User:Lady Aleena/Television/Crossovers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (restore | cache | MfD))
NOTE: If you do not wish to read the full reason for this DRV below than, 'in a nutshell':
- Based on the existing policy and guideline wording how long does this "preferred version" get to sit in userpace before it does become a "long-term archival" version of an article "meant to be part of the encyclopedia"?
- Did the closing admin ignore
WP:DGFA guidelines? (But you will have to read to the discussion for that)
This DRV is NOT to overturn a "keep", it is to ask that the MFD be reopened to address valid issues raised about "how long"
(NOTE: The above summary was placed by the editor who brought the nom. It was removed by the closing admin as "biased" but has been restored) Soundvisions1 (talk) 14:22, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
At first I was not going to take the to DRV however in talking to the closing admin I now have serious concerns about the closure based on that discussion. I want to start off by saying this is not to overturn the "keep", it is to address the failure to answer "how long" in the discussion and also a seeming failure by the closing admin to read the arguments and comments and to simply "count votes", not fully following guidelines at WP:DGFA. ( "Consensus is not determined by counting heads, but by looking at strength of argument, and underlying policy (if any). Arguments that contradict policy, are based on opinion rather than fact, or are logically fallacious, are frequently discounted.") I asked the closing admin to reopen the discussion, not in hopes of getting "delete" but allowing editors to answer a "how long" question. I also asked the admin to expand on their generic "The result of the discussion was Keep" closure summary as several of the "keep" arguments seemed to be based on mis-reading or mis-understanding of the policy and guidlines that do contain a time limit. Part of their first response was that a "how long" question was "abstract" and that I misunderstood what deletion discussions are for. The admin, I now feel, oversimplified the process saying any deletion discussion is only to answer one question "Should the page A be deleted now?". The admin further stated to me that "All participant substantiated their votes with rather persuasive arguments" but failed to address directly some specific examples that I had asked about that, to me, seemed to be a mis-reading of policy or mis-understanding of the issue(s). One "blatant" example I asked about was a users "keep" that was followed with the argument that an MFD was a "breach of one's privacy". With no answer I again asked the closing admin to please show me 1> Where there is a policy or guideline that says MFD's are an "breach of one's privacy" 2> or why that editors "vote" did not fall under " Arguments that contradict policy, are based on opinion rather than fact, or are logically fallacious, are frequently discounted." and 3> how the admin felt that argument was "rather persuasive". Instead of answering me I was told, 'in a nutshell', to "try your luck on DRV". (To read the full conversation see User talk:Ruslik0#Closure question - comment). To be clear - While my argument of "delete" at the MFD was based on, because this is clearly a proposed article that is intended for mainspace, the facts found in the edit history, comments made by the user/author, and comments on the talk pages, that this subpage is falling under: "Private copies of pages that are being used solely for long-term archival purposes may be subject to deletion ." I am not asking for a "delete" overturn here at this DRV. This DRV is to ask that the MFD be reopened to address valid issues raised about "how long" because:
- The article was created in userspace March 2008 with the last "significant" edits being June 9, 2008 when one line was removed (May 2008 - June 2008 dif).
- Several "keep" comments are based on the notion that no policy or guideline contains any time limit (i.e - "how long") and the assertions by some that no policy or guideline mention user pages and time limits. (One of the items under
Wikipedia:User page — our guidelines on user pages")
- The user, and main author, has suggested that work is going to be a while in coming (via comments such as "When I am fully back editing Wikipedia...", the article is "doing no harm sitting there waiting for me to either stumble upon more reliable sources...", "...let me get back into the swing of things...").
- User:Kww's opinion to "let this one bake for a bit"
- User:Redfarmer's unanswered question of "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?"
- My unanswered follow up question citing guidlines which do suggest time limits (see:
"What may I not have on my user page?" - subsection "Copies of other pages" ) and asking for a clear answer how phrases such as "permanent content", "long-term" and "indefinitely" translate into "how long" for this subpage.
