Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional television shows (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   no consensus. Valid (and invalid) arguments made both to keep and delete. See you back here in another 18 months. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:24, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

List of fictional television shows
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

No criteria for inclusion, no sources, indiscriminate. To quote rationale from last AFD: "AfD result from [2007] was "keep" based solely on "it's useful" and "keep if improved" votes. Well, it hasn't been improved any; it's still unsourced and there are no definite criteria, as evidenced by how LONG the list is." I fail to see how the last AFD showed a consensus to keep; that one, too, showed nothing but WP:ITSUSEFUL and WP:ILIKEIT !votes from every single keeper. Some even argued that sources did exist but couldn't possibly be arsed to fix it. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 04:56, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Comments OK, where to start?!:
 * 1) No criteria for inclusion - They're all fictional television shows
 * 2) no sources - AfD is not cleanup
 * 3) indiscriminate - Seems discriminate to me

However, I do agree it looks like a trivial list that most people would like or find useful. The article really needs to be titled something like "List of meta-fictional television shows" or "Fiction within fiction on television". Now if fiction within fiction has some real-world notability, then it would be a straight keep, tag for cleanup and move on from me!  Lugnuts  (talk) 08:29, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete- my opinion from last time hasn't changed. This is a sourceless, indiscriminate collection of trivia. TenPoundHammer is correct when he says that all the keep votes last time around amounted to nothing more than "I like it", and I think the consensus should actually have been recognized as "delete". Reyk  YO!  12:44, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep It is no improvement to delete something just for the sake of deleting, and I can't think of a more appropriate site where people could place this information. None of these would lend themselves to their own article.  As Lug points out, the criteria for inclusion is obvious from the title, and the title is fine the way it is.  More so than, say, a fictional school or a fictional newspaper, the fictional television show is a plot device for the scriptwriter to comment upon something that exists in the real world, without running the risk of accusations of libel.  Wikipedia sets a lower bar for entertainment articles (TV, film, sports) so I'm not that concerned about the sourcing issue.  Ultimately, it comes down to the concept of Wikipedia as an encyclopedia that everyone is welcome to contribute to, and whether one likes or doesn't like this type of list, Wikipedia serves many purposes.   Mandsford (talk) 13:45, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Sadly Delete This is an amazing list. Lots of work went into it. However it really belongs on its own site, not WP. When the concept of "fictional TV show" becomes notable then there can be a WP article Fictional TV show and an external link given to the list. I am becoming teary eyed as I type this. Really. Not joking. Steve Dufour (talk) 16:41, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Is Fictional TV show notable? Let's see if multiple reliable and independent sources have coverage of "fictional TV shows:" 290 Google News archive hits for fictional TV show and 66 Google Book hits]. Some discuss the general concept ot a "fictional tv show" rather than just a particular one.  Some Most just use the phrase to note that the TV show itself is fiction, but some are talking about "shows within shows" or "shows within books" or "TV shows within movies."  Looks like a possibility. Edison (talk) 17:17, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep The list is discriminating: It is limited to fictional TV shows. I looked to see if there were reliable and independent sources which mentioned the fictional shows, as well as their parent "real" shows. I will not do so for every entry, but at the top of the list ther is coverage of "America's Next Top Pirate" from 30 Rock here. Also from 30 Rock there are Google News articles at least mentioning "MILF Island", "Are you stronger than a dog?", "Gold case", "The Girlie Show", and "Sports shouting". I found nothing for "Super computer" which had less coverage in the show, so it could be edited out of the list. Deletion is not a substitute for editing.As for editing, the list should include the "Alan Brady Show" which has 339 Google News archive hits, a fictional show from The Dick Van Dyke Show, which had Google News hits from the time the show was on, 1961-1966. Edison (talk) 17:10, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * All trivial mentions. