On 6/25/07, SonOfYoungwood(a)aol.com
<SonOfYoungwood(a)aol.com> wrote:
In a message dated 6/25/2007 1:35:20 PM Central
Daylight Time,
cunctator(a)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.
Sometimes, but not always. The important thing to recognize is if a
work of fiction can be judged notable then it shouldn't be necessary
for every element to be discussed outside before its inclusion in
Wikipedia.
In other words, to write about Law and Order episodes you should have
to demonstrate that the series is notable. Then you can write about
individual episodes and characters as long as you cite the episodes
themselves.
That's a sufficient and reasonable notability policy that excludes
nonsense material from Wikipedia without unnecessarily removing useful
information from Wikipedia or burdening interested editors with the
fear that their work will be deleted by someone with an axe to grind
about how lame television, comic books, or video games are.
That may apply to series and their episodes (and even then, I'd say it
somewhat depends on the particular series in question), but some
fictional universes have spawned enourmous article families and the
tendency seems to be to spin out too quickly. Would you say that the
obvious notability Star Wars enjoys covers every related article? I
believe the basic notability tenet that if it's notable, it has most
probably been covered in secondary sources, should apply to all members
of article families that are not structured as a simple hierarchy (e.g.
series/season/episode).