While my opinion was "delete" I see no bad faith in my asking, or anyone asking, "how long" in a situation such as this. I am also doubtful anyone who reads the entire discussion would feel asking "how long" in the context of the discussion would feel it was an "abstract question". And I also simply want to point out the talk page of the article and/or use TDS' Article Contribution Counter or Wikipedia Page History Statistics.") the the discussion, that add some perspective to concerns raised in the MFD. While the "votes" at MFD seem to be in favor of a "keep" I am not so sure that if one looked over the "history" of the article and the comments made over the year lead to the same conclusion. However, if everyone accepts "keep" and reads the talk page, the comments in the discussion and the cited guidelines there is an indicator that "how long" should be answered in relation to this "keep". Soundvisions1 ( talk) 14:18, 4 February 2009 (UTC) [reply ]
- Endorse I endorse my closure. The result was clear-cut, in my opinion. There was strong support in favor of keep. The discussion was closed after 7 days on MFD page in accordance with recommended time limits for MFD discussions. I also want to note that all !votes in the last several days of the discussion were keeps, and nobody was willing to support deletion. Ruslik (talk) 14:32, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: That response does not address the reason(s) this DRV was brought. Soundvisions1 (talk) 14:36, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I also want to note that all !votes in the last several days of the discussion were keeps, and nobody was willing to support deletion.
- So, Ruslik, are you admitting that, in violation of
WP:DGFA, you counted votes rather than weighed the quality of the arguments? Redfarmer ( talk) 18:42, 4 February 2009 (UTC) [reply ]
- It isn't unreasonable for someone to look for trends in a debate. Later commentators have more information and more ideas available. If all the later commentators are strongly going in one way it is evidence that the consensus is going that way. JoshuaZ (talk) 18:45, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- ...So even if the later votes are not based on policy and, in one case, even based on a straw man, we ignore that fact and go with illogical arguments? Redfarmer (talk) 19:25, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- No. We take the trend into account. Please don't construct strawmen. JoshuaZ (talk) 20:05, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not constructing strawmen. What you just admitted completely contradicts
WP:NOTAVOTE and this now concerns me greatly. This clearly says that arguments are to be taken into account rather than the shear number of people who vote a particular way. If admins are closing based on number of people for a position, they are in violation of this guideline. Redfarmer ( talk) 20:11, 4 February 2009 (UTC) [reply ]
- Read NOTAVOTE again. Read what I wrote. See the difference? There's a distinction between taking numbers into account in some fashion and going by a vote. Moreover, in this case we aren't going by numbers but rather by the trends of opinion. JoshuaZ (talk) 00:17, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply/comment:So what you are saying is that the "trends of opinion" currently support the argument that all MFD's are a "breach of one's privacy"? Outside of this MFD I have never seen that before, certainly I would never get that from reading policy or guideline, however the refusal by the closing admin to answer my direct question, three times now, about this leaves only your response to Redfarmer on the issue. I, for one, would love for you to point out the discussion where this policy or guideline has been established. Soundvisions1 (talk) 00:48, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Um, what? One editor made the privacy argument. It is obviously not at all a good argument. I fail to see how a single editor making that argument is relevant. JoshuaZ (talk) 01:06, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- At the risk of sounding bitey towards you - I was following the conversation and responding to your answer to the question. Do you need a quick 'in a nutshell' review? My point of this DRV was to address some unanswered questions including the
WP:DGFA says: "So even if the later votes are not based on policy and, in one case, even based on a straw man, we ignore that fact and go with illogical arguments?" You clearly responded to that question saying that "in this case we aren't going by numbers but rather by the trends of opinion" And I responded to that. So you're failure to see how that is relevant seems to indicate a focus on different things. But not all is fully lost - based on your current, very direct reply, lets now accept the the privacy argument is bad - would you say that is a "trend of opinion"? Is so shouldn't that "keep" be "discounted"? I will ask about another "later" comment I also have specifically mentioned - the user stated there were no guidelines or polices that indicated any form of time limit so instead the cited an essay as backing up their "vote" keep. For this overall "lack of time limit" concept I concur with seresin's comment below but will add on, about this specific comment, if it is now a "trend of opinion" that when one can not find a policy or guideline to support their "keep" (or "delete" for that matter) argument to use essays? Soundvisions1 ( talk) 01:41, 5 February 2009 (UTC) [reply ]
- The result of the AfD would likely be identical without the privacy argument. It just isn't terribly germane. The argument is bad enough that it can be simply ignored. The general trend observed holds without that user. JoshuaZ (talk) 17:31, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn and relist as original nom. While I do acknowledge that, by counting votes, there were more keep votes than delete, we are not supposed to be counting votes. We are supposed to be looking at the quality of the responses which, after reading the closing admin's comments to Soundvisions1, I do not believe was done here. The quality of the keep arguments here were horrible: there was never a privacy concern and, according to guidelines cited, there is indeed a time limit on how long we will host a person's OR before we consider it self publishing or being used as a web host. There are also some questions of how long that need to be answered. Even after being nominated for deletion, the user has not worked on the page; they merely came back and begged for it not to be deleted. How long do we give this user for what most acknowledge will be an attempt to create their own original thesis and publish it on WP? These questions all need to be fleshed out. Barring an overturn, I would suggest a
