Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cinematic television


 * 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   keep. -Scottywong | talk _ 17:29, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Cinematic television

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

This is a non-notable neologism (WP:N) apparently coined in a blog post in 2011 and since not picked up, as far as I can tell, by reliable sources. Blogs are not reliable sources (WP:SPS), and the examples and definitions given are original research (WP:OR) insofar as they go beyond the blog post. While I agree that the article is very likely broadly true, our inclusion criterium is verifiability rather than truth (WP:V), and therefore we need to delete or userfy the article as an original research essay.  Sandstein  04:07, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete Pointless article asserting the obvious conclusion that television and film processes have merged to become near the same form as digital technology has emerged. A concept pushed by television essayists more than normal industry types and reviewers.  Nate  • ( chatter ) 06:42, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Can you explain why 'television essayists', as you call them, are in any way less valid as sources than 'normal industry types'? It's not as if television is tiny, obscure, cottage industry. I would have thought that 'television essayists' would have been the best source for a television related article. PRL42 (talk) 09:59, 5 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep/merge There's obviously a topic here and the exact title is not important.   We have other articles in the same vein such as television film, direct-to-video and premium television.  As for notability and OR, here's an entire book on the topic: State of Play: Contemporary "High-end" TV Drama. Warden (talk) 09:13, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Judging from the cover text, it's not clear that the book supports the article's assertions. The place to cover the topic would be dramatic programming (a stub), but I would not recommend merging the currently unsourced content there; instead any coverage of the topic should be written based on reliable sources.  Sandstein   09:22, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The book discusses cinematic television by that title and as a general concept on pages 10 and 11. Your claim that this is a non-notable neologism is false in both respects. Warden (talk) 14:37, 4 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete the article at the moment consists of a list, backed up by a blog entry. Darrenhusted (talk) 11:23, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Your assertion is false as the article contains several sections, not just a list, and is supported by a variety of sources such as Cinematic TV dramas spark a revolution in online viewing - a piece in The Observer, which is a mainstream, reputable newspaper.


 * Keep It is not non-notable. The University of Hersfordshire uses the term in the description of their Masters in Film & Television Aesthetics program.  The Edinburough Film Festival hosted a panel discussion on the topic of cinematic television in 2009.  The term "cinematic television drama" is used in an official UK government document and is given an official definition.  In a May 2010 issue of Synoptique (issue 14), the term is used by a film professor to describe several of the HBO programs in the article.  Response to Dudley Andrews: What is at the Core''. IvsI (talk)
 * Keep Clearly notable as testified by several references above. PRL42 (talk) 07:25, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 18:28, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Diego (talk) 17:49, 7 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep If you take a moment to click the Google news archive search at the top of the AFD, you'll find ample results, this a real thing, they referring to it and explaining what it is.  D r e a m Focus  14:30, 8 May 2012 (UTC)


 * The Skinny - Jun 29, 2009
 * Vampires proudly come out of the coffin in Alan Ball's hit new series True Blood which shows as part of the Cinematic Television strand at EIFF 2009. ...
 * Two US Television Series To Have UK Premiere at EIFF

‎
 * EdinburghGuide.com - Apr 29, 2009
 * The EIFF are marrying cinema and television in a programming strand called Cinematic Television. :Ahead of its UK July transmission on FX, the EIFF will screen ...
 * The Creative Arts Emmys: The Hard Work Of Television Gets...


 * Dallas Morning News - Jun 10, 2007
 * The result can be called cinematic television and it added a film's depth and richness to a TV show's intimacy and immediacy. ...
 * and many others to sort through if anyone still sincerely doubted it was an actual genre.  D r e a m Focus  14:30, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Comment If kept the term should not be bolted onto the beginning of a number of articles as it was before this AfD began. The inclusion of the article is not a licence to wikilink to hundreds of articles. Darrenhusted (talk) 16:49, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep on the basis of the sources cited above.  DGG ( talk ) 23:46, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * If a reliable source says that something is of this genre, it should be listed as such, and wiki-linked. I don't see that as happening yet though.    D r e a m Focus  20:30, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
 * This is a problem. Using the cost per hour (even adjusted for inflation) is pretty hopeless because it would certainly include programmes where they had spent a fortune on the actors but done nothing special with the 'filming'. Relying on 'a reliable source' is similarly inadequate because it's unlikely that 'reliable sources' are going to helpfully provide a list of all past programmes that the believe would qualify. So we might end up with arguments breaking out all over the place as less experienced editors tried to tag their favourite series as 'cinematic' irrespective of whether they would qualify on technical grounds. PRL42 (talk) 09:24, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
 * One of the articles mentioned the English government considers the cost for tax break reasons. Other sources don't rely on that in their classification of something in this genre though.   D r e a m Focus  09:30, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree that inclusion/exclusion is problematic. The three criteria that are useful are 1)the UK tax definition; 2) the involvement of "talent" that is normally associated with motion pictures; and 3) use of production techniques associated with film and motion pictures.  Obviously that third one is the most difficult to pin down.  But you can make the same argument for any "categorization" of art.  For instance, What are the criteria for "science fiction" or "sitcom" or "expressionism"?  One thing that is helpful, is the use of the term by different, authoritative sources.  The EIFF is a great resource.  The Festival has been held for 65 years.  I would argue that if they call something cinematic television, that should be good enough for us. (InformationvsInjustice (talk) 19:03, 12 May 2012 (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.