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 19:00, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * If the general concept can be shown to be notable then it seems to me that just a trivial mention should be enough to put an item on the list. Steve Dufour (talk) 02:09, 6 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:59, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:00, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete What is the encyclopedic purpose of this list if not listing trivia? There are no connections between "Baloney and Kids" and "Acceso Mexico" except that they are two fictional TV shows, how does that help? The title of a fictional TV show doesn't deepen the understanding of the real TV show(s), and saying that they're spoofs of real shows is usually original research since the real producers can't be bothered to comment on their creative choices on such trivial matters. This is a hopeless case in my eyes. – sgeureka t•c 09:09, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep The nomination is now incorrect - the article has a source. As consensus was established at the last nomination, this seems to be a disruptive nomination contrary to our deletion policy:"It can be disruptive to repeatedly nominate a page in the hopes of getting a different outcome".  If the nominator disgrees with the previous outcome, the correct process to use is WP:DRV.  Colonel Warden (talk) 10:51, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The closing admin noted in the most recent AfD for this list, "Consensus has not changed since previous AfD; lack of willingness to actually improve article does not in this case mean it should be deleted." Of course, it does take some work to find relevant sources here—I've just now added several sources, non-trivial articles that establish the WP:N notability of this topic. Keep. Paul Erik  (talk) (contribs) 16:27, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Reluctant delete. Fiction within fiction is certainly a notable topic (with notable examples existing in books, comics, theatre, radio, cinema and television) which has been written about in reliable sources. Some of the items listed here are certainly notable examples of that but, unfortunately, the list as a whole is not really encyclopaedic. Many of the entries are unreferenced. How can it possibly hope to be complete given that many shows within shows are used as one-off throwaway gags? Is completeness even desirable? If not, what are the criteria? Having said that, I really do like the list and I would hope that an alternative home for it can be found off Wikipedia, rather than see it vanish entirely. I think, as other have said above, we need a good article on the topic of shows within shows, or maybe fiction within fiction more generally, and then this list can be linked from its new home as an external link. We could also have a category for fictional TV shows so that the individually notable ones with articles are grouped. --DanielRigal (talk) 15:53, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions.  —DanielRigal (talk) 15:56, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete This list is essentially an orphan being referenced by articles almost entirely as a see also in other fiction lists. An article, if there were adequate reliable secondary sources, about fictional TV and radio programs might be enjoyable to read. This list is not useful, and smacks of WP:OR. To paraphrase the U.S. Supreme Court in Feist Publications v. Rural Telephone Service, sweat of the brow does not create notability. --Bejnar (talk) 18:19, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep as previous AfDs had a clear and overwhelming consensus to keep. While I understand that consensus can change, we should really only have second and third nominations when an AfD closed as "no consensus" or if a previously deleted article was recreated, because once we have an unambiguos keep, then we should focus on improving the article in question as if anything subjects become more notable and sourceable over time.  Two solid keep closes just seals that deal.  Beyond that, we should once again keep the article per Five pillars (notability to a real-world audience, unoriginal research, consistent with a “specialized encyclopedia” concerning verifiable fictional topics with importance in the real world), What Wikipedia is, and Lists (discriminate, encyclopedic, maintainable, notable, unoriginal, and verifiable that also serves a navigational and organizational function).  WP:IDONTLIKEIT, which is what the delete votes amount to, is not a valid reason for deletion.  Best, --A NobodyMy talk 18:41, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * It isn't fair to characterise the delete votes as IDONTLIKEIT. In fact, some of the delete voters are quite clear that they do like it, but just not as an encyclopaedia article. I think the list has no hope of ever meeting many of those criteria for lists. Lets go through them:
 * discriminate: No. There is no clear inclusion criteria. Sure, they are all fictional TV shows, but so many of these exist as throwaway elements in fiction that we would need to restrict it more than that. The risk is that the resulting list would be tiny compared to what we have here.
 * encyclopaedic: Not as it stands. At the moment it is incomplete and indiscriminate. I guess it might stand a slim chance if somebody could come up with the right inclusion criteria.
 * maintainable: Not without an inclusion criteria that is narrow enough to exclude all the uncountably many passing jokes and throwaway uses of a fictional TV show.
