of the page was deleted, and may have been put in another page. The history of the beginning of the page is continuous across this point.
    1. WP:notability (fiction)/proposed-12-7-10 does not exist.
    2. Wikipedia:Notability (fiction)/proposed-12-9-07's history is all before this point.
    3. User:Phil Sandifer/Fiction proposal's history is continuous across this point.
    4. Wikipedia:Plot-only description of fictional works's history is continuous across this point.
  • Please, what do you want me to do? Anthony Appleyard (talk) 14:43, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
    • ...Let's ask people in WT:notability (fiction) and its contributors, shall we? As for #1, I realized that it was formerly a guideline, but it failed. I don't know what else to do except (as far as I can see) abandon #2-4, as they turned out to be separate proposals, which were for rejuvinating "Notability (fiction)", that are not worth moving revisions into. --George Ho (talk) 15:04, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:13, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

What I think might have been asked is:

• Split the history of Wikipedia:Notability (fiction)

• Take This old revision, as edited by Jinnai (talk | contribs) at 16:19, 7 December 2010, and every previous version, and move to Wikipedia:Notability (fiction), failed proposal.
• Take every subsequent version, and move to Wikipedia:Notability (fiction), essay.

At least, that is what I was thinking, at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Notability (fiction). However, I think that the MfD is headed for a straight keep, and that a few more people should be asked before going ahead with such a thing. I'd certainly wait until ofter the MfD is closed. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:21, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

While I rather expected it to be tagged, not deleted, in the end (or moved, renamed, or the like) one has to ask, looking through the old proposals: Did anyone actually ever try to write an actual notability guideline for fiction, instead of attempting to duplicate WP:MOSWAF? Notability guidelines are not meant to be content guidelines,, they're meant to give guidance on what is notable. Frankly, I can't help but think that every proposal deserved to fail, for not actually being any sort of notability guideline. 86.** IP (talk) 20:01, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Wait! Let's move everything before 2008 or 2007 into WP:notability (fiction), guideline 2005. What do you think? --George Ho (talk) 20:08, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

We shouldn't split this. Instead, the best idea is to give pointers to the last "best" revisions as mileposts so that users can see the past history attempts. Splitting it up - particularly with them all labeled failed, would be a problem, and will also confuse the talk page issues. --MASEM (t) 20:23, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

WP:PSTS and reviews of fictional works

FYI

 – Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

Please see Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Film#Proposed clarification of reviews' relation to WP:PSTS and MOS:TONE. This is a request for comments in the general sense, but not a WP:RFC at this stage, being an initial discussion draft (broadened to cover writing about fiction generally), building on a lengthy discussion/dispute at the same page.

It does not presently address notability-and-sourcing issues, but this may be an oversight to address.
 — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  15:26, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

The Streels of Urtah

At some point, someone decided an article was needed for a location of some significance which appears in two novels, Shardik and Maia. I don't think it's worth having that article which has no sources and little relevance, but I don't know how to go about nominating it for deletion and would appreciate any help that can be offered. ZarhanFastfire (talk) 00:17, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Is this TV series even notable?

I am starting to doubt the notability of this TV series for a few reasons.

First of all, the author isn't even notable enough to warrant her own article. See this diff. I don't even think the book is notable because it only has one source. I am requesting a deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Martha Speaks (book).

Second of all, even one one Wikipedia editor referred to Martha Speaks as "not even meet[ing] notability guidelines".

Third, it relies heavily on first-party (primary) sources for its essential (important) information. There are only three second-party sources - two of them are dead links, the third was published 10 years ago. Thus, the editor above could be right about the TV show failing WP:GNG. As an ordinary children's show, it probably would never get worldwide significance and recognition. Exponentially far more TV shows have worldwide recognition than do — and the difference between a show that gets an article and a show that doesn't is not a matter of "any show gets to have one as soon as an editor actually takes the time to make one", but of "shows only get one if their characters actually receive real-world coverage and analysis of their significance". Unfortunately, Martha Speaks failed the test, big time.

The characters list was redirected in a deletion discussion a few weeks ago. Additionally, the characters's individual articles have been redirected for lack of notability:

[2][3][4][5][6]

Even think about it, think about more notable shows like VeggieTales and Danny Phantom. Those shows warrant articles and character lists because of their massive notability. If you even asked me, Daniel Fenton, Bob the Tomato, and Larry the Cucumber themselves would be notable to warrant their own articles. But as seen in the much above more discussions, Helen Lorraine, her Daniel Fenton-inspired father, and Mariella clearly aren't even notable to warrant any. Arthur (TV series) is much more notable and has its titular protagonist warrant an article. Just because Martha Speaks is affiliated with a notable TV show doesn't mean it is just as notable.

A search of Martha Speaks on JSTOR provides 0 sufficient results. The show is mentioned in some RS but they aren't independent of the topic in question. Zero results on Google News also.

Here are some reasons why I can argue that Martha Speaks is not notable. Being an average and now cancelled TV show, it would take a long time for it to reach notability standards, unlike VT, DP, and Arthur. 2407:7000:A269:8200:C74:70FB:2A75:F307 (talk) 07:26, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

I cannot see that this is a RfC matter. First, have the suggestions at WP:RFCBEFORE been tried? Second, why was no category provided, and what is the brief and neutral statement? See WP:RFCST. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:05, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

• Comment the book Martha Speaks is notable, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Martha Speaks (book). Coolabahapple (talk) 07:38, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

oh, and the author, Susan Meddaugh, is notable, being the author of multiple notable books, wikiarticles just haven't been created yet. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:52, 14 November 2018 (UTC)