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 keep. Arbitrarily0 ^{( talk)} 00:26, 14 November 2020 (UTC) reply

China Uncensored

China Uncensored (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log)

(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unsure whether the show is notable by Wikipedia standards. The program seems notable from the common use of the term, but it could use discussion on whether it meets WP's definition. From a quick google news search there doesn't seem to be significant and multiple coverage by secondary RS. Subscription counts don't make the subject notable per WP:Youtube/Notability. Other than a high school newspaper, the page has 3 non primary sources (daily dot, rsf, and global voices advocacy). RSF is an advocacy organization, so unsure whether it could establish notability or whether it would be like a lawyer writing a press release on behalf of their client. Swil999 ( talk) 00:34, 29 October 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Swil999 ( talk) 00:34, 29 October 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Swil999 ( talk) 00:34, 29 October 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Swil999 ( talk) 00:34, 29 October 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Swil999 ( talk) 00:34, 29 October 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Swil999 ( talk) 00:34, 29 October 2020 (UTC) reply

• Weak delete: Most of the notability seems to be from getting blocked in China/HK/Taiwan, which isn't unusual considering the subject matter. Other than the sources provided by nom, all I've found is some passing mentions in Taiwan News where this show is cited for interviews they've done. The notability seems borderline, I think there needs to be another good RS other than daily dot to keep this. Jumpytoo Talk 02:25, 29 October 2020 (UTC) reply

• Keep Looks to me to pass WP:GNG. This is a good article for notability as well as the ones mentioned: [1] AlessandroTiandelli333 ( talk) 03:35, 29 October 2020 (UTC) reply
• Keep I know that this is strictly not a criteria for keeping the article (it has little to do with notability), but just publicizinh association with Falun Gong is very valuable information the show does not itself disclose. The article is thus very useful in it's current state, so even if it never grows (for lack of independent references) it will still be a valuable article. Qsdd ( talk) 09:46, 31 October 2020 (UTC) reply
  • @ Qsdd: sources don't show an association with Falun Gong for this show, but rather that it's produced by NTD (which already has a page) which is associated with Falun Gong. So it's not really a direct association, or at least the RSF source doesn't mention it. I didn't check whether it mentions Falun Gong in the NTD page, but it seems sourced so you could add it in there. If the NTD page doesn't mention this show, you could add it too, that they produced it. Swil999 ( talk) 07:53, 1 November 2020 (UTC) reply

• Delete as per nom. - Hatchens ( talk) 17:03, 9 November 2020 (UTC) reply
• Keep: Article is good enough to pass WP:GNG with the sources in the article (excluding sources 5 & 6), especially the one indicated by AlessandroTiandelli333. I also found a few reliable sources which talk about the program: [2], [3] and [4]. ASTIG😎 _{( ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 16:00, 10 November 2020 (UTC) reply

• • @ Superastig: TW News and SCMP seem to be opinion. It does not seem to be about the channel but rather citing/mentioning the channel for their analysis. Daily dot seems to be about the channel, so that one could count towards keep, but it seems pretty borderline.

• Comment: At personal level, I strongly feel the channel is for counter-propaganda activities, especially involved in sensationalized reporting. Though, it's true that... it has been quoted by many notable media portals, but even if we do accept this page... please think about adding a disclaimer. If the channel had a editorial lineup and affiliations like 38 North, I would have definitely voted for it. - Hatchens ( talk) 16:52, 10 November 2020 (UTC) reply
• Keep. The Daily Dot profile and Hong Kong Free Press report of censorship are sufficient to meet GNG. {{u| Sdkb}}  ^talk 06:06, 13 November 2020 (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.