Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictitious 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 delete.  krimpet ⟲  00:11, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

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

Delete - indiscriminate collection of information and directory of loosely or unassociated items. This is a list seeking to capture every mention of every non-existent film from every medium. Fictitious films within other media are almost never notable as there are rarely if ever independent reliable sources that are about the fictitious films themselves. In those rare instances when such sources exist, then an article (such as those found in Category:Fictional films) should be written. This list is boundless as it seeks to capture every passing reference to every fake movie poster that a character in any medium passes, every fake title mentioned as a one-off joke. This list serves no navigational purpose, as the few bluelinks that are in the article are not to articles about the phony films but are instead links to the film that the title parodies or the work of fiction from which the trivial reference is drawn. "It has a fictitious film in it" is not a theme. In most instances the film itself is not a significant plot device, and if it is a significant plot device then per WP:FICT it should be covered in the article for the fiction from which it's drawn or, if there is appropriate reliable sourcing, split into its own article. Otto4711 19:07, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per Otto 4711, who has left little to be said. Why are the "In films" and "In television" sections in these articles always so much longer than the "In books" sections? Doesn't anyone read anymore? Deor 19:32, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete what can I say about this one. Pretty much everything bad about lists right here in this one list. Ridernyc 20:57, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Indiscriminate list of trivial notability. – sgeureka t•c 20:59, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete, unencyclopedic list and probably a violation of policy. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 22:02, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong delete, like last time. It hasn't changed. Axem Titanium 23:22, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete; WP:NOT. Masaruemoto 23:37, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Someone went to a lot of hard work on this, and although the list, by itself, is not encyclopedic, parts of it can be merged into various articles on TV shows. From what I can tell, these are (a) movies that Ginger Grant says she starred in before she was marooned on Gilligan's Island; (b) titles on the marquee in the theater where Josh works on Drake and Josh; (c) movies that were previewed in films like "Kentucky Fried Movie"; etc.  I'm sure there is an article about Ginger on Wikipedia.  Ultimately, though, this is a list of "one liners" that are part of a movie or TV script.  It's like compiling a list of every variety of necktie that President Bush has worn since his inauguration-- it can be done, but it's not worth doing.  Mandsford 00:35, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * that seems a poor analogy. There is nothing much about his neckties that indicates anything about his character or the nature of his work. (or if there is, perhaps someone has in fact commented in an RS about it--some Presidential clothes has had some degree of iconic significance, such as JFK's practice to never wear overcoats). But the names and nature of fictional films used as plot elements in major works of creative art is not a matter of chance, but a matter that indicates the artistic choices made in the work, and will probably in fact be discussed in reviews. I notice the frequent practice of attacking an article by suggesting an analogy with one much weaker. That's a good way to destroy anything. Anything at all can be compared to the presidents ties and made to seem ridiculous. I think this will fgo into another paragraph on arguments to avoid. DGG (talk) 03:16, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * FYI, DGG, what you're describing is the use of straw man arguments. --Hnsampat 22:17, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge useful content into various articles, seeing how I didn't cast a vote. It's not a straw man argument.  If someone went to a lot of effort to make a list of the different neckties that President Bush had worn, it would be equally difficult... and equally pointless.  The "films within films", yeah, I can understand that.  But the names of all the titles seen on the marquee in Drake and Josh?  My kids watch it, so I've seen that the theater is pictured for a few seconds.  And Ginger Grant's films?  Digging into my original research memory, my recollection is that few of them had titles.  Ginger would refer to a plot, like "Once I was a magician's assistant in a movie.."   And don't get me started on Family Guy or The Simpsons.  This is why there's a rule that Wikipedia is not a joke book. Mandsford 22:01, 25 October 2007 (UTC)


