Misplaced Pages

:Articles for deletion/List of fictitious films (2nd nomination) - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Miltopia (talk | contribs) at 21:22, 24 October 2007 (userfy). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 21:22, 24 October 2007 by Miltopia (talk | contribs) (userfy)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

List of fictitious films

AfDs for this article:
List of fictitious films (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (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)

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)
  • 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)
  • Misplaced Pages articles don't prove the notability of other Misplaced Pages 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)
Categories: