- 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:38, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
AfDs for this article:
- Reaction video (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Nothing on google scholar. No secondary sources. Violates WP:NOT specifically, WP:DIC/WP:NOT#DICDEF Curb Chain (talk) 01:35, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The article has no contents (e.g. a list of things that have caused the apparition of hundreds of reaction videos, like those from 2 girls 1 cup). Seems that the fenomenon is too recent or unimportant, so few or no RS will be found.--Fauban 14:13, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 15:12, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 15:12, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: This is a tricky topic to research. A preliminary search engine test does not show anything reliable except some mentions of reactions to 2 girls 1 cup. Worth quoting WP:NEO here: "Neologisms that are in wide use but for which there are no treatments in secondary sources are not yet ready for use and coverage in Wikipedia. The term does not need to be in Wikipedia in order to be a 'true' term, and when secondary sources become available, it will be appropriate to create an article on the topic, or use the term within other articles." I would like to see if others can find any worthwhile coverage before taking a stance. Erik (talk | contribs) 15:19, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: While earlier versions contained examples, the current article consists only of the sentence "A reaction video is a genre of short amateur video that captures the reaction of an individual or group of individuals." In book searches, it would seem the term does see usage,[1] as well as usage in news articles,[2][3] but none of these sources attempt to define a "reaction video". Like Erik, I would welcome someone being able to expand that one sentence into a properly sourced and encyclopedic article. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 17:13, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as per WP:DIC. If independent references with in-depth coverage get added to the article, feel free to ping my talk page. Stuartyeates (talk) 22:44, 5 October 2012 (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.