Deletion of List of films with unexposed contents (2nd nomination)

Comment: as |original research unless it can be shown that (1) the topic of "unexposed contents" has received treatment in reliable sources and (2) such sources discuss the listed films in that context
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR)

Comment: per  and per . This list appears to be based entirely on original reasearch. Further there is no evidence to suggest that films and unexposed contents is a notable cross-categorization
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:SYNTH||WP:NOTDIR)

Comment: Unsourced - hard to find any information on this topic that isn't taken straight from Wikipedia.  The creator of the article admits it's original research in the 2006 AFD.  The fact that it's been here a  or is a  shouldn't be taken into consideration
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:LONGTIME||WP:POPULARPAGE)

Comment: as many editors in this and the previous AfD have suggested''&nbsp; In my Google research, I could neither prove nor disprove that "unexposed contents" exists or does not exist.&nbsp; Stating that it is common and then a  that it is not notable is not a solid deletion argument.&nbsp; Water is common, too.&nbsp; There are no references in the article to show that the concept is used by scholarly sources, but there is consensus in this AfD that the concept by an unknown name exists (such as "common", "...many films have it...").&nbsp; (note that this post is an edit conflict on a premature AfD closure, a closure that took place in less than 6 days.)&nbsp
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:VAGUEWAVE)

Comment: This article been a part of Wikipedia for over five years (since January 2006) and survived one AfD immediately upon its creation.  It has been viewed 1491 times in the last 30 days (355 times within the past 24 hours) and has a discussion page with 13 postings.  It provides information not available in another article and involved quite a fair amount of effort with specific titles listed, each of which is sourced within its own individual entry.  ther stuff exists to an extensive degree --- there are scores of articles structured in this manner --- some have the word "list" in the title --- others do not (List of black-and-white films produced since 1970, Bob Hope short subjects, List of films that most frequently use the word "fuck", List of ghost films, List of drug films, List of films containing frequent marijuana use, List of films featuring May–December romances, List of films with overtures, List of live-action puppet films, List of Saturday Night Live feature films, Skyscrapers in film, Unsimulated sex in film, List of films about angels, List of films about mathematicians, List of films about animals and others). To avoid stereotyping this entry as merely a list, the title could be moved to Films with unexposed contents since it both explains the genre and supplies a list.  Also, such articles tend to be under the care and supervision of members of ikiProject Film and we should see input from some of them on this matter
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Orphan (WP:O||WP:W)