Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
The fact that it is apparently assembled from watching numerous shows and writing stuff down is a separate issue, and plagues many popular culture articles. If we are the *first* source outside of the original media to publish some fact, that does rather indicate to me that we are doing something wrong. Encyclopaedia = tertiary source.
I see nothing wrong with Wikipedia being the first source to bring together a group of facts from disparate sources (in this case from each individual show) and publishing them together in one article. Fundamentally, that's what _all_ of our articles are supposed to be. Would there be something wrong with Wikipedia having a list of American Presidential veterinarians (for the pets of presidents) that had been compiled in a similar manner from an assortment of presidential biographies rather than being copied from a single source?
And I agree with David, this really looks like you're just searching for any excuse you can get to get rid of that list. Copyvio and OR are almost diametrically opposed to each other as reasons to delete something; copyvio means it's a direct copy of something creative that someone else came up with and OR means it's something creative that was come up with ''de novo''. They can't both be true. Accusing this stuff of being both in the same message seems like you're just throwing everything against the wall to see what sticks.