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.
Keep As I've said above and below this is a notable plot point in a notable tv series. It was a subplot througout the show and the movie's production was a metaphor for Chris' life in generalShniken1 12:32, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It did generate significant media coverage. There was a mock publicity campaign for it, including an ad in Daily Variety. Secondary coverage: NY Post, Variety. HBO also aired a mock "making of" documentary: [1][2]. This shows sufficient notability outside of the show itself to justify a separate article. Thomjakobsen15:00, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, exactly. Plus this article appears to have no problem seperating fact from fiction as stated... --Shniken1 15:01, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it does have a movie infobox made to look like that of a real film, which sort of blurs the line. But that's a content issue, rather than a reason for deletion. Thomjakobsen15:08, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It should be noted that SeizureDog has nominated a number of these types of articles for deletion within a few minutes of each other... I find it hard to believe that he has fully researched the articles notablity and if he has any background knowledge on the shows in question --Shniken1 15:06, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I basically went through Category:Fictional films and afd-ed most of the entries there. It takes a lot for a fictional film to be notable enough for inclusion in my opinion, and the article fails to assert its notability. From reading the article, I see just a big in-universe decription of the "film" without giving any reliable sources.--SeizureDog07:58, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I beg to differ. For example, see Entertainment Weekly. I'm not looking for more cites as I've already seen too many spoilers for episodes I've not seen yet. This series is massively popular, has massive mainstream coverage and this AFD proposal is just a killing spree for film-within-a-film references. Dislike of recursive fiction is no reason to delete. Colonel Warden07:08, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But the article has no third-party references, nor any evidence of notability. I'm not arguing that none exists, but that nobody has put them in the article despite this AfD. Both the article itself, as well as the lack of improvement activity only serve to emphasize the failing of Wikipedia inclusion standards at this time. — pd_THOR|=/\= | 16:29, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Third-party references supporting notability have been provided during this discussion. That's all that's required during an AfD: "references exist, but they haven't been added yet" is a fairly minor surmountable problem, not a reason for deletion. Thomjakobsen17:09, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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.