Thomas Dalton schrieb:
1.) It
establishes the fact that fiction articles are only notable if there
is out-of-universe infomration available
Information is neither "in-universe" or "out-of-universe", it's
just a
collection of facts. It's the presentation of that information which
is in- or out-of-universe, any in-universe content can be re-written
out-of-universe (although a large amount of in-universe content is
often a clue that the article needs trimming, so I'm not suggesting
blindly rewriting articles). I think what you're trying to say is that
there should be non-primary reliable sources in order for something to
be notable, which is probably a good rule of thumb.
IMHO it's not only about
notability, but also about a general
sanity-check. Articles featuring thousands of details of some fiction
franchise without any information as to its real world framework must be
discouraged. Going over notability is just one of several ways to
address this issue - and a good one, imo, simply because fiction
articles are not exempt from the burden to establish notability of the
subject.
Also, I don't think any in-universe content can easily be rewritten as
out-of-universe, you'd need incredibly detailed sources for that, if I
interpret policy correctly. A section describing the character traits of
some alien race would need to be rewritten along the lines of why and
how the authors/designers/directors made the character that way. In most
cases, sources like that don't exist - which shouldn't keep us from
implementing the proposed guideline changes. The basic premise is that
in fact there is a lot of unsuitable material, we just need plausible
syntax to get rid of it while preserving as much useful material as
possible.