User:A Nobody/Inclusion guidelines

Because Wikipedia’s community of editors and readers is a diverse group with many varied interests, inclusion of articles on Wikipedia is based on objective evidence and appropriate sources, rather than on subjective feelings of importance or usefulness. In order to be included on Wikipedia, the content of our articles must be verifiable through multiple reliable published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. In addition, it must be consistent with the kind of content found in general encyclopedias, specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, or gazetteers, and avoid the kinds of content that Wikipedia is not.

Criteria for individual articles

For a subject to be included as an article, it should be covered directly and in detail by at least two reliable sources, including at least one secondary source, that are not just a directory listing. Lists are acceptable when their overall subject is verified through multiple reliable sources that are not just a mere directory listing.

"Third-party" (also sometimes called "independent") specifically excludes all sources created by, licensed by, approved by, or compensated by the subject, or, in the case of a fictional topic, created by, licensed by, approved by, or compensated by the publishers, creators, authors, or illustrators of the subject;
"Two" specifically excludes the numbers zero and one.
"Directory listing" specifically excludes restaurant listings, censuses, atlases, and television guides.

Cases where a stand-alone article might not be appropriate

Generally speaking Wikipedia's purpose is to provide humanity with a comprehensive reference guide and catalog of human knowledge. As such, editors are encouraged to focus on article improvement, not deletion, give articles a realistic chance to develop, keep in mind articles' potential and not just how they look now, and not try to delete an article actively being improved; however, sometimes merging, redirecting, and even deletion may be appropriate.

Merging and redirecting

Verifiable content that cannot realistically grow beyond stub class may be merged with the stub redirected to the merge location. Per the GFDL, we cannot merge and delete.

Deletion

While deletion is considered a last resort, copyright violations, hoaxes, and libel will be removed and/or deleted.

Countries with existing or former colonies and/or dependencies

The below list of great- and super-powers have historical ruled other countries as either colonies or dependencies. A number of these countries also have prominence as members of the United Nations security council and as members of the Group of 8 Economic Powers. Thus, their bilateral relations with most countries in the world are preseumed notable.

Table of notable fictional universes

The table below notes fictional universes for which fictional elements appear in comic books, universe-specific specialized encyclopedias, television shows, toys, novels, replicas, films, and video games. Fictional characters and weapons from these fictional universes are thus likely to be among the most notable of fictional characters and weapons, i.e. they meet a "common sense" standard of notability. As such, due to the fictional elements' appearances in mulitiple and diverse kinds of media, lists of characters, weapons, etc. for these particular franchises provide a navigational function to other articles and a location to which to merge content.

Universe	Comic(s)	Film(s)	Novel(s)	Television show(s)	Toy(s) and replica(s)	Universe-specific print enclcyopedia(s)	Video game(s)	Wiki
Aladdin (film)	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	Yes	No
Battlestar Galactica	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes^[1]	Yes	Yes
Bionicle	No	Yes	Yes	No	Yes	Yes^[2]	Yes	Yes
Cinderella	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	Yes	No
C.O.P.S 'N' Crooks	Yes	No	No	Yes	Yes	No	No	Yes
Dead or Alive (series)	No	Yes	No	No	No	No	Yes	Yes
Dr. Who	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
Dune universe	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	Yes	Yes^[3]	Yes	Yes
Family Guy	No	Yes	No	Yes	Yes	No	Yes	Yes
Guitar Hero	No	No	No	Sort of, see "Guitar Queer-O"	Yes	No	Yes	Yes
Hey Arnold!	No	Yes	No	Yes	No	No	Yes	Yes
Home and Away	No	No	Yes	Yes	No	No	No	Yes
Law & Order	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	No	Yes	Yes
Lost (TV series)	No	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	Yes	Yes
MAS*H	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	No	No	No
Medal of Honor (series)	No	No	No	No	Yes	No	No	Yes
Mercenaries (series)	Yes (Graphic Novel)	No	Yes (Graphic Novel)	No	There are at least fan made replicas with articles about them online.	No	Yes	Yes
Mortal Kombat	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	Yes	Yes
Ocean's Trilogy	No	Yes	Yes	No	No	No	No	No
Percy Jackson & The Olympians	No	Yes	Yes	No	No	No	No	Yes
Resident Evil	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	Yes	No	Yes	Yes
Rugrats	No	Yes	No	Yes	No	No	Yes	Yes
Silent Hill	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	No	No	Yes	Yes
Soul (series)	Yes	Maybe	No	No	Yes	No	Yes	Yes
StarCraft (series)	Yes	No	Yes	No	Yes	No	Yes	Yes
Star Trek	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
Star Wars	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes^[4]^[5]	Yes	Yes
The House of the Dead (series)	Yes	Yes	No	No	Yes	No	Yes	Yes
The Nightmare Before Christmas	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	Yes	No	Yes	Yes
The Simpsons (franchise)	Yes	Yes	No	Yes	Yes	No	Yes	Yes
The X-Files (disambiguation)	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes^[6]	Yes	Yes
Underworld (film series)	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	Yes	No	Yes	Yes

Most culturally important fictional characters

The following characters appear in top ten style lists and therefore are likely to have the kind of reception coverage that demonstrates the characters are important enough to justify having an article on Wikipedia:

Use common sense

With regards to fictional elements, something that is verifiable and therefore not a hoax, nor libelous, nor a copyright violation almost always can at worst be redirected to the article on the main work of fiction. The idea that anything which millions of people are familiar with (such as playable characters in globally released multi-platform games) being either unimportant or non-notable is not just absurd and illogical, but idiocy. Just because something does not seem subjectively important to a handful of Wikipedians does not negate its relevance to countless others and if we know it is not just made up, but say have insufficient sources to construct development and reception sections, we would still at least redirect for the convenience of our diverse readership. Redlinking is reserved for that which we must protect the public from.

Search