Deletion of List of fictional films in Seinfeld

Comment: A very poor analogy. Counting books is an act of research, and by coming up with 4,000, you are introducing information that was not previously available. What I did was "collect and organize" information that is broadcast and re-broadcast nationally in the U.S., meaning that the information was '''definitely''' already available. The fact that I took specific instances of the provided information is simply a part of the "collecting and organizing." Further, "you have to go down there and count them yourself" means that it's not verifiable because it takes an act of research to verify it. With the citations I provided, it does not take an act of research (e.g. counting), merely re-examing the primary source -- the same way you can verify that a college has 4,100 undergraduates by looking it up in a book and saying "Aha, there it is, he's right," you just need to "look up" in the episode that Elaine couldn't get tickets to ''Means to an End''.I suppose in the end this comes down to a judgment call of whether this is a "list or repository of loosely associated topics." I submit that it is not, and it seems that you and I have nowhere else to go in our disagreement on this matter. I have clearly demonstrated that this is not original research -- you can ignore the policy statements at  if you want, but the quotation I provided above states in no uncertain terms that what I did is prototypical source-based research and is certainly welcome in Wikipedia
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:NOR)

Comment: You continue to ask "whose research is it citing," which presumes right away that we have to cite ''a secondary source'', which I am obviously not using. I am using a primary source. It really seems to me that you're the one confusing this issue: instead of pointing out exactly what passages of  I'm violating here, you just keep repeating "this is original research" and not going any farther. Until you can say " says not to do '''this''', and you did '''that'''," then you can't seriously expect me to just believe that I did original research.I see your argument in the sense that I had to be the one to think of creating an article called Fictional films in Seinfeld, but that's simply the nature of a list (the article should be moved to "List of fictional films in Seinfeld"). Look at List of films based on the Bible or countless others in :Category:Lists of films. I'm not linking these to try an argument from precedent as I did earlier, only to show you that you're obviously the only one who has this unique interpretation of . No else thinks it's original research to list a bunch of films about the Bible; if they all independently profess to be about the Bible, then we put them together in a list. You still have not fulfilled my request to point out which particular passage of  states that we can't make lists of this type -- probably because '''it isn't considered original research
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:NOR)