Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional films in Seinfeld
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
— User:Kane5187, 21:42, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
Stance: comment
Cited policy: WP:NOR (Wikipedia:No original research)