Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Full disclosure (media)


 * 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:15, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Full disclosure (media)

 * – ( View AfD View log )

How obvious is this term? No cite any references or sources for more than 2 years and here is my search result:. I don't see this term has received wide coverage in at least one article. «Unsourced material may be challenged and removed» — if I did it, there would be an empty article, because it contains only one phrase. :) ♪ anonim.one ♪ 06:39, 15 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete Basically an opinion on a definition of a common two-word combination in the context of media. No indication of wp:notability for this topic/combination.  Zero references. North8000 (talk) 12:18, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 17:18, 15 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, &mdash;SW&mdash; converse 16:13, 23 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete as a dicdef, and not a particularly exact one at that. Bearian (talk) 23:21, 23 February 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.