request for comment on the issue is needed. Redfarmer ( talk) 15:49, 4 February 2009 (UTC) [reply ]
- Endorse closure The community here applied
WP:NOT notwithstanding, have demonstrated a disinclination to press established contributors to move material into mainspace or delete it from userspace where those editors continue to profess that they will do something with the text at some point, such that our practice, from which policy is to follow, has been to answer "How long?" with "indefinitely"), and so neither relisting nor closing other than as "keep" could have been justified here. Joe 19:23, 4 February 2009 (UTC) [reply ]
- I don't know that I can accept your assertion that this interpretation of ]
- This is a surprising argument. The result of that MFD was a sound keep like in the MFD under discussion here. And, most surprisingly, the page still exists (after 10 months of inactivity)! That MFD is actually all I need to justify my closure. Thank you for an excellent precedent! Ruslik (talk) 19:51, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm surprised you think that supports you. I brought that to MfD after only a few days. This one wasn't brought to MfD for a year after creation. I brought that one up to point out that several people in that MfD seemed to think there was a time limit on how long to give a page before you delete it. The reason it was keep was that time limit had not been reached. One user thought giving the article four months would be reasonable. Redfarmer (talk) 19:55, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I point to the comments of seresin, the admin who speedy deleted and userfied that particular article: Give him more than a few days to work on it. We have userfied articles that have gone months without work. If he had left this in his subpage for a long time without working on it, that would be one thing. But it has been a grand total of five days, and he has indicated that he intends to work on it. This admin seems to believe that there is a time after which it is no longer reasonable to assume a user will work on an unsalvageable article. Redfarmer (talk) 20:00, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: That is very interesting. Looking at the edit history it does clearly show no significant work has been done on that article since March 2, 2008. On March 14, 2008 Redfarmer sent it to MfD and the discussion does indicate the nom was made too soon. However the important point being made is that good faith was assumed to allow more time for the article to be worked on. Without any of the asking "how long" it was freely offered - from the slightly open "Give him more than a few days to work on it. We have userfied articles that have gone months without work. If he had left this in his subpage for a long time without working on it, that would be one thing." to the more specific "Leave it a month...". Clearly now it has been much longer than one month and the assertion that "he intends to work on it" proved false and this article had (and has) far less discussion on it's talk page (i.e - none) than the subpage in discussion now has about it's "usefulness" on Wikipedia. I will add that the "If he had left this in his subpage for a long time without working on it, that would be one thing" comment to the included list of oft used phrases that need to be made more clear in deletion discussions - "long time without working" equals what exactly? If it is the same as "indefinitely archive", "long-term archival purposes" and "permanent" users may equate it to "no set time limit" and than ignore it. Soundvisions1 (talk) 21:59, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse keep How long is a matter of judgment, since there is no fixed time, and the MfD had sufficient participation to represent a consensus, and the consensus was rightly judged. Given the widely fluctuating standards in the area of FICT, it is reasonable to hold articles a longer while than normal in user space, as consensus not only can change, but in this area it frequently does. A reasonable course if one thinks an article in user space is going nowhere & is potentially important, is to help the use develop the article. DGG (talk) 20:02, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- And if you think the article is going nowhere and, if moved to main space, would be taken to AfD immediately for OR? Redfarmer (talk) 20:23, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Then wait a few months. If nothing has happened AfD then. JoshuaZ (talk) 21:05, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- attmept to clarify - DGG has also chosen to use the argument that "there is no fixed time" and that is the exact reason I brought this here. Where is that reflected in the guidlines I explicitly cite? Even if participants there and here choose to ignore the guidelines as written than you still can look only at the deletion discussion and see Kww's "keep" and their comment of "let this one bake for a bit" implies a time limit be set. Why it is so hard to understand how, or why, the question of "How long are we supposed to give it?" came to be? Further more, when that is not answered, and another user voices a "keep", followed by the argument of "There is still time to enhance this further" the question is again asked - "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?". And following three more "keeps" (including the accepted, "persuasive", MFD's are a "breach of one's privacy" argument) which indicate "There is no deadline" and "I can't find any policy or guideline this violates..." I not only ask "how long" but clearly cite these supposedly non-existent "fixed times". Again - the DRV is to reopen to establish "how long". It simply boggles my mind how asking for a set time frame on this is so controversial. It is very simple - based on the existing wording how long does this "preferred version" get to sit in userpace before it does become a "long-term archival" version of an article "meant to be part of the encyclopedia"?