 * strong keep otto's opinion is wrongheaded for wikipedia. the material contains much hard work, the material has many notable and verifiable examples.  it can be improved, and over time it will be improved.  this is his second nomination under the same principles it is worrisome. --Buridan 01:03, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The fact that it was kept the first time is worrisome. Hard work a good article does not make. The concept of fictional films itself is not notable. Thus, no critical commentary has been made on the use of fictional films in media. Imagine if you will, a world where several books of relatively high impact have been published on the use of the concept of fictional films and their significance in various media. If this were true, then an article about fictional films would be created, citing these books, and if necessary, include a section on the notable use of them in other works. However, it should NOT extend to creating another article about every fictional film ever mentioned because many are satirical jokes or meaningless quips. In the end though, there is no critical commentary on the significance of fictional films and thus, no article on that concept exists (yes, I am aware that fictional film exists but that article is about another concept entirely). Axem Titanium 01:32, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * fictional films are notable, hundreds if not thousands of articles exist to show that, the list supports those articles, notability is transfered in this case. --Buridan 13:35, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia articles don't prove the notability of other Wikipedia articles. This list does not support anything, as the links in it are in the vast majority of cases not to articles about the fictional films but are links to the film that the title parodies. Otto4711 14:13, 24 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep, not the least of which was the fact this article survived AFD back in January. What has changed to make it no longer acceptable? The only problem I see is that this article needs more sourcing. That's a content issue. 23skidoo 16:34, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * As you know, consensus can change. The quality of the keep arguments at the first AFD were overall rather poor, amounting in many instances to potentially useful and people put a lot of work into it. The keep arguments then didn't address the policy issues with the article and "it was kept before" certainly doesn't. Otto4711 19:06, 24 October 2007 (UTC
 * deleting on policy rules is against wp:iar.--Buridan 20:59, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * WP:IAR is not a trump card. Otto4711 21:03, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * it is when people start being rules lawyers. when people start to be rule lawyers, ignore all rules trumps them.  consensus rules over policy. --Buridan 23:47, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Er, not quite. WP:IAR is a policy in place for when following the letter of the law will violate the spirit of the law. It is not a blank check for people to do what they want.--Hnsampat 00:22, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
 * er, right, and that is what this nomination is doing. violating the spirit of wp. --Buridan 13:40, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
 * No, this nomination is reflective of the fact that consensus can change. --Hnsampat 21:25, 25 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete per nominator. If the dry and dusty death of Quirrell in Harry Potter is described as "gory", for instance, then this list has gone out of control. --Tony Sidaway 19:43, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Userfy, this article is cool, can we move it to someone's userspace plz? Milto LOL pia 21:22, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, as per last AFD less than a year ago Jcuk 22:35, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * That is not a "keep" reason, per WP:CCC. Axem Titanium 03:18, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - Axem Titanium is spot on here. I'm amazed this article survived the previous Afd, even though it has clearly been worked on very hard by some people, for who I'm sorry. Thedreamdied 06:58, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, as it passed an earlier discussion already this year, satisfies List by being organized coherently and works probably better than even a category would. Also, by being in list format, the article demonstrates the notability of fictional films by clearly indicating how many times they have appeared in notable mediums.  I do agree that references would be helpful.  Sincerely, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 19:24, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
 * You keep making this argument, that because there is a list of things the subject of the list is notable. No. I could make List of fictional blue clothes and populate it quite extensively with every blue costume from every movie ever made and it doesn't make "fictional blue clothes" notable. This list does not satisfy WP:LIST because it does not satisfy that guideline's constituent Lists (stand-alone lists). As has been noted many times before, consensus can change so citing a previous AFD from nine months ago is hardly conclusive. Otto4711 20:45, 25 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep the scope of the list is well defined (albeit possibly too broad), and the list is extremely well organized.-- danntm T C 21:20, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
 * How organized the list is is not a "keep" criterion. Axem Titanium 21:57, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Transwiki to wikibooks. There are far more fictional movies out there than this article contains. jonathon 22:34, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete I can't imagine all the backtracking and retroactive work that would be required to find sources for all of these; it would take a long time and SO much work, and in the mean time it would not be an article that meets standards. If someone really, really wants to make this his or her crusade, let them userfy it until they finish it. But it should be deleted as unsourced and all-but-unsourceable. &mdash;ScouterSig 03:01, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Could potentially list thousands of fictional titles (it's already huge), 99% of these films are not notable anyway, so it's indiscriminate and useless as a list. Category:Fictional films already contains the few notable fictional films. The keep arguments are mainly WP:EFFORT and "it survived afd before". Crazysuit 20:55, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom and others. Listcruft, breaks a few WP:NOT's. Doctorfluffy 01:46, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Information is useful to those who work with such material and is not likely to be found elsewhere. Information, in my opinion, could be organized better (maybe a sortable table?) but hardly reason for deletion. Lede should expand to at least generally explain why fictitious film titles are used. Also a subsection of fictitious film titles later turned into films might be of use. Benjiboi 02:30, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * WP:USEFUL, much? An article dealing with this concept at fictitious film must first be written but since this concept is not notable itself, there is no article there and a list documenting it is not appropriate. Axem Titanium 02:49, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Disagree. This list brings together related information about fictitious films and is useful for navigating that subject per WP:USEFUL. Perhaps this is a basis for expanding why fictitious names are used and organizing this literary device within a parent article the use of fictitious names et al. Benjiboi 04:08, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * This list is not a navigational device because its links are not to articles about the non-existent films, because articles on those non-existent films do not (and in the vast majority of cases should not) exist. Otto4711 12:50, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * If it needs to be linked then do so, if it needs to be expanded or explained then do so. AfDing articles you don't like is not the trial by fire way to fix articles. If you want to improve the article to make wikipedia better then step up to the plate. If your intent is to remove items because the articles are flawed then I think you're out of line. I belive the article is useful. By gathering information about the subject from numerous other articles and organizing them can certainly make for an encyclopedic article, that it doesn't as of yet do so is not the reason to delete. I find the elimination of articles that simply need improving quite disheartening and a put-off to those editors who have obviously made a good faith effort to write something of value. Instead of kicking the article around you could try prodding it so that its value is more readily evident. Benjiboi 13:03, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The article has survived a previous AFD so as I understand it is not eligible for a prod. My intent is to remove articles that fail Wikipedia policies and guidelines. This list violates multiple policies and guidelines, as enumerated in the nomination, and as much as you may like the article you have failed to address those violations. "It's useful" does not address them (and is disputed). "Editors made a good faith effort" does not address them. "It just needs work" does not address them. If an actual sourced article on the topic of fictional films, which includes a sourced analysis of how they are used, can be written, then I would be interested in reading it (and am in fact trying to free up the article space for the potential article). A list of every time someone makes up a joke title that spoken in two seconds on a TV screen and is never heard of again is not such an article. Otto4711 15:23, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * We'll have to agree to disagree then as I feel all your concerns can be addressed by simply refocusing the lede and regularly editing the list to bring it into focus. I feel the list is useful as is and will only improve with regular editing. Benjiboi 17:10, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The list can't possibly be refocused in a way that is POV-neutral. There is no objective inclusion standard that can be generated. Otto4711 18:34, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Indent reset. That's quite a skill you have to be able to tell that an article could never possibly be fixed. Thank goodness most of the articles I've pulled from AfD didn't have such a judge sitting as jury and executioner as well. Benjiboi 18:40, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * DELETE. WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU PEOPLE??????   CAN WE CONVERT TO STABLE VERSIONS NOW??  Bur nt sau ce  22:37, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete clear WP:NOT material, fails WP:V, WP:RS, clear case of no application of WP:COMMONSENSE, article is pure WP:LISTCRUFT.  ALKIVAR &trade; &#x2622; 00:05, 30 October 2007 (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.