Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional films (3rd 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   delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:02, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

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

I am nominating this article for the third time. The past two discussions have resulted in no consensus. There is no criteria to enter this list, and it will just grow and grow because shows constantly make fake movies. Many of these films are just a passing mention. There is nothing notable about that. JDDJS (talk) 16:37, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:STICK. To nominate the same article three times in less than 6 months seems to be gaming the system. I will reiterate here my argument from the first nomination: 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. Thanks, Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 18:27, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Both nominations ended in no consensus, so I'm not trying to game the system. Your comparison to List of teen films is not valid because with teen films, everything in the list has its own article. And if you really think that the article can be improved, why haven't you done anything yet? JDDJS (talk) 20:54, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't see why a fictional film has to have its own article. If it is in a film that is notable enough for its own Wikipedia article, then that is enough. As I suggested before, we can adjust the scope to say that it is a list of films featuring fictional films. That would make it akin to lists of films featuring a key element of some sort. Also, per WP:BEFORE, if an article can be improved through normal editing, then it should not be deleted. The present condition of the article itself is irrelevant. We don't delete to clean up. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 21:21, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
 * WP:BEFORE doesn't apply because I don't think that it can be improved. You're the one saying that it can, but it's been over 6 months since I first nominated, and you have yet to prove to your point. By your logic, we should have an article List of fictional characters and include every fictional character to appear in fiction, even it's only for 2 secs. JDDJS (talk) 05:10, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I have listed sources below that demonstrate the potential of this list on Wikipedia. Such a list is reinforced by guidelines at WP:LISTN and WP:CSC. Do you not think that these sources can be used to compile a list here? Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 16:53, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I used to not participate in these discussions, but I've completely lost patience with deletion discussions about lists erring on the side of "keep." Fill the AfD discussions with nothing but re-nominations of listcruft until admins knock it off with this nonsense. "Gaming the system?" The system isn't working.--Atlantictire (talk) 14:28, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I have to say, this doesn't really add much to the sum of human knowledge. Some of it could perhaps be selectively merged into Fictional film.— S Marshall  T/C 02:23, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:57, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:57, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:57, 25 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete - this is a patently nonsensical list, full of things of very minor note (at best), the inclusion criteria is very vague (at best), and there is little evidence of the list being notable. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 09:18, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Fictional film or delete. Does not satisfy WP:LISTN.  Could perhaps be selectively merged to fictional film, but I don't see any call to do so.  If there are any actually notable examples, they can be mentioned in that article.  Basically, it looks like generic list cruft to me: few (if any) notable entries, no real attempt at independent sourcing, and indiscriminate inclusion criteria.  This is the sort of obsessive pop culture trivia catalog that I would expect to find on Wikia or TV Tropes, not Wikipedia. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 14:49, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
 * and, see the following reliable sources that list fictional films, warranting a list per WP:LISTN:
 * Fictional films that should be made at MSN
 * Top 14 Fake Movies from Real Movies at AMC TV
 * Top 10 Movies Within Movies at IGN
 * The Ten Best Fake Movies Ever (Not) Made at Crave Online
 * Faux Real: 10 Fake Movies and Shows We’d Pay to See! at VH1
 * Best Films Within Films at Shortlist
 * 10 Greatest Films Within Films at What Culture


 * This list could be based on these sources to warrant inclusion per WP:LISTN. It's a topic of interest to readers, and the list could link together film articles that have fictional films, so readers could learn more about other kinds of films that have the same common content. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 15:18, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Not really. AMC TV's bit is a blog. CraveOnline doesn't really appear to be a RS; nor does VH1, and I'm highly dubious about Shortlist and What Culture! (the latter is just a platform for selling your own articles). Almost all of the others are "filler" pieces, as indeed most Top X lists of any similar nature are. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 15:38, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I was dubious about ShortList, too, but it's apparently a UK magazine. I think some people have tried to get What Culture blacklisted.  Not 100% sure about CraveOnline, but I've always assumed it was a reliable source.  Maybe I should have actually researched it.  I don't like making articles based on fluff, but I'm a bit more open-minded now. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:04, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
 * One look at that Shortlist piece screams "tabloid" - it doesn't matter if it is a magazine or not, this is not a reliable one. They don't even police their own comments sections, which are full of spam; a clear alarm bell to me. They don't even have an "about us" page. CraveOnline is hit-and-miss, looking even closer. Some of their stuff is obviously tabloidy, just from the subject names (Idiot Box being an example), some of it may be OK. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 17:00, 25 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete - I'll just copy and paste the one I used last time. 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) 16:17, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
