Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TV Fakery

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Pba11 (talk | contribs) at 21:41, 17 July 2007 (web pages citing tv fakery). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

TV Fakery

TV Fakery (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Neologism, there's never going to be proper refs for this, it's a magnet for POV and synthesis RxS 02:54, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Every section and statement in this article is properly sourced and presented from a neutral point of view. The article covers an important and growing problem as is indicated by the variety of sources cited, from US Government agencies such as the National Security Council to top universities such as MIT, the problem of TV Fakery is exacerbated by new technology. The examples cited range from conventional forgery at NBC to the new TV Fakery made possible through computers as evidenced by the tornado photo that was shown on multiple networks in New Zealand. It is a serious subject not covered elsewhere in Wikipedia, where there are longstanding articles on topics such as Art Forgery and Propaganda it deserves a page of its own. Like Identity Theft and Spam TV Fakery is a relatively new but important problem of the digital age. The poster who tried to vandalize this page seems to be an active poster on 9/11 conspiracy theories and his neutrality is in doubt. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.231.236.128 (talk • contribs).
    • But which reliable sources are discussing THE PHRASE "TV Fakery"? The article appears to be about the phrase, not the tendency. I don't see any reliable sources whatsoever discussing THE PHRASE "TV Fakery". This is a neologism - possibly a protologism, since it doesn't seem to be a commonly used phrase. --Charlene 03:39, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The term "TV Fakery" generates over 34 thousand hits on Google, and it is the preferred term for the topic under discussion.

It's a serious subject for an encyclopedia, and it's not adequately covered elsewhere in Wikipedia. The term is in use on both sides of the Atlantic, it's clear and descriptive. The article itself is about the phenomenon of TV Fakery, which does not properly belong to other pages of Wikipedia yet is an important topic that deserves a page of its own. The Chicago Sun times article used the term TV Fakery properly 20 years ago proving that it's not a neologism. Bsregistration 04:05, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak delete, I can see the phrase being citeable (it is not properly attributed now). This article has serious WP:SOAPBOX and WP:POV issues right now, though. Certainly there are times when there are charges of fakery that are not substantiated. (Ha. "Fakery" is getting flagged by my spellchecker.) Worse, there are times when it is forever disputed. So the article will need a much more rigorous and serious restructuring before it shows this topic in a policy-compliant light. --Dhartung | Talk 04:18, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Examples are substantiated The controversies section was taken out, and just as there may be disputes in Art Forgery that's no reason that it's not a valid topic. It's a large and growing problem, and it's currently from a neutral point of view. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bsregistration (talk • contribs) This template must be substituted.
  • Delete per WP:NEO - "a particular term we must cite reliable secondary sources such as books and papers about the term—not books and papers that use the term.". So far, none of the links here or on the article page provide these sources Corpx 05:12, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not sure how this can be an article with it's current information. I searched for more evidence but found nothing that would be construed as based on facts.--MONGO 08:01, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and merge I can't find an article on wikipedia that details photographic forgery, so this seems to be under-documented, oddly enough. The title "TV fakery" is bad as it's probably a neologism, "photo and video forgery" would be better. EverGreg 20:34, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Expand TV Fakery is real term of use. It has over 41,400 google hits including:

TV fakery is alluded to in a Family Guy episode (plane crash).

Another tv fakery is the titanic safe opening. http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P2-3853272.html

TV fakery - in this case, I think TV Fakery is referring to TV's perpetual smurfy portrayal of real life: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0077854/

Here is a case just published where they faked how many fish were caught on a tv show - they don't use the term tv fakery in the first article http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article2076254.ece

But same story here and they use the term tv fakery: http://media.guardian.co.uk/site/story/0,,2127536,00.html

TV Fakery used here (1999 article): http://archive.thisisyork.co.uk/1999/2/12/324772.html

More tv fakery but the term isn't used: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/6433589.stm

Again - term tv fakery used here (2000): http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4196/is_20000117/ai_n10578465

Again - term tv fakery used here (2002) last paragraph: http://www.dvdmg.com/annanicoleseason1.shtml

And a special dedicated to tv fakery - BBC2 - 1998: http://ftvdb.bfi.org.uk/sift/series/30448

A similar but slightly different phenomenom from tv fakery - VNR - Video News Releases - videos made by corporations and given to news media and run as news without editing or censoring. Much is apparently propaganda: http://www.prwatch.org/node/3518 http://www.globalissues.org/HumanRights/Media/Manipulation.asp

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/TV_Fakery&oldid=145306948"