Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional films (2nd nomination)


 * 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:01, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

List of fictional films
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I nominated this article for deletion over a month ago because it is just a very broad list that does not offer any useful information. I withdrew the nomination because many editors argued that it could be fixed and I wanted to give them a chance. However nobody has even edited it in over a month. JDDJS (talk) 17:14, 5 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep The previous discussion was not withdrawn by the nominator - it was closed in the usual way. That result was no consensus and, as there was a reasonable amount of argumentation at that time, it is too soon to start it all over again.  Per WP:DELAFD, "It can be disruptive to repeatedly nominate a page in the hopes of getting a different outcome."  As for the topic, it seems reasonably notable.  See Movies about the Movies, for example. Warden (talk) 18:10, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The closing admin said, and I quote " 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." I gave the article more than a month, and nothing changed. So I opened a new one. And techinically it was labled as "no consensus, but that was only because I suggested to wait a month. Otherwise, it would have been relisted. JDDJS (talk) 16:45, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Relisting would have been better because the people in the first discussion would not then have to repeat themselves. There was no consensus to set an arbitrary deadline for the article.  That's your own idiosyncratic idea but Wikipedia is a volunteer project and you have no authority to make such demands. Warden (talk) 17:16, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
 * And you have no authority to impose an arbitrary time frame for renomination. Reyk  YO!  20:23, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:50, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:50, 5 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment- Warden's description of the previous AfD is misleading, perhaps deliberately so. The nomination was withdrawn by the nominator, just as JDDJS says, and the close explicitly endorses renomination after a month or so. Reyk  YO!  01:24, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
 * My understanding of "withdrawal" is that the discussion is closed early because the nominator withdraws. This is not what happened in that case.  Discussion continued and the AfD was closed after 8 days in the usual way.  The issue therefore got a reasonable amount of exposure and there's no reason for another go-around for so soon.  I didn't notice the closer's editorial comments and it's no surprise to see that BK endorses the idea of WP:KEEPLISTINGTILLITGETSDELETED.  And, of course, neither the closer nor the nominator did a stroke of work on the topic during the month.  All the nominator seemed to do was put a clean-up tag on the article and mark his calendar to try again.  But AFD is not cleanup. Warden (talk) 16:50, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Response to Warden Why would I bother editing an article that I want deleted? I don't support the idea of having such a broad article. However, if other editors were willing to put in the effort to improve the article, then I wouldn't bother arguing it (even though I would still disagree with it.) And as to reply to your other comments, first of all I am not saying that the article should be automatically deleted because a month passed. The point of the deadline was to see if all the editors that said the article could be fixed, would actually try to fix it, and nobody made any attempt to do so. Therefore, the argument that "it can be improved" that was used a lot in the last discussion is not really valid anymore because they had a chance and didn't even try. Second of all, your comments are very close to being personal attacks, which you have already been warned about. JDDJS (talk) 17:41, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Your idea seems to be that you sit in judgement on the work of others, without having to do any work yourself. But our deletion policy is that editors contemplating deletion should first engage with the topic by searching for sources, reviewing the article in detail and engaging with it on the talk page.  Alternatives to deletion should be investigated per our editing policy.  When I perform this kind of activity, I rapidly find relevant sources such as Film within Film and other articles which touch on this such as story within a story and list of parody films.  These indicate that there is plenty of scope to develop the article per our editing policy.  And, per WP:SEP, "Every user participating in such a discussion, especially the nominator, the closing admin and the one(s) providing sources, should feel responsible to fix the article..." Warden (talk) 19:24, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Please do not call WP:BEFORE "policy". It is not policy; we have been over this many times. Reyk  YO!  20:23, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
 * WP:BEFORE is part of WP:Articles for Deletion which defines the process: "This page explains what you should consider before nominating, the steps for nominating, and how to discuss an AfD". Notice the word "should". Warden (talk) 22:10, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Please see Village_pump_(policy)/Archive_88, where consensus was that it is not a policy. You even said it wasn't. The major objection to WP:BEFORE in that discussion was that it is frequently used as a weapon to attack AfD nominators, just as you're using it in this one. Reyk  YO!  00:32, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
 * That discussion was not closed with an agreed consensus. The editor who started the discussion - TreasuryTag - did so because he had been the subject of complaints that he wasn't following the process.  That editor was subsequently banned.  Warden (talk) 11:51, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The discussion fizzled out, but with consensus clear that WP:BEFORE is not policy. By my count it's something like 33-13 in favour of "not a policy". Would you like me to request a formal evaluation and close by an uninvolved administrator? And I'm not sure why you think an editor's banned status has any bearing on WP:BEFORE's status. If that were so, I could go around looking for things that now-banned inclusionists have objected to and elevate those to policy. I'm sure you wouldn't like that. Reyk  YO!  21:27, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Looking more closely, I see it was User:Basket of Puppies who was flouting WP:BEFORE in that case. That user was banned too.   Warden (talk) 19:21, 8 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep and cleanup/trim appropriately per my comments in the prior AfD. Jclemens (talk) 04:25, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment I waited over a month for the cleanup, but nobody made any edits at all after the previous AFD. JDDJS (talk) 12:50 pm, Today (UTC−4)
 * Delete - This list is completely arbitrary, and it contains little encyclopedic value. It is no different than "List of fictional fast food chains" or "List of fictional addresses and phone numbers." If a fictional film has enough relevance to the topic, the most it needs is a redirect. Something like an article about fictional things that later became real or an overall article on fictional films, provided there are actual sources about the topic, would be fine, but there is no value in a plain list without any restrictions or relevance. TTN (talk) 20:20, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep popular subject of popular culture. Yes it would be nice to find some encompassing discussion somewhere to add in. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:00, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep It is an interesting topic and I do not know where else you could find such a list. However, I think the list should be re-arrenged by source and not by type of film. Iwalters (talk) 15:50, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Do you have an argument that's not WP:LIKEIT? JDDJS (talk) 20:12, 10 October 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.