 * WP:LISTN states, "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 sources I listed above are independent and reliable, so is there a reason that overrides this guideline? WP:CSC can also help determine criteria for what to include. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 16:49, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Ignoring whether the sources are valid or not, the fact that people have noted the existence of fictional films should not mean an immediate jump to a full, five thousand entry page of them. While being discussed as a group may be reason to make a list, it also talks about limiting such lists to avoid having them become too large. Those could be used to argue for a very limited list of notable fictional films that have received enough attention on Fictional film, but free license to list everything under the sun goes into indiscriminate territory. TTN (talk) 17:15, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Are you saying that you would support having a list for this topic if it was cleaned up? Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 17:21, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I would only think it would be viable were the entries limited to those that are actually of note. Something where a previously fictional concept was later developed into a real project, something that receives a good deal of attention outside of the context of the main work for some reason, or something like that would be required for them to be listed. Without something like that, the list becomes too unwieldy. I imagine the current list is only a tenth of its full potential, so "List of fictional films A-C" when the article gets too large really doesn't sound like a very good idea. TTN (talk) 17:42, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
 * That's what I am saying -- we can use the sources listed above to limit this list of fictional films. Most of the current items do not have any references indicating that it has been noticed and reported on. We could "start over" with the base list being derived from the above sources. Just because a fictional film is shown in a random film does not mean it has to be listed here. It should be worthy of note somewhere reliable and independently of Wikipedia and its editors. That can be the criteria for inclusion, making for a more digestible list. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 17:51, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
 * The main issue is that such a listing is still hypothetical at this point. Even if it is brought about, how many entries is it realistically going to have? Rather than just being a BEFORE issue, it seems like it could potentially be impossible, so my opinion is still to delete it. Either userfying it until such a time where that is viable or discussing the topic in Fictional film and later splitting it out should it reach that point seem like the best options. TTN (talk) 18:09, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I'd support merging it to Fictional Film after paring off any non-sourced examples, then restoring it as a separate article if/when there's enough significant examples to merit such. DonIago (talk) 20:02, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
 *  Comment to Erik You keep saying that this article can be improved. If that's true, then why haven't you made any attempts to improve it? JDDJS (talk) 22:42, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Two reasons: I am busy with other tasks wiki and non-wiki, and the state of the article does not have a bearing on the notability of the topic. We do not delete an article on a notable topic just because it is messy, per WP:BEFORE. Do you still claim that this list is not notable per WP:LISTN, even though I have listed sources above? Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 23:37, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
 * They may not be saying that, but given that the majority of sources are dubious, or are just filler things, I do still feel this fails LISTN. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 23:55, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Which sources do you not consider reliable? We have MSN, AMC Networks, IGN, CraveOnline, VH1, and ShortList. I was not sure about What Culture, since I've seen it referenced in a Featured Article. But there is more than enough to show that this is a common trend and that Wikipedia can create a space in which it juxtaposes these items for readers' benefit. It may not be intellectual, but not everything on Wikipedia has to be. I hope you can try to imagine this list as something like list of films featuring surveillance rather than its present state. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 00:04, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to repeat myself, so please read my comments dated 15:38, 25 February 2014 (UTC) and 17:00, 25 February 2014 (UTC). Please tell me the FA that What Culture is in, because that reference is the least reliable of the bunch. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 00:30, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep. The use of a fake film as a plot point in the narrative of a real film (or other media) is well documented, and would be a reasonable subject of serious study. bd2412  T 15:24, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Is there a way that's not already being handed reasonably by Fictional film? Does a list of fictional films merit standalone status? DonIago (talk) 15:42, 26 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete- extraordinarily crufty, it's poorly sourced, and lacking encyclopedic merit because it's nothing but a slavish accumulation of trivia. Reyk  YO!  06:56, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Even if the article itself is poorly sourced, do you not think that the sources listed above are reliable and warrant an article per WP:LISTN? You cannot claim that this is cruft if these mainstream sources have listed these films within films. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 15:45, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete as non notable cruft. →Davey 2010→  →Talk to me!→  15:40, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