- But if we need to go the "Clear consensus" route than, as I indicated, look at the talk page which seems to have been "conveniently" overlooked. This not a "strawman" so please don't even go there, but the fact is one must look at this to establish why we are asking "how long", This is just a small look at some of the comments: "If you want something like this on Wikipedia you should read
WP:IAR that why bother to have any user criteria or MFD's for user space at all? And sure we can "wait a few months" before sending to MFD again, but that in itself is answering "how long" - but not at the actual MFD. If there is a "consensus" here to "wait a few months" I would ask for clarification: will that be a valid reason to then "delete" even if the "votes" suggest "keep" for "no time limit" at that discussion? Soundvisions1 ( talk) 21:17, 4 February 2009 (UTC) [reply ]
- If this DRV is closed as endorse, the section on the userpage policy proscribing indefinite hosting of content in userspace will be removed, as it will clearly no longer describe community sentiment, and we're not even pretending to enforce it at MfD. The userpage policy is a policy; consensus is always based on policy. The article would absolutely be deleted at AfD because it is entirely composed of original research. In order for this content to be put in mainspace, it would have to be fundamentally and totally rewritten, with legitimate sources. There is no chance of the content, as it stands, of becoming a legitimate article. For this reason, the content is not being hosted with the purposes of the enyclopedia, and enough time has been provided to demonstrate otherwise. Since the userpage policy requires that content be hosted only to be actively improved, and that can be made into an article, the policy aspect of this MfD is clearly on the side of deletion. Numbers of people voting directly against the policy does not change the policy-based consensus. seresin ( ¡? ) 00:48, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree, seresin. What people are essentially saying in this MfD is they no longer support that particular clause of
WP:IAR. If this is new consensus then we need to establish as such and go on. I would also hasten to add that this is a dangerous route to go down because we are essentially saying that userspace is, in most cases, untouchable. Redfarmer ( talk) 05:15, 5 February 2009 (UTC) [reply ]
- Endorse keep close of MFD. Wikipedia does not have a dealine, especially for articles in userspace. Plus, aspects of the article can be verified in published books and as such it is without any doubt improveable. Maybe I'll even help work on it if I have a time as it is one that I find interesting and helpful in understanding the relationship of various television shows. These kinds of articles provide part of the appeal that makes our project worth checking out and engaging. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 05:29, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- So you are essentially choosing to ignore the clause of ]
- See also
WP:UP to allow for this as people edit the policy and guideline wording all the time as is. Sincerely, -- A NobodyMy talk 05:40, 5 February 2009 (UTC) [reply ]
- I've never argued
WP:OR. If it is published, then, if it is notable, someone can write an article on me and/or my work. However, until that happens, it is not suitable for the project just as this user's thesis is not suitable for the project. Redfarmer ( talk) 05:45, 5 February 2009 (UTC) [reply ]
- She outright said she plans to revisit it, so why not give her a chance to revisit it? This strikes me as premature in that regard. And I am not convinced that it is unsalvageable original research. I did a quick Google Search on just John Munch and published books do indeed discuss his crossovers. I therefore believe that the article can be cleaned up and at worst be mergeable with an article on Crossovers in general or even in John Munch. There are a lot of references in there and as such there is information that can be used in some manner of other. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 05:55, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- And her assurances she planed to revisit it might mean more if she hadn't made such assurances when there was some risk, six months later, that the page might be deleted. And you completely miss the point about OR and synthesis. Just because sources exist about
Arrested Development all exist in the same universe as I Love Lucy because of his crossovers with all those series. What the user is doing is synthesis, which is OR, and this is a huge leap from simply saying "John Munch appeared on a lot of shows." Redfarmer ( talk) 06:00, 5 February 2009 (UTC) [reply ]
- I still see a lot of references that could potentially at worst be merged elsewhere and think per
WP:PRESERVE we would be losing potentially useful content. Sincerely, -- A NobodyMy talk 06:12, 5 February 2009 (UTC) [reply ]
- So, then, you are saying the appropriate information should be merged into proper articles and then deleted? Redfarmer (talk) 06:20, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Personally, I find the article interesting and say ignore all rules and keep it, but I am saying at worst it has mergeable content and per ]
- Fortunately, hoaxes, copy vios, and libel are not the only reasons for deletion, per ]
- Which contradicts ]
- You may want to reread that guideline...it has a list of exceptions and the very first exception is OR. Redfarmer (talk) 06:36, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yet, the every changing "rules" for mainspace are harder than those for userspace. I am not persuaded that the article can never be reworked to seem less like a synthesis. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 06:38, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse closure
WP:OR doesn't apply in userspace. It's quite common for OR to be found in articles in progress simply because the writer hasn't found the time to reference it yet; that's the whole reason you should start articles in userspace instead of mainspace. With no time limit set in the policy and guidelines, I see no reason to assume this is a page the user is attempting to keep in userspace indefinitely, so it doesn't break any rules. - Mgm| (talk) 11:59, 5 February 2009 (UTC) [reply ]
- But the guidelines do say there is a time limit.
