Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Censorship of Regular Show in Canada

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. postdlf (talk) 17:30, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Censorship of Regular Show in Canada

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

Article consists of unsourced Fancruft which seems entirely original research. PRODs where added by an IP & then contested by another IP with no rationale given (apart from 1 occasion where they removed with comment "stop vandalising"). ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 05:37, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason: ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 05:53, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. 06:17, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. 06:17, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. 06:17, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. 06:17, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. 06:17, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Latin America-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 06:17, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – you may also want to see a similar discussion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Censorship of Regular Show in the United Kingdom. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 06:17, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nomination - this is clearly unencyclopedic trivia Nick-D (talk) 06:32, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all, unsourced OR. Regular Show is popular, but I doubt there are any sources covering just its censorship. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 07:28, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. Agree with DUCKISJAMMMY (talk · contribs), as well per Nick-D (talk · contribs) and TenPoundHammer (talk · contribs). JJ98 (Talk) 08:22, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all Complete original research, all examples not unusual dialogue and scene edits at all to meet local regulatory concerns and mores (and most of them just change to less-harsh words, very understandable). As I said in the related UK nom, the usual 'some episodes are edited or removed from airing for content in other markets' line added to the main article should satisfy most readers of the RS article. Nate • (chatter) 09:12, 11 January 2013 (UTC)**[reply]
Delete, non-notable and original research. Note that a category page has been created for all the related articles.TheLongTone (talk) 09:57, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. 100% based on original research. Firsfron of Ronchester 14:49, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. —Ed!^(talk) 15:55, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Snow delete - After some searches, sources seem to be entirely unavailable to even verify information in these articles. Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:36, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per WP:SNOW. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 19:11, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all the very nadir of trivial fancruft. This is so trivial I'm not even sure a fansite would take it. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:36, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all If the information is notable and sourced, it should be in the article Regular Show. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 23:09, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all100% WP:OR and not notable, even if it was 100% referenced. As suggested above, it is time for some SNOW clearance. Arjayay (talk) 14:43, 12 January 2013 (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.