 * What about the sources I listed above? Do you not think they warrant a list per WP:LISTN? "Cruft" is a poor label to apply when it is clear that such lists have been compiled in the mainstream. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 15:45, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Erik, please stop badgering everyone who disagrees with you. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 16:28, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Please assume good faith. I am contesting arguments for deletion as weak in the face of evidence to the contrary so the closing admin is aware that while the article is in poor shape, the topic can be considered notable based on the sources listed above. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 17:10, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I wasn't assuming bad faith. Your own evidence is very weak indeed, and you've utterly failed to respond to that. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 18:06, 2 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure why you think I've failed to respond. I think that MSN, AMC Networks, IGN, CraveOnline, VH1, and ShortList are reliable sources, especially per WP:SCHOLARSHIP, where you do not. What source would be considered reliable? This is not the kind of element that requires specialist knowledge, just indications of noteworthiness outside the films themselves. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 14:35, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Several of the sources you listed are so far from being reliable that it renders the entire lot dubious, for starters (if you think anything that is very obviously a "we pay for your articles no matter what" type website is reliable, then...) But reliability is not the only thing I was disputing; these lists are mere filler, as almost all of these types of lists are, and do not make this particular list notable. The concept of a "film in a film" is notable, an indiscriminate list of every potential film in a film is most definitely not compliant with Wikipedia policies or guidelines. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 15:11, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure why one source not being considered reliable would somehow make everything else questionable as well. It's not a complicated list. We can agree that there are films within films, right? I'm not sure what kind of list you would actually consider appropriately reliable. What I linked is pretty typical of lists that can be juxtaposed here. Sometimes a list can certainly get weird (I think Indiewire had one about monster weddings, hah), but if there are several lists independent of each other about the same thing, that to me shows a larger interest that Wikipedia can serve. This article does suck. It needs to look more like list of films featuring surveillance, and I think readers would benefit from that kind of compilation. We can set up criteria for discriminate inclusion. If it appears on a list, or if it is noted by 3 sources, we could include it, rather than just some one-off mention. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 15:50, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Either read my comments before replying, or simply don't bother replying. It is not one source that is very unlikely to be reliable, it is several of them. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 15:56, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

*Strongest Possible Delete WP:LC This is an indiscriminate list, along the lines of List of actors with brown eyes, List of round objects, List of carbon based lifeforms. Every film ever made that isn't a documentary is a fictional film.--Atlantictire (talk) 14:17, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Sourced or not I think it's cruft and should be deleted, Pestering everyone won't help its outcome you know!..... →Davey 2010→  →Talk to me!→  17:35, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
 * What is your definition of cruft, then? WP:CRUFT says, "If there is an insufficient amount of reliable source coverage on the topic, the focus of the discussion should be WP:Notability... In the context of WP:NOT, the specific focus of the discussion may be that the article is a compilation of facts that reliable sources outside of fan-based reliable sources have not found interesting enough to publish." The sources I listed above are not fan-based. I am simply asking you to defend your argument for deletion because I do not think it has merit. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 17:46, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment for Erik Your sources might prove that the idea of film within a film is notable, but we already have an article on that at Story within a story. None of your sources prove that a list of every time a work of fiction makes up another work fiction is notable. JDDJS (talk) 18:47, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
 * MSN, AMC Networks, IGN, CraveOnline, VH1, and ShortList all provided a list of films within films, and WP:LISTN 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." Can you explain why that is not applicable here? We can have a general article and a list article, e.g. science fiction film and list of science fiction films. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 14:35, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Why do you think the list is indiscriminate? Similar lists have been published by MSN, AMC Networks, IGN, CraveOnline, VH1, and ShortList. WP:LISTN can apply here, and Wikipedia can juxtapose items from these independent lists here. That's what makes this list stand out compared to actors with brown eyes, round objects, etc. I recall arguing for deletion of a list of films featuring crossword puzzles because it could not meet WP:LISTN, but this list does. We can also rename the article to say something like List of films featuring fictional films so it does not seem misleading. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 14:35, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Because of the title. I just realized it's a List of fake films. The inclusion criteria is still insufficiently discriminating and has already made for a long mindnumbing strand of trivia. Yes, List of films featuring crossword puzzles is comparable in terms of uselessness and potential lengthiness.--Atlantictire (talk) 14:49, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Why could we not limit the list to what has been noted in reliable sources? For example, I wrote list of films featuring surveillance, and it is mainly based on lists like what I showed above. The difference between this topic and crossword puzzles is that there were no independent lists about the latter. If there were, we would have an article. It's not based on the perceived silliness of the topic but if the outside world has made such lists where Wikipedia can follow suit. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 15:01, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete per TTN's argument. TV shows and movies are full of made up films, restaurants, town names, theme parks, etc. This is because sitcoms, cartoons, movies, etc. are fictional. Endless lists of every category of made up thing found in movies or sitcoms is certainly not a worthwhile endeavor. As this list clearly shows, you wind up with something extremely long and unedifying.--Atlantictire (talk) 15:25, 3 March 2014 (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.