WP:UP says we do not keep articles in userspace indefinitely. Why does nobody think the guidelines ever set a time limit? Redfarmer ( talk) 13:57, 5 February 2009 (UTC) [reply ]
- BUt when is that deadline? I see at as meaning years and it doesn't say it isn't. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 20:56, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- A Nobody - you asked "But when is that deadline?" and if you do look way up at the top that is the bulk of why I brought this DRV. Why vote to keep the MFD closed if you are asking the same thing? Or,if you have a solid opinon, which it appears you do, that the MfD should be reopened for a few days - you can says somehting like you dave said here, the the article should be kept "years" and that is fine. The MfD was in progress - legit questions were asked about "how long" but could not be answered because of the close. Soundvisions1 (talk) 13:59, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: It's clear that the majority of users have completely missed the point that there is a guideline that says there is a time limit. Therefore, I have initiated a
Wikipedia talk:User page#Deletion review regarding indefinite hosting clause to determine new consensus on this guideline. Redfarmer ( talk) 14:15, 5 February 2009 (UTC) [reply ]
- Overturn and delete. From
WP:USER" Private copies of pages that are being used solely for long-term archival purposes may be subject to deletion" Also per seresin: " the content is not being hosted with the purposes of the enyclopedia, and enough time has been provided to demonstrate otherwise". -- Kbdank71 16:58, 5 February 2009 (UTC) [reply ]
- From the same guideline The Wikipedia community is generally tolerant and offers fairly wide latitude in applying these guidelines to regular participants. In addition, may be deleted means that it may be deleted and may be not. It is up for the community to decide, not for the closing admin. And the community in this spoke againts deletion. Ruslik (talk) 19:32, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The consensus among the handful of people who vote in a given discussion can fail to be in line with the greater consensus and precedent behind Wikipedia's project goals and guidelines. --Kbdank71 19:47, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Which is why AfDs are anti-logical. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 20:56, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment It is not my intention in this discussion to remove the general requirement that articles moved to user space have some potential for improvement in a reasonable time. I agree with that requirement, and if it ever came to a poll, I would very strongly support keeping it. I don;t think it really right to consider a decision on a single article a referendum. Looking at the history of this article, I see it is had bee substantially worked on, and that a title has been suggested under which it might well hold at AfD. The activity had slackened off, so I think the appropriate course would have been to remind the author to get back to it, and to consider asking for its return to mainspace. I do, however, endorse a flexible idea of the limit in general, and I think in general we do now follow a fairly liberal practice here, perhaps more than when the user policy was written. I would not want to propose a fixed rule on times, for it would depend on the article and the editor and the good faith. My argument is only that in this particular case the article should not at present be deleted. DGG (talk) 17:29, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- DGG, did you ignore the fact that the article is a complete synthesis of sources, that it smacks of original thesis, that the majority of work was done in three months at the beginning of last year, that the user has repeatedly scoffed at all concerns regarding the article on the talk page, and that they don't understand the difference between finding a source supporting the article and bringing many different sources together to form a thesis? 149.160.35.200 (talk) 18:06, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, that comment was from me. I was at a public computer and forgot I wasn't signed in. Redfarmer (talk) 00:35, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- New Information: This is an FYI that relates and should be considered. There was a long standing (August 29, 2007) paragraph that was removed, on January 2, 2009, from
WP:OR has been raised many times and this paragraph would mean that even defining "how long" does not matter because, if, the article violates a key policy and, based on 11 months of ongoing discussion, it is "very unlikely that an article on the topic can exist without breaching policy" there is only one outcome, no matter what the "rough consensus" may show. Soundvisions1 ( talk) 16:24, 6 February 2009 (UTC) [reply ]
- The page in question is not an article (it is not in the mainspace), and the OR policy does not apply to user space. So this sentence from the guideline is irrelevant (as well as the talk page). Ruslik (talk) 16:40, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- 1. Does the article isself not clearly indicate it is meant to be a mainspace article?