 * notable: Some of the items on the list are notable. (A good clue is that they have articles of their own or are mentioned and referenced in the article for the main show.) Others are not (for the same reason in reverse, i.e. they don't even get passing mentions). Shows within shows as a subject is notable but a big list of them is not the way to approach it.
 * unoriginal: The list is not drawn from a single external source, or even a concatenation of external sources on the subject, so it is an original compilation. I don't see that as fatal in itself, although it is not encouraging. The question is what is left once the Original Research is taken out.
 * verifiable: While quite a lot of the items are unreferenced I am sure that many of them could be referenced. The rest are non-notables.
 * serves a navigational and organizational function: This is the killer for me. It is hard to see how it can do this when so many of the items listed do not have articles or even sections on them in the article for the main show. We can't aid in navigation if here is nothing further to navigate to.
 * Lets look at an example: Adventures of Sonic the Hedgehog is claimed to contain two fictional shows: Edgar Eagle and Lifestyles of the Very Good. Neither of these is mentioned in the Adventures of Sonic the Hedgehog. Lifestyles of the Very Good does not get a mention in Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous either, although a different parody Lifestyles of the Sick and Twisted does get an unreferenced mention. I have no reason to believe that the information is false (even though it is unreferenced) but its absence from the main article suggests that it is non-notable and trivial. The 6 Google hits for "Lifestyles of the Very Good" would seem to bear this out. "Edgar Eagle" gets rather more hits (although I didn't see any RS) yet it still only merits a one line write-up on the Sonic News Network Wiki.
 * This isn't some knee jerk "Ugh. Delete!" response. In fact I would like to see some way found to save the list but I think that taking it off Wikipedia is the only realistic possibility for achieving this.
 * --DanielRigal (talk) 23:29, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * It isn't fair either for anyone to falsely characterise the keep arguments as "ILIKEIT." In any event, the list already meets many of those criteria for lists.  Lets go through them again:
 * discriminate: Yes. There is a clear inclusion criteria: only "television shows", only "fictional" television shows, and per our guidelines and policies only "verifiable" fictional television shows.  Restricting the entries on the list further so that we have a more compact list is a reason to edit the article, not scrap it altogether.  Have short articles is not a problem in an encyclopedia, just as Britannica has the micropedia articles that do not also appear in the macropedia.
 * encyclopaedic: This discriminate article is certainly encyclopedic in the paperless Wikipedic sense of what many of our editors and readers come here for. If it stands any chance for further improvement then we go that route first per WP:BEFORE as deletion is an extreme last resort when something is a hoax, copy vio, libelous, etc.
 * maintainable: It has a clear inclusion criteria and it only needs vigilant editors to make sure that only sourced entries are added, as is the case with pretty much every article.
 * notable: "Non-notable" is subjective and tends to smack of personal preference, i.e. "I don't like it". Because some entries that are verifiable through reliable secondary sources are worthy of articles, the concept is objectively "notable."  And a fair compromise would be to focus on those entries that have stand alone articles.
 * unoriginal: Such secondary sources as this analyze the idea of a "cartoon-within-a-cartoon". If we use and cite such sources as that, the research is not our own, i.e. it is unoriginal.  To that end, when I argue, I am always considering Potential, not just current state and unequivocally an article based on secondary sources concerning "fictional television shows" is absolutely feasible.
 * verifiable: If some do not really belong in this list, then they can and should be removed while we focus on the ones that are verifiable through secondary sources, such as Itchy and Scratchy Show or say The Terrance and Philip Show.
 * serves a navigational and organizational function: Even for the entries for which the fictional show does not have an article, the show in which the fictional show appears probably does and we can still at least have an internal link to that article.
