Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Factual 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. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 23:18, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Factual television

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:NEO. Term is not supported by the sources; seems to be a random TV buzzword made up by an individual source Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 06:30, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 06:30, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a buzzword but a description used for the genre of television which sits between Observational documentaries and reality television series. It is a description which is used in Australia and Britain to describe this type of programming. The awards presented in those countries and others are specifically separate these type of shows from documentary and Realty awards. Maybe the article needs to be expanded rather than deleted. J Bar (talk) 11:35, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per J Bar. Some examples of significant coverage (not to mention all the other times this term gets used in TV circles):

"Factual TV’s Diversity Problem Highlighted by BAFTA TV Nominations, Says Industry Org We Are Doc Women", Variety June 9, 2020
"Discovery to Launch Global Factual Streamer by 2020 With BBC Content", Variety April 1, 2019 (describing Discovery+)
"Reality Week: Broadcast Nets Plot More Factual Formats As Softer Side Of Non-Scripted Genre Gets Spotlight", Deadline April 6, 2021
An entire book, Creating Reality in Factual Television (Routledge 2021)

As a US editor myself, like you, I most certainly understand why this can seem buzzy because it sounds like something that only exists in the trades. However, when references to it in The Guardian start picking up at the end of the 80s, that's a sign that this is an enduring term that meets the GNG. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 00:10, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:24, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As this is the English language Wikipedia, not just the American Wikipedia, and is commonly used to differentiate true factual content from 'stuck on an island' dating shows and no-effort viral video filler. Nate • (chatter) 19:55, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The BAFTAS have an entire category for this type of programming making the perception of this as a "random buzzword" factually incorrect. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:14, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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.