Deletion of List of fictional films in Seinfeld

Comment: WP:CRUFT isn't policy, but |no original research is, and this article is one big piece of OR
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:NOR)

Comment: per Motor; unencyclopedic (meet ) original research (meet ) is inappropriate content, however well written it might be
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT||WP:NOR)

Comment: It's a bad analogy because it's totally unrelated. Identify for me the elements in this article that do not appear in the episodes of ''Seinfeld''; if there are none, then it is impossible that I am "generating new information."  This article does not make any new argument about the list of fictitious films as a whole, it merely catalogues them. I fail to see anywhere in  that lists need to have already been categorized as such by an outside source."An edit counts as original research if it proposes ideas or arguments." What new ideas or arguments appear here
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:NOR)

Comment: I think you are looking at the letter of the law, in this case the , and not he spirit of the law.  The  was created so that we don't have individuals who call themselves "authorities" on a subject giving un-factual information.  For instance, I start an article about Nuclear Fusion because I think it has something to do with an atom and splitting it, and I present that information as factual.  That is where the  comes into play, as that would not be appropriate.  But the rule wasn't put into place to stifle research.  The very idea that someone would do research is inherit in creating an article.  It's the very nature of Wiki.  But, as I said earlier (or later, I don't know where this falls in relation to my other comments), but Wiki is constantly evolving.  And while I agree with you Motor, as this isn't what would be considered a subject that belongs in an encyclopedia, it is that fact that make it an appropriate subject for Wiki.  It is one of the best things about this site, the fact that it contains so much information on such a wide verity of subjects.  I appreciate how Dylan gathered this information and made a page that is easy to understand and navigate.  To delete his work, because it falls within the "gray" area of what is Original Research or what is encyclopedic in nature, would only stifle the creativity that Wiki is based off.  In fact, this discussion is another great thing about Wiki, the fact that so many people with so many different backgrounds and opinons have come together to create a site that one day could rival Google
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT||WP:NOT||WP:NOT)

Comment: Yeah, it's crufty, but  is not policy.  Besides, I think that the sheer popularity of this show allows a little latitude.  To respond to one of the above posters, sure it's U.S.-centric, but the huge number of viewers of Seinfeld make it objectively popular.  The fact that it is so well written doesn't hurt, either
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Fancruft (WP:CRUFT)

Comment: I'm not going to rehash the same point any more:  does not prohibit what you are describing. Rather, you seem to have a novel interpretation of the original research policy that no one else seems to share (for example: of the ten "delete" votes so far, only two mention original research: yours and the one by Angus McLellan who dubbed it "per Motor." In fact, your original vote didn't even mention original research, it appeared as an objection in later comments). Your interpreation would delete the great majority of material at :Category:Dynamic lists, lists to which "revisions and additions are welcome," meaning that they aren't already listed at some exterior source as belonging to that list, they just need to verifiably meet the criteria. Should this type of material qualify as original research, I should think that one of the other Special:Statistics|1,602,256 editors would have pointed it out by now and deleted it straightaway.We seem to be talking past each other: I can't understand why you don't see it my way, and I'm guessing that you feel likewise. This argument is sapping my time and energy, and I think it's time to call it to an end. Feel free to take the last word, but I've made my points several times and I am done repeating them
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:NOR)

Comment: I am not demanding that all sources be secondary (but Wikipedia generally prefers them)... what I am saying is that the very subject of this article was invented by Dylan, and then researched by him. This is original research in a way that many lists are not. It is also against , since it is a list with a spurious theme... it is an indiscriminate collection of cruft... and should be deleted on both counts
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT)

Comment: Which criteria, exactly, does this meet at  and ? I can't see for the life of me how it is original research (see my comment above to Motor
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT||WP:NOR)

Comment: Again, you want printed rather than broadcast material. I don't see why the former is acceptable when the latter is not. Look at the quote I provided above and explain to me how what I have done is not the collection and organization of information from existing primary sources. Insofar as  is concerned, this is hardly parallel to the examples given there like "quotations, aphorisms, or persons." This kind of list-making in television and other fictional worlds has precedent in List of fictional revolutions and coups, List of Star Wars races, List of fictional humanoid species, List of extraterrestrials in fiction, List of fictional plants, List of neologisms on The Simpsons, List of Neon Genesis Evangelion topics, List of products in The Simpsons, Lisa's sax solo gags on The Simpsons, List of vehicles in The Simpsons, Media in The Simpsons, Chalkboard gag, or, of course, List of fictitious films. I grant that this article is generally more specific than these other articles, but that's simply because there's too much information here to let this remain a subection of List of fictitious films#Fictitious films from Seinfeld. I'd say that the presence of that last article is the a very strong argument in favor of keeping this one: this article is the exact same thing, but has been broken off because it is simply too big
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT)

Comment: where are the reliable sources to back up the contents of the article? Saying "I've watched the episodes and collected together a list of stuff from them", is original research. Note: don't bother linking to fan transcripts either... . As for WP:NOT... Wikipedia is not for "lists or repositories of loosely associated topics" -- making a list of fictional theatre/film mention in Seinfeld is about a spurious as it gets. As I said before, there is a Seinfeld wiki to serve the needs of people who want to collect/catalogue all kinds of trivia about the show. Wikipedia isn't for that. This does not justify its own article here
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS)

Comment: I'm as against Wikipedia:fancruft|fancruftiness as the next editor (perhaps more so), but this is a neutral, well-written article that presents a notable example of a metafictional list. In fact, this is split from an article devoted to the topic: List of fictitious films. The organisation into lists of factual, verified items is certainly not |Original research. The article could do with a better screen capture, however
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:NOR)