 * Thus, I am still not persuaded that this concept is unsalvageable and per WP:BEFORE and WP:PRESERVE, I would much rather see further effort put into that end, even if as suggested above to move it to a totally new article on Fictional television shows that focus on a more analytical summary of the secondary sources I alude to above, i.e. an article about the concept that uses the most significant examples rather than a list. The bottom line is that we have alternatives to deletion that have not yet been exhausted.  I will as always gladly help when I can, but unfortunately, tomorrow I am having an ultrasound.  So, we'll see how that turns out...  Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 01:39, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I didn't characterise the keep voters as being guilty of ILIKEIT so I am not sure why you bring that up.
 * I am concerned that your rebuttal glosses over the serious problems with the basis of the article as it stands. These problems have clearly been ongoing for years (although this AfD is the first time the article has come to my attention). So, if the article is claimed to be salvageable, my question is: Why has it not yet been salvaged? Is there really any hope that it will be improved after this AfD, or is it going to be left as it is until somebody stumbles over it again in a year or so and sends it for a fourth AfD? --DanielRigal (talk) 17:17, 11 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep Expressed a little more briefly, major fictional elements in notable fiction are suitable subjects for articles and lists. There is no reasonable Wikipedia policy that justifies deletion: Indiscriminate would only apply if it were devoted to shows in all fiction whatsoever, not just notable fiction.  We would probably be justified in writing separate articles about every one of these included shows, and a list of such articles would surely be appropriate content. I'm not in any rush to write such articles; in the meantime, we have compromise solutions like this. this sort of article should be supported not just by those who wants extensive coverage of fiction in Wikipedia, but by everybody who is willing to compromise on that issue at all.    DGG ( talk ) 03:07, 11 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep per Lugnuts, DGG et al. - easily definable and circumscribable. I suspect there will be commentary in articles/books on fiction about pretendy TV shows etc. If I have time I will try and source. Actually has three references describing the same material as what the article is about already, one more than necessary under General Notability Guidelines. More wil be nice to cement this as a notable topic. Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:31, 11 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep The same nominator, who didn't get his way last time, nominates the same article again. *sigh*  This article is a perfectly fine list article.  When these shows get mentioned, in newspaper reviews, TV guide, books about television of that era published years later, Wikipedia articles for the shows, or wherever, they mention its a show about a fictional television show, or a show within a show, that a key aspect of it.  Listing things that have something clearly defined in common, if that something in common is deemed notable, is what list articles are all about.   D r e a m Focus  09:59, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * That was more than a year and a half ago so it is not like he is constantly banging away at this article trying to get it deleted, nor is he the only person to suggest that it should be deleted. Wikipedia's standards are evolving and many commentators have noted that we are getting a bit more rigorous about enforcing encyclopaedic content than we have been in the past. It does not seem unreasonable to suggest that the article be looked at again. --DanielRigal (talk) 17:28, 11 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep - I don't think nominating an article for deletion then nominating the same article again for deletion is not going to work for the people who think this list is useful, which it is, furthermore, the last nomination was not in 2007, it was in mid 2008, one year and a half of time is a long ime. However, it's still pretty useful and during this discussion, someone has added a source to it. So right now, I don't see much of a reason why it should be deleted, it's got useful information for some. --Andromedabluesphere440 (talk) 17:29, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep and move on. This is the 3rd nomination, I know over time, but come on!  This is exactly the kind of article that many people love about wikipedia.  Per the essay WP:WIFC, "The value in Wikipedia, and its popularity, comes from the huge amount of random articles on nearly any topic imaginable, with all the relevant information in one place. Wikipedia is a great resource because of breadth and depth; no matter how good an article we have on evolution or the United States, a hundred thousand similar articles can be found everywhere. What distinguishes us from the paper encyclopedias is our versatility and our ability to constantly expand on any topic one can think of. We thrive on the attention from people all over the globe searching for some random little factoid. It does no harm to have loads of articles on things that would never be in the scope of Britannica."  The same thing goes for Articles for deletion/Dewey, Cheatem & Howe.  Deleting these articles will not benefit the project.  In the meantime, I invite everyone to check out my newest creation, Bikini barista, it could stand to have some more pictures added.--Milowent (talk) 17:47, 12 March 2010 (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.