Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional films


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was   no consensus. I think the idea of giving the article a month or so to see if its obvious issues can be addressed is a good one. If not, another AFD can always be opened. Black Kite (talk) 09:37, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

List of fictional films

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Too broad of a list. There are hundreds of fictitious films, and it is constantly growing. Furthermore, what makes these notable? Just because one work of fiction makes up a work of fiction, does not mean it's notable. (I will like to include similar articles in this discussion, but I don't know how too) JDDJS (talk) 18:22, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 18:36, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 18:36, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 18:36, 17 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep because the topic appears to meet notability guidelines per WP:NOTESAL as seen by a reference like this. However, I would suggest starting over with the list and require selection criteria, in this case requiring a secondary source to add an item. This list reminds me of List of teen films, which was this before I argued to keep it and revised it. Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 18:52, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
 * To follow up, I was thinking about whether or not we could just depend on primary sourcing. However, WP:PRIMARY states, "Do not base an entire article on primary sources, and be cautious about basing large passages on them." This article is based on primary sources, so we should make it dependent on secondary sources., if you have other articles you want to nominate, it may be a good idea to do them separately so each topic can be evaluated on its own merits. Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 19:01, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
 * The similar articles I want to add are basically everything in Category:Lists of fictional works because it is all pretty much the same scenario. To be consistent, we should either keep them all or delete them all.
 * The sources have nothing to do with why I nominated this article for deletion. I nominated because I do not see how this is notable. Fictional works include fictitious works in them all the time. Why should we list all of them? JDDJS (talk) 19:14, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
 * WP:NOTESAL says, "One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines; notable list topics are appropriate for a stand-alone list." The reference I linked to shows that people do report information about this topic. Wikipedia follows suit with what others do. See the top of Talk:List of teen films. We could mimic that kind of selection criteria. Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 19:18, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Another way to approach this is to focus on only films that feature fictional films. We could move it to List of films featuring fictional films. I personally think "featuring" suggests noteworthiness, meaning that a secondary source has highlighted it. The current scope is too broad, since it can include TV shows or literature that feature fictional films. Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 19:25, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

