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 delete. v/r - T P 21:08, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The World Tomorrow (RT TV series)[edit]

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

WP:CRYSTAL. Planned event which is clearly not "almost certain to take place," (WP:CRYSTAL, 1.) at least because Julian Assange may not be in a position to be part of it (and to complete it), as announced, since he is facing extradition to Sweden. Further, that the "show" would be broadcast by state-funded Russia Today is essentially speculation (WP:CRYSTAL, 5.), not mentioned in Wikileaks' announcement[1], not confirmed according to the BBC ("Reports Moscow would broadcast the show could not be immediately confirmed."[2]), whereas the second Guardian's source [3] seems somewhat biased. I don't think the article can be saved even through improvements. Delete. Edcolins (talk) 18:15, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:57, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

RT's press release concerning the show says it is in production where he is held under house arrest.
It was not mentioned in Wikileaks' announcement because the Wikileaks announcement was made a day before the RT announcement – prior to RT acquiring the rights to the show [4] – something made clear in the article and in some of the sources quoted.
Also, the BBC article was written without quoting the RT press release, which meant at the time of writing, they did not realize RT had sent it out, hence the "unconfirmed" nature of the report. (That's also why the BBC article did not mention the show's name, they couldn't have possibly known because they had not seen the RT press release.) On the other hand the Guardian and the Associated Press do quote the release and the show's name.
What's wrong if the Guardian article is biased? It is editorializing but the fact that is being reported is hardly being challenged.
Based on 2, 3, 4, your characterization here [Further, that the "show" would be broadcast by state-funded Russia Today is essentially speculation (WP:CRYSTAL, 5.), not mentioned in Wikileaks' announcement[1], not confirmed according to the BBC ("Reports Moscow would broadcast the show could not be immediately confirmed."[2]), whereas the second Guardian's source [3] seems somewhat biased.] is highly misleading (I'm not accusing you of lying, rather a lack of attention to nuances) and I request that you strike it out.

— Yk Yk Yk talk ~ contrib 20:03, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Yk Yk Yk, thanks for your explanations. I have adapted the wording of the nomination (to insert "and to complete it"). One source says indeed that the first "episode" (half an hour) has been already filmed [5]. Another, five days later, still said "Whether the series is being pre-recorded is unclear..."[6]. It is still WP:CRYSTAL whether the series will be completed and then broadcast. "Speculation and rumor, even from reliable sources, are not appropriate encyclopedic content" (WP:CRYSTAL, 5.) When reading the available sources, my feeling is, frankly, that there is a lot of hot air about this announcement. --Edcolins (talk) 21:27, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I accept your concerns regarding WP:CRYSTAL. At this stage, it's just a matter of how much faith one can have in these announcements. In my opinion, if interviews are being filmed, RT are certain to edit and air them because they're not bound by editorial standards at CNN or the BBC and have a propensity for controversy and hot air. I'll let the AfD run its course; if deleted I'll create it again should the need arise. Can you please remove the erroneous section I pointed out in your nomination? Given your own high standards, it's misleading drive-by !voters. — Yk Yk Yk talk ~ contrib 00:18, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your note. I am afraid I don't really see which section of my nomination is erroneous. I'll try to explain this. In point "1.", you wrote that the show is in production. This is unconfirmed as mentioned above ("Whether the series is being pre-recorded is unclear..."[7]). In point "2.", you wrote "...prior to RT acquiring the rights to the show". So you understood that RT got the rights, i.e. the exclusive rights, to broadcast the show. Interestingly the BBC article [8] (which, by the way, includes a link to the RT press release, see your point "3.") reads:

"On Wednesday, the RT website announced: "Cyberspace's most famous activist, Julian Assange, is launching his own talkshow, to be broadcast exclusively on RT."

But the corresponding sentence now reads in the RT press release:

"Cyberspace's most famous activist, Julian Assange, is launching his own talkshow, to be broadcast ~~exclusively~~ on RT."[9]

This means that the initial "exclusive" link between RT and Julian Assange was quickly corrected and is no longer valid. If the article is kept (I don't think it should at this stage), we should at least rename it to "The World Tomorrow (Julian Assange)". The misunderstanding between you and me is probably due to the fact that you saw an exclusive link between RT and Julian Assange while I didn't. That is why I couldn't help finding that the Guardian article was biased (point "4.") because it insisted on this exclusive link ("Russia Today announced it had won exclusive first broadcast rights for the show" [10]), whereas I was not reading this in the RT press release, modified in the meantime. --Edcolins (talk) 20:26, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per WP:TOOSOON. If it is aired, then write the article. Eddie.willers (talk) 23:15, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:12, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete once it airs, it will likely be notable but for now it's just speculation RadioFan (talk) 03:09, 27 February 2012 (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.