Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional films in Seinfeld


 * 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.  

The result of the debate was keep. Ian13/ talk 16:20, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

List of fictional films in Seinfeld
This is trivia rather than encyclopedic content. It concerns fictional works within an already fictional work. I can completely understand having an article on Seinfeld, but this seems rather unimportant to a general encyclopedia. Erik the Rude 01:44, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
 *  Keep Strong Keep. I created the article and just added a list of sixteen additional fictional films referenced. The presence of these films is a running gag in the show, and several of the films (particularly Rochelle, Rochelle) become a part of multiple plots. Much less than this has been included in the past. Kane5187 01:47, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Upgraded my vote to "strong keep" after substantially improving the article to be more comprehensive. Kane5187 03:08, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep This information was combined from several articles on each individual fictional film. Having separate articles for detailed areas of a TV show is not uncommon.  See Springfield (The Simpsons), Notable guest stars of ER (TV series), Newman (Seinfeld).  These movies are not any more fictional than the characters themselves, and some of them figure prominently in the plotlines (Rochelle, Rochelle).  Also, the information itself is fine. Adambiswanger1 01:51, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep Per Adambiswanger1. Irongargoyle 04:12, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep I added the lyrics for Rochelle Rochelle. This is exactly the kind of encyclopedic, obscure information that makes wikipedia great. Seinfeld is a treasure trove for trivia, and this page is a great example! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrstephengross (talk • contribs) 22:23, June 10, 2006 (EDT)
 * Users first edit was the one above, and has two other edits on the article itself. Account was created on 03:21, 11 June 2006. Likely sock.-- Andeh 16:16, 11 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Weak Delete. Listcruft, fancruft, whichever you want to call it. I would disagree that this article shares any parallel with Springfield (The Simpsons), Notable guest stars of ER (TV series), or Newman (Seinfeld). If this were an article on Seinfeld guest stars, or a notable Seinfeld character, then there'd be a parallel. Agent 86 02:50, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
 * CommentFrom Fancruft
 * "As with most of the issues of importance and notability in Wikipedia, there is no firm policy on the inclusion of obscure branches of popular culture subjects. It is true that things labeled fancruft are often deleted from Wikipedia. This is primarily due to the fact that things labeled as fancruft are often poorly written, unreferenced, unwikified, and non-neutral - all things that lead to deletion. Such articles may also fall foul of Wikipedia's policy against creating "indiscriminate collections of information". Well-referenced and well-written articles on obscure topics are from time to time deleted as well, but such deletions are controversial. It is also worth noting that many articles on relatively obscure topics are featured articles." Think about what that says. Then vote.  Adambiswanger1 03:04, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment I tend to agree, but you might want to change your last statement to "then discuss" as opposed to "then vote." We don't vote on Wikipedia, as "voting is evil." We discuss (I've been pwned over such terminology in the past). Oh yea, Weak Keep, per your citation.  young  american  (talk) 03:32, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I have read Fancruft, which is not policy, and continues on to say, "Rather, the term fancruft is a shorthand for content which one or more editors consider unencyclopaedic..." Please remember to be civil and assume good faith. I hope Adambiswanger1 meant no offense by what could be construed to be a passive-agressive slight. Agent 86 03:50, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Dear Agent. My statement was in no way intended to be passive-aggressive or incivil--only concise. If you wish to stand by your accusation I should kindly like to know why.  Also, please Assume Good Faith when monitoring the tone of other editors. Thanks. But, back to the argument itself:  Admittedly, Fancruft is not an official policy.  But, there is also no official policy against it.  The essay, which is on official Wikipedia namespace, suggests that most deleted "fancruft" articles are poorly written.  This one is certainly not.  It also indicates that the deletion of articles such as this is controversial, and "many articles on relatively obscure topics are featured articles." Adambiswanger1 04:12, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
 * There was a clarifiaction that was meant to show that no slight was meant, but it got deleted somehow. Scroll back through the edit history .  young  american  (talk) 04:02, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
 *  Young  american, I had hoped to make it clear in my comment that my remarks were in relation to what Adambiswanger1 had written, not you. Nevertheless, I should make it emphatically clear that I am not offended in any way by any of the editors in this thread and I am trusting that the comment by Adambiswanger1 was meant in good faith.Agent 86 04:17, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
