Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Exposed (MTV series)
- 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 was no consensus. There are 3 keep votes against 3 delete (1 weak one) as well as it has been relisted thrice which is the limit perhaps there is no clear consensus at all. Closing and supporting the option of a re-nom after 2-3 months (non-admin closure) TheSpecialUser TSU 02:45, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Exposed (MTV series)
- Exposed (MTV series) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Delete This article was created in 2006 and remains unreferenced. The web has incidental mentions of the show in connection with celebrities, but no real coverage of it. All one can find is blurbs like http://www.tv[removespace]rage.com/shows/id-14758 this one at TV Rage or this one at http://www.meta[removespace]critic.com/tv/mtv-exposed Meta Critic. The most substantive comment that I found was the single line of analysis at page 325 of Reality TV: Remaking Television Culture by Laurie Ouellette: "The MTV dating show Exposed caters to the savvy, skeptical single while tracing its default to brute, bodily empiricism." followed by a blurb from the show's promo, and used as an example of the human body as truth. Most potential hits are false drops. So it fails the "significant coverage" test. Notability is not inherited, so all of those You Tube takes from the show are just that, celebrity cruft. --Bejnar (talk) 19:24, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:44, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Although the article itself is a mess, it is notable. Take a look at its official website at MTV. I think it passes WP:TVSERIES. TBrandley 23:22, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The MTV official website is not an independent third-party source. It is their program. Exposed_(MTV_series) fails WP:TVSERIES because it failed to garner any significant media coverage. Being a national or international program helps garner that coverage it does not substitute for that coverage. --Bejnar (talk) 05:46, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Gongshow Talk 07:07, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak delete There has been some very limited coverage, and it's a tough search because of the ambiguity of the term. In The New York Post, for example. And a passing mention here. This is all I can find, and I don't think it quite passes the WP:TVSERIES or WP:GNG bar, although that's arguable especially if more can be uncovered. --Batard0 (talk) 11:19, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 00:19, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: Although apparently not one of MTV's finer moments, the show does have independent coverage at places like TV Guide and Variety and Slate and 'The Morning Call'. I'm sure I could find more. According to one web site it comes in at number 16 in the "The 20 Worst MTV Shows of the 21st Century". Given that, and the obvious fact it was broadcast on a large scale, I say we have a clear WP:TVSERIES pass here. Faustus37 (talk) 01:35, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Only the Variety article is substantial coverage; the others are either very short or incidental mentions. If you could find a bit more, I'd argue keep. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:30, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as completely unsourced (WP:V). As to notability, I think you meant that it's the mcall.com article that is the only one approaching substantial coverage? But it reads like an opinion piece in some fourth-rate local publication, not what we look for with respect to WP:GNG. Sandstein 09:06, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 00:25, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: Per Faustus. There's nothing to be gained by deletion. Most articles don't need to be long to be useful.--Milowent • hasspoken 14:22, 15 November 2012 (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 article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.