This page in a nutshell: An element of fiction may satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article if it is central to understanding an important work of fiction and is the subject of significant real-world coverage from reliable sources. Creator commentary can be used to provide real-world coverage in accordance with our policy on self-published sources. Alternatively, an article that meets the general notability guideline is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article.

Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) is a proposed guideline intended to determine whether an element of fiction should or should not have an article on Wikipedia. An element of fiction is (1) an individual component of a serialized work, such as a television episode or a comic book storyline, or (2) an element within the fictionalized world, such as a character or setting. An element of a notable work of fiction may qualify for a standalone article if it meets the notability test described below. Articles are kept when adequate evidence for all three criteria exists, even if the article's current revision is not perfect. An element can also have a standalone article when it meets the general notability guideline.

This guideline does not cover works of fiction as a whole, which are covered by guidelines such as books, films, websites, music, and others. This guideline also does not supersede Wikipedia's content and inclusion policies such as those on verifiability and what Wikipedia is not.

This guideline is not meant to provide an " other stuff exists" arguement. While one element of a fictional work may meet this guideline's requirements for inclusion, that does not mean that other elements within the same work automatically also meet these requirements.

A fictional element is notable enough to have an article if it meets these three conditions:

1. Importance of the fictional work: To justify articles on individual elements, the fictional work from which they come must meet the relevant notability guideline (e.g. WP:NB), or WP:N.
2. Role within the fictional work: The significance of the element must be verified from reliable sources. Notability requires evidence, and bald assertions of significance are insufficient.
3. Real-world coverage: Significant real-world information must exist on the element. Examples of real-world coverage include: creative influences, design processes, critical commentary, and cultural reception. Sometimes this real-world perspective can be established through the use of sources with a connection to the creators of the fictional work, such as creator commentary. Merely listing the notable works where the fictional element appears, their respective release dates, and the names of the production staff is not sufficient. In practice, this is generally the most important of the three criteria.

All articles must meet Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. In particular, the general notability guideline requires the use of reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. For fictional subjects, terms such as reliable and independence have specialized meanings that are still within the policy restrictions of WP:V, WP:OR, and WP:NPOV.

Reception, reviews, and criticism must be verified in reliable sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. News organizations and scholarly journals usually ensure reliability through fact-checking or peer review; however, a source may still be considered reliable without these strict content controls. Wikipedians can determine whether a source meets our guideline on reliable sources through consensus at the Reliable sources noticeboard, or at specific WikiProjects.

Coverage of fiction often benefits from relying on sources that do not meet the strictest standards of independence. Because copyright holders often guard their intellectual property, much of the background information about fictional subjects may come from copyright holders. As a result, real-world coverage may be established through the use of non-promotional secondary sources that are not independent from the content creators. These kinds of sources should provide significant real-world coverage that goes beyond what is revealed in the plot of the fictional work and need to be used with care; paying special attention to WP:SPS, maintaining a neutral point of view, and avoiding corporate promotion.

Although an article with no independent sources may meet the minimum threshold to avoid deletion, independent sourcing is necessary to reach good article status. Articles that resist good-faith efforts to improve them to good article status, including the search for independent sources, are often merged into other articles. Both the guideline on reliable sources and policy on verifiability call for articles to "rely on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." Effort should be made to find appropriate reliable, independent sources, and to ensure that the distribution of fictional articles adhere to a neutral point of view

A topic about which there are no significant secondary sources cannot pass this guideline. Primary sources, such as the fictional work itself, can be used to verify certain facts about the fictional work. However, because they offer no real-world coverage about themselves, they cannot satisfy the first or third criteria, and thus are not enough to establish notability. Although part of coverage of a fictional subject is a concise plot summary, an article written entirely from primary sources is a warning sign that the subject might not meet the criteria of the test above.

An article that does not meet these criteria at present may still be notable. In evaluating whether an article satisfies this guideline, one should consider not only the present state of the article, but also the likelihood that sources exist to satisfy all three criteria. Remember that all Wikipedia articles are not a final draft, and an article can be notable if such sources exist even if they have not been added at present.

However, merely asserting that such sources exist is seldom persuasive, especially as time passes and actual proof does not surface—in these cases it may be better to merge the article into a parent topic or list article.