Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adult Swim Video

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 and redirect. The consensus was to delete and this judgement was backed up by a lack of reliable independent sources in the article. A myriad of GHits counts for nought; it is the quality of the hits that count. Finally, I am not convinced that a redirect would be confusing. 'Adult Swim Video' is the brand name for the video on demand service and a targeted redirect there would assist searchers. TerriersFan (talk) 16:52, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Adult Swim Video

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

Clearly, this article has no sources. JJ98 (Talk) 19:14, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Clearly, you forgot to do a Google search: http://www.google.com/search?as_eq=wikipedia&q=%22Adult+Swim+Video%22&num=50. What's all that, then? Island Monkey ^{talk the talk} 19:31, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Other stuff exists. JJ98 (Talk) 06:52, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:14, 7 June 2011 (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) 01:39, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Delete Lack of sources (as far as I know, correct me if I'm wrong) isn't a reason for an article to be deleted unless honest attempts to find the sources have failed. It just needs to be cleaned up and have someone do the grunt work. Bstbll (talk) 07:24, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is not inherited. JJ98 (Talk) 06:52, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- On further consideration, I think that this article fails WP:GNG, and have changed my vote to reflect this. That being said, if your reason for the AfD nom was that the article was not notable, maybe you should have mentioned this in the nomination, rather than only mentioning the lack of sources? I still stand by my previous statement that lack of sources alone isn't a valid reason to delete an article, it's a reason to clean up an article. Lack of notability, not lack of sources, is the reason I think this article should be deleted, despite the fact that it wasn't mentioned in the nomination. On a related note, posting nothing more than a link to WP policy in response to a good-faith comment seems a little bitey, but then it might just be me. Bstbll (talk) 07:24, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Adult Swim. I don't think that Adult Swim Video has any notability beyond that of Adult Swim, but this seems like an appropriate redirect in case someone tries to search for Adult Swim Video. The Google search that Island Monkey linked to above doesn't seem to provide any sources that are independant, reliable, and have significant coverage of the topic. However, I agree with Bstbll that having no sources in the article isn't a reason for deletion. Instead, the nominator should have looked for sources (per WP:BEFORE), and should have given a deletion rational that is an actual reason for deletion (such as that the subject is not notable). Furthermore, the nominator has been replying to comments with links to essays that have no relation to the comments he replied to, which is just baffling. No one here has made any sort of arguement for keeping the article that is in any way related to WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS or WP:NOTINHERITED. JJ98, I really have no idea what you were thinking with those links, but please try to respond to people with actual comments, not just links, and please try to refer to policies/guidelines/essays that actually relate to the situation at hand. Calathan (talk) 16:36, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Adult Swim Video fails the general notability guideline. A redirect would not be useful because anyone typing "Adult Swim Video" into the search bar will be presented with "Adult Swim" in the drop down menu before finishing typing; to add the additional option of "Adult Swim Video" creates unnecessary confusion while also facilitating the recreation of the article. Neelix (talk) 13:31, 17 June 2011 (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.