Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Another me in the world


 * 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 no consensus. North America1000 04:33, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Another me in the world

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Poor, unwikified, unreferenced and a totally forgotten about article about a film that seems to fail WP:NFILM. Features in only one English language source:. This appears to be a press release anyway. My name is not dave (talk/contribs) 07:43, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 11:25, 24 July 2017 (UTC)


 * delete. Found the Chinese name for it, 世界上的另一个我, which helps with sources but still unable to find anything that convinced me it is notable. Is the sort of thing that could be notable – a documentary on national TV – but need some evidence of it.-- JohnBlackburne wordsdeeds 12:12, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Strong keep This is not a film, it's a factual television series on a channel with nationwide distribution. WP:NTV says "an individual radio or television program is likely to be notable if it airs on ... a cable television network with a national audience", which would be the North American equivalent of this. So it's as notable as the 200+ articles in Category:Discovery Channel shows and we should be aware of WP:BIAS. I was expecting this to fail for lack of WP:RS, but it's been the subject of articles on the websites (and just possibly the print editions) of People's Daily (via Xinhua: ), China Daily, and Nandu Zhoukan ( which I take to be a competitor of Southern Weekly). The article's a mess, but it's fixable. Matt's talk 08:41, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
 * This is why I boldfaced "English language source". Many of the articles that I have taken to AfD in the past few days are not articles about things in the English language world. It is very difficult, this, and it shows the need for more people who are interested in cleaning up articles and are from countries where English is not the majority language. My name is not dave (talk/contribs) 10:10, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
 * , thank you for trying to clarify your point, but to be honest I can't follow it. WP:GNG makes clear that "Sources do not have to be available online or written in English." This is not an encyclopedia of the English language world; this is an encyclopedia in English about the world. You seem to be implying that WP:BIAS should be a policy, not a flaw, which can't possibly be your intended meaning! Alas, even native speakers fail to communicate with one another sometimes... Matt's talk 10:44, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Oh, no, indeed not. I was just highlighting the struggle we have with articles like this, which will typically be in another language than English. This edit I made about Chechnya, for example; the incident in question, it seems, was barely reported in English language sources that are published outside of Russia. Thanks to me learning Russian, I was able to add it. The benefits of knowing another language! My name is not dave (talk/contribs) 10:51, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Good to know we're in agreement. Yes, we definitely have more problems with non-English speaking countries, which is why I sometimes patrol AfD/China. Internet censorship is also a particular problem with articles relating to China and Russia, as I'm sure you know. Matt's talk 11:32, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Malinaccier ( talk ) 22:02, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:08, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L3X1 (distænt write)   )evidence(  13:01, 9 August 2017 (UTC)


 * 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.