List of teen films is a completely different scenario. Teen films are a type of films, and everything in that list has its own article. "featuring" does not mean a secondary source has highlighted it; it just means that it places an important plot point. I will be perfectly fine with Category:Films featuring fictional films; however this article is like having an article List of fictional characters or List of film characters. They make fine categories, but are way too broad for an article. JDDJS (talk) 22:05, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Per WP:CLT, categories and lists are not mutually exclusive. I think a list is beneficial here because we can identify the films that have the fictional films, the release year, and provide a description. A category can work as well, but a reader would have to go to each article to find out about the fictional film, and even that may not jump out in a standard article. I still think we can ensure that such a list is dependent on secondary sources per WP:LSC and WP:SECONDARY. I've put together a few lists of films featuring common content, and I think we can do that here. Also, one thing I learned in my research of this topic is that "films within films" or "movies within movies" is a common term. We have the article story within a story with a "Film within a film" section (which is an unreferenced mess, unfortunately). I think we can set up a well-maintained list here, something like List of films featuring surveillance. Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 22:21, 17 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Well, this is an interesting one. Right now, it seems to be more of a navigation list than anything else... but how many links to The Simpsons do we really need?  If each fictional film were MENTIONED in an article, and LINKED to the relevant mention in that article, I would be OK with it as is, and it would then become self-trimming if the destination articles didn't mention it--or if that reference were removed from the target article as insufficiently important to mention.  Still, I'm not sure that the categorization in use here is actually helpful. Jclemens (talk) 01:02, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment 169 films mentioned by the Simpsons, 8 for South Park, 17 from The Family Guy, 36 from Futurama, 71 from Spitting Image. Some TV programmes just seem to churn out fictional films. What makes an item notable enough for this list?, Asses of Fire was a major part of the plot for the South Park film, and even has its own redirect, whereas Spaceballs 2:The search for more money was just a one line joke in the original film.Martin 4 5 1  (talk) 05:55, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep "Too broad of a list" is not a valid deletion rationale.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 07:48, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
 * That is incorrect. Per WP:SALAT lists have to have the correct scope and common sense says we must delete lists whose scope cannot be repaired with normal editing or by limiting/expanding the topic.  The scope of a list is perhaps the most important indicator of whether a list is appropriate for Wikipedia.  Lists with too large of a scope may violate WP:NOT and oftentimes try to cover more than one single, well-defined topic.  Lists with too narrow of a scope may be unneeded or nonnotable.  Them  From  Space  02:09, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete Much too broad of a scope for an encyclopedia article. As an article, the topic is too large and sprawling; a natural expansion of the list will leave encyclopedia territory and enter into the realm of TV Tropes. This would be beyond our scope and would damage our reputation and reliability as an encyclopedia. Getting into official policy, this violates WP:NOT as a directory since the items on the list have nothing to do with each other... they are too loosely associated with each other for the list to be of encyclopedic value. Breaking off some of these featured into their respective series (Simpsons, Splitting Image, etc) would be acceptable if any of these smaller topics have notability.  Them From  Space  02:09, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Do you not think that we can limit the scope to "films within films" or something of that nature? A quick Google shows numerous sources about this topic, and it is possible to list films where they have been independently noted. With this selection criteria, we can define our scope. The policy also says, "Of course, there is nothing wrong with having lists if their entries are famous because they are associated with or significantly contribute to the list topic." Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 12:06, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Notable films within films would drastically cut this list down. I count three instances (although there are probably more) in the current list where the fictional film is notable. Cleaver, See You Next Wednesday and Asses of Fire. Of course with that title we also come up against the problem of MST3K.Martin 4 5 1  (talk) 17:06, 21 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep per WP:STAND and WP:NOTESAL, and tighten up per WP:SALAT and WP:LSC/WP:CSC. I find Erik's suggestion above to rename as List of films featuring fictional films (or a related List of works featuring fictional films) and MST3K's suggestion toward addressing notable works to be quite sensible in controlling the article's content and scope. There's rarely a need to delete what can be addressed though regular editing.  Schmidt,  Michael Q. 05:54, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Compromise I think it's pretty much agreed that in its current state, the article is not worth keeping. The debate is whether or not it can be improved to be a good article. I do not feel that it can, but I am willing to see what happens. I purpose ending this AFD as "nomination withdrawn", and give the article a chance to be improved. Then, in one month, I will take another look at the article. If I see that it's on the right track and becoming a decent article, I'll leave it alone. But if I don't feel it's on the right track, I'll start another AFD. JDDJS (talk) 17:33, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Ahem? After reading the above discussion, I do not think we can state it "is pretty much agreed" this one "is not worth keeping". I think it might be agreed upon that the article would benefit from focus and editorial attention. Or are you suggesting we toss out everyone's contributions under WP:TNT?  Being problematic is not a valid criteria for deleting topics which might otherwise be corrected through regular editing.  I do however, much appreciate your offer to withdraw, think both Erik's and MST3K's views are worth taking to heart, and a discussion of the how's and why's can take place on the article's talk page.  But per WP:SURMOUNTABLE, WP:DEADLINE, WP:IMPERFECT and WP:WIP, we need not insist it all be done within 30 days or promise a return to AFD if not so speedily addressed. Cheers  Schmidt,  Michael Q. 00:53, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not saying that the article has to be fixed in 30 days. That's not nearly enough time. But 30 days is enough time to make some progress, and judge which direction the article is going in. And I think I might have said it wrong, but what I meant is that everyone agrees that at the least the article needs some major clean up. JDDJS (talk) 15:57, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Keeps - The "too broad scope" calls are honestly baffling - that a list is long does not mean that its inclusion criteria are vague or indiscriminate. If anything, it can be split into sublists, but this is an argument to create more lists, not to delete this one -deleting it, to quote a comment above, would indeed damage our reputation as an encyclopedia (as many deletions baffling to our readers regularly do). Topic is notable, as evidenced above. -- cyclopia speak! 20:48, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete. A laundry list does not educate and without context it cannot inform. Therefore it fails on WP:PURPOSE (Yes, I know it is only an essay, but it is relevant to a number of policies and guidelines including NOTDIR and others quoted above). In the event that the list is kept I trust those that advocate keep and clean up do so, rather than just walking away from the article. Like my mother used to say, "clean up your own mess" --Richhoncho (talk) 07:45, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.