 * My bad, I missread due to tabbing, but your comment was crystal clear. I need to get some sleep.  young  american  (talk) 04:23, 11 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment Those might not have been the best examples, but I'd say that this article DEFINITELY has similarities with List of products in The Simpsons, Lisa's sax solo gags on The Simpsons, List of vehicles in The Simpsons, Media in The Simpsons, and Chalkboard gag. Kane5187 03:43, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, while this would be a great and interesting topic for a fansite, it is not encyclopedic (even if other encyclopedias had unlimited space, they would not even approach this much detail). Ideally there would be a single article for the entire show. -- Kjkolb 03:26, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. The Seinfeld connection confers considerable notability. The author did much more than merely list facts but actually developed the information on on fictional film and cross-referenced the materail. I could very easily want to find this kind of information and believe that the number of other possible users is high enough to warrant keeping it. As a stub, it's a very good start, much stronger than many others. Interlingua 03:50, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. We don't need to cover every single minor detail in a TV series, no matter how famous the series is. Wikipedia does not aim for exhaustive coverage of a given topic. JoaoRicardotalk 03:56, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per JoaoRicardo. --Coredesat 04:05, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Why shouldn't we aim for exhaustive coverage of a given topic if that topic is as interesting and culturally significant as Seinfeld? Instead of deleting pages like these, we should try to expand our coverage of the more "scholarly" subjects (Shakespeare, Chaucer, etc) to include as much detail.  Plus, Prognosis Negative is arguably more well-known than, say, Walshville, Illinois... :) Zagalejo 04:35, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Hey a town smaller than mine! :D I'm from Winslow, Arkansas. 399 is so sad :( Anyways, Strong keep Interesting and well written.
 * Because we are trying to make an encyclopedia. And who said Seinfeld is "interesting and culturally significant"? Where? When? For how long? Sorry, not many Seinfeld fans where I live. Always good to get off the USA-centric POV. JoaoRicardotalk 21:45, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Called the greatest show of all time by TV Guide, number one in the Nielsen ratings for several seasons, etc., etc. Kane5187 00:31, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Which are both restricted to the USA as far as I can tell. (I actually had to look up "Nielsen ratings" in Wikipedia, because I've never heard of it.) It just goes to prove my point: Seinfeld may be the greatest TV series in the USA, but it doesn't mean the whole world should know about it. I thought we were trying to build a world encyclopedia, not a compendium of American pop culture. JoaoRicardotalk 00:36, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Point taken, but very few articles here are well-known by everyone. I don't see why the geographical sphere of influence of Seinfeld really matters; important is important. I'm not hammering for the deletion of Only Fools and Horses just because it's not broadcast in my country. It's still very popular and important, and I would hardly fault British editors for writing "crufty" articles about it analogous to this one. Kane5187 01:05, 12 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep who could ever forget Rochelle, Rochelle? Almost as notable as Tool Time, another show within a show. CanadianCaesar Cæsar is turn’d to hear 05:17, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Never heard of it. And yes, I've watched Seinfeld episodes. JoaoRicardotalk 21:45, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm of the opinion that fancruft should be transwikied to appropriate Wikia sites. (In this case it would be ). However I don't see this happening until more people realize that Wikia exists and should be a better place to look for pop culture material. So: weak keep Whitejay251 07:08, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep I think that separate articles about these films could be considered as cruft, but this well written article is far from it. Kevin 07:54, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep Wikipedia is more then just the next version of the old dusty encyclopedias that everyone has sitting on their bookshelves. It trancends that, and allows for the exploring of not only the TV Show, but also the culture that this TV Show created.  This article serves as the examples in everything that is good about Wikipedia.  This site is the repository of information.  Rather or not it's relevent is not for one or two people to decide, it's relivence is decided by the fact that it has embedded itself into our culture.  While I agree that we don't need fiction on every TV Show created, this is one of the most well known running jokes from a show that changed TV and Sitcoms, forever.ReignofJerm
 * Strong delete, fancruft, listcruft and unencylopedic. Someone want to explain how a list of fictional film/theater in Seinfeld is notable enough for its own article? Really... if you want to document the tiny details of Seinfeld, then good luck to you, but you are in the wrong place. There is a Seinfeld wiki... take it there... in fact, take it anywhere but Wikipedia. - Motor (talk) 11:55, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep - it's a good, verifyable article about something that completely fails to interest me. The point is that it's the quality of the article that wins here - a rubbish article on this subject would get scrubbed as cruft - Peripitus (Talk) 12:51, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep a good quality, verifiable, article, about a notable TV show — M e ts 501 (talk) 15:31, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep because movie-going was a recurring theme on the show. --JChap 15:36, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per reasons set forth by ReignofJerm. --BrownHornet21 16:01, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete per Motor - listcruft, fancruft, totally useless information - pm_shef 16:15, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep we shouldn't be afraid to expand on minor aspects of relevant TV series--Aldux 16:49, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete gratuitous fancruft. Take it to the Seinfeld wiki as per Motor, but this is harmful to Wikipedia if the article stays here. Bwithh 22:04, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as unencyclopedic fancruft. Reyk  YO!  23:41, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Seinfeld was a seminal, pathbreaking show and this article covers an important aspect of its lore and comedy. Does real credit and adds valuable information to wikipedia. It should and must stay here. --JJay 00:11, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong delete per Motor Travis Wells 00:21, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep - Yeah, it's crufty, but WP:CRUFT 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.  --Joelmills 00:28, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment, WP:CRUFT isn't policy, but no original research is, and this article is one big piece of OR. - Motor (talk) 10:16, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment How in the world is this original research? The entire bulk of the article is information learned from dialogue in the episodes, which is easily verifiable by reading a transcript from the show (available online) or by watching the episodes; when both information and quotations appear, their episodes are cited to ease such endeavors to verify it. There's absolutely no new synthesis of information or introduction of research, simply a repetition and summary of what was broadcast on television. Kane5187 12:24, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment. If it is kept, it should me moved to List of fictional films in Seinfeld . JoaoRicardotalk 00:31, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep It's a well written article on a legitimate pop culture topic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DavidK93 (talk • contribs) 2006-06-12 06:42:28
 * Strong delete per Motor; unencyclopedic (meet WP:NOT) original research (meet WP:NOR) is inappropriate content, however well written it might be. Angus McLellan (Talk) 11:26, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Question Which criteria, exactly, does this meet at WP:NOT and WP:NOR? I can't see for the life of me how it is original research (see my comment above to Motor). Kane5187 12:43, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 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... WP:RS. 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. - Motor (talk) 13:01, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment WP:NOR: "...research that consists of collecting and organizing information from existing primary and/or secondary sources is, of course, strongly encouraged...This is not 'original research'; it is 'source-based research', and it is fundamental to writing an encyclopedia." The episodes are the primary sources for the series. How is watching the episodes and representing the information -- without analysis, etc. -- any different from reading a book about Abraham Lincoln and incorporating that information into his article, complete with citations? It's not. I feel like your opposition here is more against the medium (i.e. watching television) as somehow less reliable than others. It's still completely verifiable -- the episodes are cited; you can go and watch the episode yourself and verify the quotations or prove them wrong. Kane5187 13:18, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment, even if anyone were to accept that watching every episode of a television show to collect and catalogue all the fictional films/theatres used is not OR (and I do not... so provide links to official scripts). You haven't answered the point about it basically being a "list or repository of loosely associated topics"... an indiscriminate collection of non-notable trivia. How is this material notable enough to justify an article? What is the problem with taking it where it belongs, to the Seinfeld wiki. - Motor (talk) 14:17, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 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 WP:NOT 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. 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. Kane5187 14:19, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment, For example: my new article is: there are four thousand books in my local library... I've counted them. This is a verifiable fact... all you have to do is go there and count them yourself. Naturally, this would be thrown out as OR. If the subject of this article is *notable*, then a reliable source has presumably already done the cataloguing and you are just citing the result. As far as I'm aware, this is not the case. As for the "precedent" set by the articles you listed... they have not set any precedent. This argument is trotted out whenever anyone AFDs an article with fans: that there are other articles like it (or worse). This is an unjustifiable argument given the way that Wikipedia works. We can only examine each article on its own merits. You are essentially claiming that "we" must AFD and delete other articles first. The fact remains that the subject of this article has no notablity in the wider world to justify it's own article. - Motor (talk) 14:48, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 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 WP:NOR 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. Kane5187 15:16, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment, there's nothing "poor" about it. It is exactly the same. You are generating new information (read the OR guidelines) on a non-notable subject. A trivial "list of" references with a theme. I repeat: this article is original research... just because you collected each individual reference from a verifiable source (DVDs presumably) does not change that. The process of compiling an aticle on this subject is OR. You need to find a reliable source that has already done this cataloguing. Even if you do that, you've still got the problem that it is not suitable for its own Wikipedia article (under WP:NOT), and that it has no notability outside of Seinfeld. - Motor (talk) 15:38, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 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 WP:NOR 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? Kane5187 15:44, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment, you created an article on a subject (fictional refs etc etc in Seinfeld) the specifics of which do not exist elsewhere as a reliable source. You then you went out and did research by checking every Seinfeld episode and documenting the occurances. It is 100% original research. If it is not original research, then whose research are you quoting here? The answer is: you did it yourself. We can dance around this subject all day... but the simple fact is, that this article is original research and should be deleted on that basis alone - and even if you were successful in confusing the issue enough to avoid deletion on the basis of OR, it violates WP:NOT. As I said right at the beginning of this... if you want to conduct such research, fine, no-one is stopping you. Just don't do it on Wikipedia because it violates one of the basic rules of the place. It's no good trying to reinterpret the rules and rules-lawyer in order to get around it. Just move it to a more suitable place, where the rules for inclusion are not those of an encyclopedia. - Motor (talk) 19:45, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment WP:NOR clearly states that "film, video or photographs" are examples of primary sources.  The guideline goes on to say, as Kane5187 pointed out, that "research that consists of collecting and organizing information from existing primary and/or secondary sources is, of course, strongly encouraged."  So it's "research," yes, but not original research.  Instead, it is research of a type that the guideline specifically encourages editors to engage in.  --DavidK93 21:03, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment, You haven't read my argument. The OR guidelines are talking about the encyclopedic cataloguing of notable subjects that already exist. The subject of this article did not -- at least, not in any reliably sourced form. "List of fictional/theatres etc etc" was created for this article. If you want to write an article on the television show Seinfeld (there is one, but play along), then you go out and collect all the reliably sourced information about the show and then write an article that is made up of other people's research, and cite them as sources in the article. Do not invent the subject of an article, and then do original research to fill it. If this article is not OR, then whose research is it citing? - Motor (talk) 21:13, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 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 WP:NOR I'm violating here, you just keep repeating "this is original research" and not going any farther. Until you can say "WP:NOR 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 WP:NOR. 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 WP:NOR states that we can't make lists of this type -- probably because it isn't considered original research. Kane5187 21:42, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment, that is the nature of a list -- no it is not. A list of films directed by Steven Speilberg is not original research since I can quote half a dozen books where I can obtain that list when OTHER PEOPLE HAVE DONE THE RESEARCH, and then I used their research to make an article citing them as a source. Whether that list suitable for Wikipedia is a further argument... but it is not original research. This article, on the other hand, is very definitely orginal research... because you created the subject and did the research yourself to fill it. I have repeatedly explained this, and you repeatedly miss the point. You give an example of a list of films about the Bible -- where did the research for that list come from? If it came from the writer of the article... then it is original research. If it came from a book... from research done by someone else... then it is not OR. - Motor (talk) 21:57, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment I'm not going to rehash the same point any more: WP:NOR 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 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. Kane5187 22:58, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment - I will thanks... since you have yet again failed to address the problem. My interpretation is not novel. You have invented your own (seemingly spurious) subject and then done your own research by watching the episodes. That is original research and goes against Wikipedia policy. Plain and simple. How about this: List of episodes in which George sneezes? Go ahead... I'm sure you'll be able to find a way to justify that one too. The rest of your post is yet more "if X hasn't been deleted, why should this be?". If it makes you feel better... I don't actually expect this article to be deleted for a couple of reasons a) despite the claims made about the AFD process, it is actually a vote. AFDs are closed as "keep" all the time on the basis of a vote tally and not the discussion. b) You solicted votes (check your contributions). - Motor (talk) 00:42, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment I disagree with your "list of films directed by Steven Speilberg" example. It's true that there are "half a dozen books where [one] can obtain that list," but any such book is a secondary source.  If you consulted such a book, you would presumably find that they have cited the movie itself.  They learned that a given film was directed by Steven Spielberg because they saw it in the credits of the film, the primary source.  Kane5187 is correct that you seem to be demanding that all sources be secondary sources, which is not consistent with WP:NOR.  --DavidK93 20:03, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 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 WP:NOT, since it is a list with a spurious theme... it is an indiscriminate collection of cruft... and should be deleted on both counts. - Motor (talk) 22:29, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment I think you are looking at the letter of the law, in this case the WP:NOT, and not he spirit of the law.  The WP:NOT 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 WP:NOT 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.Reignofjerm 15:56, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep Comment The simple fact that this article and it's deletion sparks such discussion shows exactly how much the show has embedded itself into our lives. Their are certain pop culture facts that should be cataloged, just like the Oxford Dictionary in 2003 added hip-hop words like "bling-bling" and "jiggy" to it's list of definitions to keep up with the chaging culture in America.  Seinfeld is one of the few shows (MASH, 60 Minutes) that changed the way we look at TV, and as such, rather or not you agree with it's import, should be enough to warrent keeping such an article.  Also, I think that Wikipedia re-writes itself constantly, and has become an important repository for information.  To delete an article that walks the fine line between Wiki's deletion policy would be a step back and not a step forward.  Just as IMDB has Trivia on it's site for each movie.  They realize that if you are to call yourself a true source of data on a subject, you should have all the data you possible can get on said subject.Reignofjerm 21:23, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, with policies for that purpose. It is specifically *not* just a collection of information and a dumping ground for spurious lists of trivia that are original research. - Motor (talk) 21:01, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment, That is very slippery argument Motor. Princeton University defines an enclyclopedia as "....a reference work (often in several volumes) containing articles on various topics (often arranged in alphabetical order) dealing with the entire range of human knowledge or with some particular specialty."  Yes, "...the entire range of human knowledge".  No one is suggesting turning Wiki into a "dumping ground" for usless information.  But making that argument only goes to limit the boundaries of Wiki.  Who is to call information useless?  I stumbled upon this article and made an edit a couple of months ago because Wiki has become the very first place I go whenever I need any kind of information.  Also, to call a peice of information "spurious" just because there isn't another place on the internet that you can get that information is also limiting.  Why can't Wiki be the first place this information is kept on the internet.  There isn't a copy of my birth certificate on the internet, does that make my birth "spurious"?  No, the fact that I'm alive shows that reasoning to be specious.  Thus, arguring that an article be deleted just because the transcripts aren't available online is unreasonable.Reignofjerm 21:33, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment, who is arguing that it should be deleted because there are no transcripts online? I'm arguing that it should be deleted because it is an invented subject that is a result of original research. On top of that, it violates WP:NOT. "Who is to call information useless?" -- no-one has said it is useless... just that it is OR, unencylopedic and WP:NOT. If you want the information, then take it to the Seinfeld wiki, with my complete and total blessing, but it does not belong here. - Motor (talk) 21:46, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Get OUT!!! (Strong Keep) I cannot hope to give adequate time to the above concerns, but I believe this belongs on Wikipedia given the fact that this information is verifiable, the page is not an indiscriminate list capable of infinite expansion, the information is of relevance outside the show in some cases such as Rochelle, Rochelle, and that similar articles exist for The Simpsons "(e.g. couch gag and chalkboard gag) and other television shows which are of obvious cultural significance. Jammo (SM247) 23:25, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep -- I'm as against 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. -- LeflymanTalk 00:12, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per Leflyman, who said it better than I could. BoojiBoy 00:21, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. It's too big to merge into an other article, and it's very well written.  And considering the popularity of Seinfeld, I think it's encyclopedic enough. ENpeeOHvee 00:27, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Lots of info here and it is too large to merge. CoolGuy 02:32, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Reluctant Keep Strong Delete - While there is some precedent for an article like this on Wikipedia, it's a trend that should be curbed. Seinfeld has it's own Wiki for pointless (if somewhat interesting and comprehensive) information such as this. --relaxathon 18:38, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep - this AfD has been like a strange erotic journey from Milan to Minsk. But why not rename it "Fictional films in Seinfeld"? It's much more than a list. savidan(talk) (e@) 00:50, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I believe it's an annotated list, since it superficially covers many related subjects. JoaoRicardotalk 01:28, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep The page has strong encyclepedic content, parts of the Seinfeld universe, such as fictional films are very important to the show, and merging it would not be practical as the Seinfeld article is already very long. It must be kept as it is indeed notable and important information relating to one of the most popular shows ever. Cvene64 08:44, 16 June 2006 (UTC)


 * 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.