The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was Keep. Ruslik (talk) 10:58, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article in userspace is nothing but original research. The only sources are IMDB and a fan-based crossover site that documents crossovers. Essentially, this user admitted to us on the talk page that they are attempting to form a thesis that a vast amount of shows are crossovers from I Love Lucy, which is definitely OR at its worst. On top of that, those of us who objected to the very existence of this article have given plenty of time for the user to finish it. However, no work has been done on it since October and the user has not edited since September. I believe this article is unsalvageable and will never be ready for article space by its very nature. Redfarmer (talk) 22:37, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let me first say that this is not how I wanted to return to editing Wikipedia.

As this is buried deep within my user space, please do not allow this to be deleted. I know that it is far from ready due to the lack of any better sources. I am hoping that some other editors would be willing to help me find them as I have reached the limit of my search capabilities. This user space article is doing no harm sitting there waiting for me to either stumble upon more reliable sources or have them found for the article by others. Just recently another user commented on the talk page of this article and has given some input which is intriguing. When I am fully back editing Wikipedia, I will try to catch up with that user to see if there could be some collaboration adding that user's ideas and bettering the article.

I have stated on many occasions that the article was inspired by crossover websites, but I tried to get other sources. Since there is not an article covering this singular line of crossovers, I wrote this one as an overview. The individual crossovers for each series could be discussed more in depth in the individual series articles. Also, items added to this article have been documented elsewhere, especially on the television series themselves, which, if I read the guideline correctly, television series are self-referential, meaning that what is seen on the screen does not have to have a third party reference to be included here.