- 2. Has the creator not clearly indicated they hope is will be a mainspace article?
- 3. Does the above section not clearly state that "where it is very unlikely that an article on the topic can exist without breaching policy" then the Policy, not the "votes" come into play?
- Soundvisions1 (talk) 18:39, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Which article? There is no article here. What we have is a page in the user space. Hopes and intentions of the creator do not matter. Ruslik (talk) 20:48, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Lady Aleena comments
It was not my intention to cause any trouble when I wrote this article and told so many about it. I genuinely thought that this was a good start on the subject and kept as neutral a point of view as possible when I wrote it.
- Time: I need a lot of time to work on this aritcle as my resources are limited to what I can find on an internet web search. Most publications do not have long term storage of their articles online. If they do have long term storage, one most likely would have to pay to read the article, and my finances do not allow me to do that either. Also, if the resource is not freely available, I am hesitant to use it as a source for the article. There are no libraries in the town in which I live with the closest available library closing too early for me to get to it in time to do any serious research there. I will add to this article as the information is found, so do not delete this just because I haven't found the information. Other editors may also need time to gather information as they become aware of this rough draft.
- Long term storage: I am not using my userspace as a place to store this article indefinitely, I am keeping there until I can find resources to more fully flesh out the article. This article is also on the back burner as there are more pressing issues that I would like to work on first. I just ask that this be left so that when I finish with these other issues, I can come back to this when I need a breather.
- Lack of edits: Of course there has been a lack of edits recently because I took several months off from Wikipedia editing completely. I came back to Wikipedia to participate in the MfD and slowly start getting back into the various projects that I left unfinished. I will need to reestablish myself on my other projects and see where they stand, I will then come back to this. Prior to that I can blame the paucity of online material related to the subject and my poor researching skills.
- Privacy: I do not know why this was brought up at the MfD, but I am not worried about my privacy as I fully realize that this is a place where everything is public. That is the beauty of Wikipedia unlike other places.
- Article placement: This article has never touched mainspace. It was written in my userspace from the beginning. I have not made any attempt to move it to mainspace.
- Not OR: This article is not original research. Everything in the article is verifiable in the primary sources. The article was writen to show the connections between the series in one place rather than having all of these connections scattered throughout the 150+ or so articles on the individual television series. I would rather read this quick article on all of the crossovers than have to trudge through 150+ articles tracing them. That is time consuming and tiring. Placing this in the general crossover article would just over burden the general article. Crossovers have been happening for a while now. That all of these crossovers create relationships between the series is not a hypothesis or a theory, it is a fact which is verifiable in the primary sources.
- Not a private copy: This is not a private copy of this article as nothing is private on Wikipedia. This is an article that I will work on as I can find information. It is hoped that others will find this draft and help me make it better. I placed a link to this article on the talk pages of all the relevant series to garner attention to this article in hopes to get somn help. Instead I got a lot of people who for some reason decided to be the opposite and just sit back and talk about how bad it was instead of improving it. In my opinion nothing is unsalvageable.
I hope that this clarifies a few things. I never thought that something that I wrote in my userspace which has never touched mainspace would ever get this much, unfortunately negative, attention. LA (T) @ 23:37, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Two questions:
- 1) Why do you believe this article is needed given that List of crossovers in fiction#Television already exists and can be improved on?
- 2) What sources are there that establish all these series exist in the same universe as
Ed Green, two characters from the original Law & Order, appeared in both SVU, a show Munch is a character on, and CI) that must be traced back several series, constituting synthesis, constituting OR. Redfarmer ( talk) 00:43, 6 February 2009 (UTC) [reply ]
- The issue is, LA, that you continue to ]
- Endorse. Userspace should be given wide latitude. As the policy doesn't provide a specific deadline, consensus does. And consensus was clear here. Hobit (talk) 18:31, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That is the problem - consensus did not set a deadline even though it was asked for. Only thing that came close was the comment of "let this one bake for a bit" and frankly, that is no more help than than the time frame contained in the definitions of the webhost policy of "indefinitely archive" and "long-term". Soundvisions1 (talk) 18:46, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse-- What's the big deal? "Rules derive their power to compel not from being written down on a page labeled "guideline" or "policy", but from being a reflection of the shared opinions and practices of many editors", ]
|