Forum:CT:Notability - non-copyrighted tweak

Forums > Consensus track archive > CT:Notability - non-copyrighted tweak
This page is an archive of a community-wide discussion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made in the Senate Hall or new Consensus track pages rather than here so that this page is preserved as a historic record.
The result of the debate was Support. —spookywillowwtalk 01:15, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

Runnning this as concurrent to the current web article notability CT. But, it would need to happen either way, so may as well run it through. The "non-copyrighted" clause of the NOTABILITY policy calls explicitly non-copyrighted fanworks to not get pages. But... individual web articles made by fans aren't really "products" in and of themselves. As such, proposing the bolded three words:

Articles for products or web articles explicitly labeled as not endorsed, authorized, licensed by, or affiliated with Lucasfilm should not be created unless they otherwise qualify under the notability guidelines for fan projects. Examples of products that do not qualify for individual articles include unlicensed books such as George Lucas: A Life and A Galaxy Far, Far Away: Exploring Star Wars Comics, which instead utilize {{BookCite}} to document their content. Alternatively, {{Softredirect}} may be used to point to a product's corresponding Fanpedia page.

This doesn't at all address SW.com or anything like that; will leave the fate of that to TCs of course. But the thing with Wookieepedia policy.. given that the other CT looks like it's headed to no-con, which is fair, some might assume the opposite to be true—if we don't delete web articles, then all should be made. And since nowhere else in policy draws a formal line between SW.com articles and, random fan blogs....

I'd strongly argue that even if we did make every needed web article, for LFL-sites such as StarWars.com, under no circumstances should we host individual articles for every Screenrant, Gamer Insider, Forbes and fan website blog post. And sure, they would probably still get canned immediately if made, but may as well close policy loopholes when we see them instead of waiting.—spookywillowwtalk 01:14, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

Support

  1. —spookywillowwtalk 01:14, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
  2. SaintSirNicholas (talk) 01:23, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
  3. Lewisr (talk) 02:04, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
  4. Cade GalacticRepublicEmblem-Traced-TORkit Calrayn 02:39, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
  5. OOM 224 03:16, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
  6. Bonzane10 Bonzane10-Sig 05:58, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
  7. Imperators II(Talk) 08:55, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
  8. NanoLuukeCloning Facility 09:00, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
  9. 01miki10 Open comlink 09:17, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
  10. ThePedantry (talk) 06:32, 25 January 2025 (UTC)
  11. Ayrehead02 (talk) 09:56, 27 January 2025 (UTC)
  12. JediMasterMacaroni(Talk) 12:12, 27 January 2025 (UTC)
  13. --Vitus InfinitusTalk 12:53, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
  14. Rsand 30 (talk) 00:52, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss