Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cinematic television (2nd nomination)


 * 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   delete.  MBisanz  talk 22:49, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Cinematic television
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Obscure term. I believe this subject is about higher production values in television, but the article sets up its own rules for what is "cinematic," which is purely original research. The page cites a collection of TV articles, many of which don't even use the phrase "cinematic television." -- Wikipedical (talk) 18:38, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete As synthesis and original research. This is an interesting one - the sole authoritative source for the term at this point (and at the time of the previous AFD) seems to be the Edinburgh International Film Festival, which created a 'strand' (a category?) for high-value, high-budget TV shows. However, a single source does not an industry term make. The rest of the web references are a mix of slightly RS and definitely non-RS sites, along with a few news mentions. I will note that I got exactly two hits in Google Books when searching for the precise term "cinematic television", which is not encouraging. We know what this term refers to, of course. That is not the issue. The problem is that, from an original research standpoint, the author(s) took the concept as promoted by the EIFF, did a Google search to find further mentions in a few news sites and blogs, and then added a list of TV shows that are known to have cost over $X to produce. Voilà, now we have Wikipedia promoting the term, rather than documenting it. Show me a single authoritative, reliable source tied to research or the TV or film industry that treats this topic the same way as the article, that uses the same language and examples, and I'll reverse my !vote in a second. As this stands now, it's synthesis and OR, and so it belongs in a blog somewhere, not here. § FreeRangeFrog croak 20:01, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete agree with both the nominator and FRF, this is pure original research and synthesis. I tried to clean up the article, but looking at what is left behind I think Wikipedia is a better place without it. --Biker Biker (talk) 23:31, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete No improvment from the first AfD, where I also chose to delete; term solely used by television essayists rather than normal industry types and critics and certain persons pushing the term. A TV show could be made for a billion dollars an episode and it's still very rarely put on a film screen, and the "History and origins" section is hardly neutral, much less correct (no cites that Love Boat guest actors were calling the show "a step down" except for pop culture snark-types thinking it, reality television didn't begin in earnest until 2002, and the details about television production compared to cinema are so simplistic as to be a laughable description). Finally, the "see also" for television film, a dying form of genre on television outside of HBO and Lifetime films, is a terrible concept to compare with this in any way.  Nate  • ( chatter ) 05:30, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete for the reasons stated above. A neologism that does not need an article. Once again User:InformationvsInjustice has gone on an adding spree, and once again several editors have arrived at the conclusion that we do not need this term. Can we get rid of the article so that the wiki-linking can stop? Darrenhusted (talk) 23:28, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Wikipedical (talk) 23:35, 13 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep. I get a lot more hits in Google Books, some of which highly relevant. This one cites three academic studies that unfortunately I don't have access to, but I've added a couple of book citations to the article and I'm satisfied that the topic only needs some good editors with access to the relevant bibliography. Drmies (talk) 18:48, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The first academic study that you mentioned is available on Google Books and does not even contain the full phrase "cinematic television." Regardless, while you have included sources that do have the words "cinematic" and "television" next to each other, I and perhaps the other editors who have commented here would argue that Wikipedia should not include an article for every term coined in a few academic journals.  Even with the sources you've cited, the term "cinematic television" does not have significant usage.  Fails WP:NOTNEO.  --  Wikipedical (talk) 23:30, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
 * You misunderstand, with your emphasis on NEO. Encyclopedic articles aren't about words but about concepts. If an academic study says that a certain book (such as the one you linked) discusses the subject of what is termed "cinematic television", whether or not they put those words in that order, then that book talks about cinematic television. Pure and simple. Drmies (talk) 00:09, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The article and its claims like foreshadowing, "rounder and well-developed" characters, and themes like drug use equate to "cinematic" television are still purely original research. An article discussing the 'concept' of greater production values in television is still not encyclopedic enough for this project, since technology will always improve over time.  Either way, we cannot disregard the formal term used here, as "cinematic television" is most certainly a neologism.  I would consider Marty "cinematic," but under the arbitrary original rules of this article, it isn't.   --  Wikipedical (talk) 00:27, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I hate to put it like some of the old ARS warriors used to, but AfD is not for article improvement. Honestly, I have no investment in the article in its current state, which is the nicer way of saying I don't care for it. What I'm interested in is establishing that the topic as such is notable, that it's discussed in secondary sources. As far as I'm concerned, that is established. Drmies (talk) 03:12, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete as original research, per the above comments. Even if this term has also been used in reliable sources, this use appears to be too sparse and inconsistent for us to write a reliably sourced, coherent article about it.  Sandstein   21:39, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete for the following reasons
 * The term cinematic television is not defined as a television genre in Dartmouth College Library Television Genres : A Research Guide
 * The term cinematic television is not defined in this (2010?) Australian government Television Genre Analysis(PDF) report
 * The term cinematic television is defined as a viewer experience&mdash;not as a genre&mdash;in
 * I cannot find George Osborne mentioning cinematic television directly within Hansard (which of course, does not mean that he did not mention the term) although I do acknowledge that the 2012 United Kingdom budget contained tax incentives that benefit UK media production generally (e.g. see BBC News (21 March 2012) Budget 2012: Tax breaks for TV production)
 * -- Senra (talk) 22:24, 17 December 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.