So, in closing, please just leave it there for me to slowly work on. I may yet find a resource that even the most critical of users would not be able to disallow. Please let me get back into the swing of things before deleting this from my user space. Thank you. LA (T) @ 06:40, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep While OR might be a reason for asking that an article in mainspace be rewritten, it is not sufficient reason for a deletion in userspace, and is not all that strong a reason for deletion in mainspace (judgement that an article can not be salvaged is quite disputable.) And userspace has no set time limits (and if it did it would not be under six months in any case.) Hence - keep. Collect (talk) 10:18, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete (or move from userspace to mainspace and let nature take it's course):This is another one of those "tests" of how to define words used to explain "how long" a page such as this may not stay in userspace, found at the Wikipedia:Subpages#Disallowed uses guidelines ("permanent") and the "What may I not have on my user page?" - subsection "Copies of other pages" guideline ("indefinitely"). This "article" was started March 8, 2008 and mainly worked on throughout March 2008. A few edits in April and May and one edit in June to remove the wording "The Aliens and Predators feature in 'Alien vs Predator Vs Terminator' comic book and several batman and superman comics" July saw the tag of ((Underconstruction)) tag placed while October saw the Emil Skoda link fixed "to direct to the Law & Order character, not the 19th century European industrialist." It is fairly safe to say that the last "expansion or major revamping" was in March 2008, not after July 2008 when the tag was placed. I think this falls under the "Private copies of pages that are being used solely for long-term archival purposes may be subject to deletion" concept. What is interesting is that a Fictional crossover article already exists and on March 16, 2008 a post on the creators talk page, called "Crossovers", suggested the article looked interesting but asked "doesn't it get somewhat into "original research"?" and than the same user pointed to the Fictional crossover article. Soundvisions1 (talk)
  • Keep It's not violating policy. "Using subpages for permanent content that is meant to be part of the encyclopedia." It's not meant to be part of the encyclopedia yet. It's a work in progress, and shouldn't be forced into the mainspace. Regarding WP:UP#Copies of other pages, it is not a copy of another page or being used as a free webhost. Balsa10 (talk) 01:27, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• As interesting as the article is, I must agree with the nominator that the article is entirely synthesis of sources, and would require a fundamental shift in focus to be appropriate for an article; it would also need non-iMDB sources. Because the very nature of the article would need to be changed, keeping this content is pointless: it needs to be written from scratch. Since the content is not going to become an article, the page is being used as a webhost. Lady Aleena can take the content and work on it offline, of course, but Wikipedia is not for hosting things that are not related to the encyclopedia. So it should be deleted. seresin ( ¡? )  03:50, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• This article is not original research. I am using the works of fiction as my primary source. Those works of fiction could be the only source for the article. Would you deny that Elizabeth Bennet in Pride and Prejudice has four sisters? Why is it so hard to convince people that films and television programs are just as valid a primary source as novels? It is indisputable fact that John Munch appeared on seven television series. If the TARDIS appears anywhere, it is instantly recognizable and could not be mistaken for anything else. If you look closely you can see Morleys, a fictional brand of cigarettes, are used in several of the series mentioned, episode appearances were given. I am not making any of this up off the top of my head, the information is there, in the primary sources, for anyone to see. The fictional crossover article does not cover this series of crossovers; it is an article about what a fictional crossover is but does not cover the actual crossovers that have happened on screen in this depth. The article gives examples of some crossovers, but does not fully cover them to the fullest extent possible. The article above does go into detail of when and where the crossovers occurred within this group of television series without bias. I am not sure I can find a credible website with an episode guide. I am thinking TV Guide's site if it has detailed episode guides on it, is easy for a dial-up user (me) to access, and is considered credible enough. Please just leave it be until I get around to it again; I just got back from my hiatus and need to catch up with so many things. LA (T) @ 08:51, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • As we tried to point out to you numerous times, it's not entirely the sources you are using; it's the point you're trying to make with the sources. You are trying to create an original thesis using a synthesis of sources, namely, that a number of shows are indirectly a crossover with I Love Lucy. If you or someone else comes out with a book that states this thesis, fine. Otherwise, it's unacceptable to use Wikipedia to advance your own original hypothesis, which the idea that Bennet has four sisters or Munch appeared on seven series is not. Redfarmer (talk) 21:05, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It's perfectly acceptable for articles in userspace to lack in proper references as long as there is an intention to improve it to the point the material is ready for mainspace. I frequently store things myself that look like original research until I've digged through the sources to find something to back it up. It's simply a part of the writing process. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:36, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I'm willing to let this one bake for a bit. A caution to the author: you really need a graphic to illustrate the inheritance chain, and you need to dump the reliance on things like "Morleys" cigarettes. There's an enormous difference between a named character from one show making an appearance on the other, and the set dresser on two different shows grabbing the same pack of fake cigarettes out of the prop department.—Kww(talk) 13:51, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I would point out that I did give this article nearly seven months to produce something and so far it's just as bad as it was seven months ago. There has not been any improvement and no one has even made an edit to the article previous to my nomination since October. How long are we supposed to give it? Redfarmer (talk) 21:02, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I also just want to point out that what prompted me to bring this to MfD is the fact that, contrary to what the user claims, this is not a page buried deep in user space. To the contrary, the user made numerous advertisements for help on various talk pages with her articles, thus making, in my mind, the nature of the article at least semi-public as it is now known to any Joe who happens to look at a talk page advertising her article. Redfarmer (talk) 21:12, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment:Just to add on this user has had almost one year to work on this and if the assertion that they have made "numerous advertisements for help on various talk pages" is accurate than, by the users own words of "I am hoping that some other editors would be willing to help me find them as I have reached the limit of my search capabilities", this seems it may be a case of beating a dead horse and thus, simply moving the article to mainspace and letting nature take its course may be the best route. Soundvisions1 (talk) 14:14, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - the very fact that it is in userspace means it is not ready. There is still time to enhance this further. Sure, AfD it when it's an article, but this is premature.  GARDEN  09:55, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: No one has yet to define how long this should be given. It has already been given a year. How long do we let this exist? Redfarmer (talk) 00:37, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. There is no deadline, and it is an article-in-progress developed in good faith in userspace. The links to it have been to encourage collaboration to improve the article and its sources. It is an attempt to improve the encyclopedia, and if her and others' effort is successful, could provide a useable article. More reliable sources for this may exist given the professionally published books on popular television and culture. Galatee (talk) 23:13, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - The nominator had no business sending this to MFD. I consider this to be a breach of one's privacy, saying in effect "no, you cannot keep this page here". ArcAngel (talk) 20:59, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's quite a case of not assuming good faith you have there. If the creator wanted this to be kept private, she never should have advertised it on talk pages. Redfarmer (talk) 22:28, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • What happened to respecting other editors' space? Does it not apply in cases where editors have sandboxed articles in their userspace? My comments above weren't meant to be bad faith, but look at it this way - would YOU rather have someone come into your home, root around your cellar, find something and then tell you you can't have it? ArcAngel (talk) 22:43, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nobody came into anyone's personal space. 1) She put it out there in the open. 2) WP guidelines clearly say what users can and cannot have in their userspace. 3) Things posted on any Internet site are, in no way, private. That's like posting a blog entry critical of people and then getting mad when they read it. Just so, the user should have no expectations of privacy, nor do I see that she ever did, when something is posted on WP. Your argument is a complete strawman and does not even have very much merit as a strawman. Attack the nominator rather than the rationale. Redfarmer (talk) 00:45, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • MFD's purview includes userspace, so it's not inappropriate to request deletion. Also the nominator saw 4 months of inactivity and even longer inactivity on the article. I understand the reasoning, though I disagree with it. And you mean "Attack the rationale rather than the nominator." :) Balsa10 (talk) 01:27, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I obviously did not make the last sentence clear. I meant to illustrate what the user was doing versus what they should be doing. But yes, your version makes more sense. :) Redfarmer (talk) 01:32, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I can't find any policy or guideline this violates, so I'd be inclined to follow WP:TIMELIMIT. — Ched (talk) 06:37, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment and Question: This is the perfect place to discuss this, and to perhaps gets a "consensus" and to answer Redfarmer's question. In reply to Ched and others - the Disallowed uses of subpages guideline states that "Using subpages for permanent content that is meant to be part of the encyclopedia" is not allowed. "What may I not have on my user page?" - subsection "Copies of other pages" guideline says "While userpages and subpages can be used as a development ground for generating new content, this space is not intended to indefinitely archive your preferred version of disputed or previously deleted content or indefinitely archive permanent content that is meant to be part of the encyclopedia. In other words, Wikipedia is not a free web host. Private copies of pages that are being used solely for long-term archival purposes may be subject to deletion." So I am asking you all to clearly define the words "indefinitely archive", "long-term archival purposes" and "permanent content". Or, to word it as Redfarmer has, "No one has yet to define how long this should be given. It has already been given a year. How long do we let this exist?"

As a secondary thought that does relate - for Policy we have Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information that tells us that "merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia." Likewise Wikipedia is not a repository of loosely associated topics nor is it a place to publish your own thoughts and analysis. But for the moment the important thing, for all of those saying to keep, is to clearly define "how long" based on the existing wording - "permanent", "long-term" and "indefinitely". Based on the current discussion one year (11 months) does not define any of those words, so now is the time to make those definitions. Soundvisions1 (talk) 07:21, 3 February 2009 (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 page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.