Deletion of Sexposition

Comment: per Jclemens & Sandstein, looks like it meets 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary (WP:NEO)

Comment: http://www.nj.com/entertainment/index.ssf/2012/04/sexposition_game_of_thrones.html nj.com, http://bangordailynews.com/2012/04/28/living/thats-enough-skin-on-game-of-thrones/?ref=latest Bangor Daily News, http://douthat.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/06/19/notes-on-game-of-thrones/ NYTimes blog, http://www.salon.com/2012/04/01/is_game_of_thrones_too_white/singleton/ Salon, http://arts.nationalpost.com/2011/08/10/stinson-strike-back-is-loud-brash-mindless/ National Post.   fail, term clearly meets GNG
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion (WP:BEFORE)

Comment: per Sandstein & Schmidt, |sourcable and |improvable |subarticle of Exposition (literary technique
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NRVE||WP:ATD||WP:SS)

Comment: as creator. The article is not about the ''word'' (in which case it would be a neologistic dictionary entry unsuited for Wikipedia). It is about the ''narrative technique'', which is older than the word. As such, it is a |subarticle of Exposition (literary technique) and a companion article to the other entries in :Category:Narrative techniques. I first drafted it as a section in the main ''Exposition'' article (which, if necessary, it could again become), but that article is already reasonably long, and this sub-topic has both sufficient coverage for notability (as shown above) and expansion potential to stand alone: The http://www.guardian.co.uk/tv-and-radio/2012/mar/11/sexposition-story-tv-drama?newsfeed=true ''Guardian'' article cites a number of earlier works in which this technique has been used, which means that there is room for sourced analysis and examples that pre-date and go beyond the use in ''Game of Thrones'' that caused somebody to coin a word for the pre-existing technique
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Summary style (WP:SS)