SonOfYoungwood@aol.com wrote:
In a message dated 6/25/2007 1:35:20 PM Central Daylight Time, cunctator@gmail.com writes:
THANK you. This is the type of unhelpful guideline that only serves to encourage people to delete well-written, interesting, and useful content from Wikipedia because they personally don't like it.
Actually, the WP:FICT rewrite strongly discourages deletion and highly suggests using other methods, such as merging, transwiki, or cleanup. The fact of the matter is that notability on Wikipedia is established by coverage in secondary sources. With respect fo fiction, secondary sources cover out-of-universe information. Therefore, for fiction to be encyclopedic, it has to have out-of-universe information either in the article or available (proof should be provided). It's not about "interesting" material or material people "don't like".
The whole exercise seems to be devoted to substituting one version of bafflegab with another, although I dod note that a section in the current guideline encouraging people to be bold is being completely excised. What people need to know about an article on fiction is that it is in fact fiction. That is all we need to know about whether something is in or out of our universe. We need to keep things simple. We need to recognize that many minor characters and incidents probably don't have enough information available to warrant a full article, but we need to approach that with great flexibility. Some small incidents like the knocking at the gate in "Macbeth" can have a lot of unexpected dimensions.
Ec