Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of films with unexposed contents (2nd nomination)
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
— User:Unscintillating, 16:45, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
Stance: delete
Cited policy: WP:VAGUEWAVE (Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions)