Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tabloid talk show


 * 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. – Will (message me!) 08:43, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Tabloid talk show
This article is both a long-winded explanation of a neologism and also original research. It is heavily POV, and heavily non-cited. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Harro5 (talk • contribs)
 * Delete per nomination, except for the part about the phrase being a neologism. There are enough Google hits to suggest that the term has reasonably established a common definition. --Metropolitan90 03:03, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I created this article and I would like to thank everyone for their feedback. I will do my best to remove POV and long-winded language, and add references.  I don't think it should be deleted or merged with another article because many sociologists feel tabloid talk shows represent a very unique period in American pop-cultural history and since there have been entire scholarly books written about tabloid talk shows, there should at least be a wikipedia article on the subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Editingoprah (talk • contribs)
 * Delete. As per nomination. Catherine breillat 23:50, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. The article looks interesting and I notice attempts made to make it less POV and more cited in the past day, with mentions this effort will continue. I think assisting with the formalizing of references and helping make the article more NPOV would be more useful than deleting it. The efficacy of a merge would depend on the amount of useful information after slimming, but I note no mention of it on either talk page and at present I oppose a merge. TransUtopian 02:56, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
 * As TransUtopian points out, I am trying to make this article more neutral and referenced. I took a lot of the details from the Jerry Springer and Ricki Lake page, and now that I read it over there was indeed a lot of POV language like "vulgar" and "trashy". But I obviously agree with TransUtopian that these are simply a matter of style and can be slowly corrected if you're all kind enough to give me and anyone who wishes to help the opportunity to do so.  I also believe it would be a huge mistake to merge this article because it describes a very unique breed of talk shows representing a transitional period in American history and the article mentions a Yale sociologist who wrote an entire book about the genre and he's not the only one. I also felt the article was needed because the intro to the Phil Donahue page used to contain a huge long winded explanation about how he was the first of the talk shows to take his microphone into the audience etc.  I edited the intro to simply say he hosted the first tabloid talk show, with a link to this page explaining the concept and significance.  I believe this article is relevant to many different existing wikipedia articles as this genre has existed for decades and was watched by tens of millions of in the U.S. alone Editingoprah 03:57, 12 July 2006 (UTC)


 *  AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.  Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Deathphoenix ʕ 17:46, 13 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep - I've heard of this term for years. The article still needs cleaning up, but is notable enough to be kept.  --cholmes75 (chit chat) 20:33, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, but needs a source for the name. (I've heard of of it for years, also, but I am not a WP:RS for this concept.) &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 23:36, 13 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep The term "tabloid talk show" is used in the subtitle of the book by the Yale professor: "Freaks Talk Back: Sexual noncomformists and tabloid talk shows". Can't get a better source than a Yale professor.-- Cartridges 15:34, 15 July 2006 (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.