Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Disney Junior (international)

Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
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 merge to Disney Junior. Even ignoring the rampant confirmed sockpuppetry and dubious contributions from IPs, there is still a clear consensus to merge. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:15, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disney Junior (international) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Wholly un-encyclopaedic and wholly unreferenced. This provides no content, just an endless list of when a name change occurred in multiple conries across the world with a interminable list of own web-sites - one for each country. Maybe something could be salvaged into a single paragraph, but at present it totally fails any test for notability  Velella  Velella Talk   14:34, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:01, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as is notable channels, The article needs improving and sourcing alot tho but that can easily be fixed. –Davey2010(talk) 20:28, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Not a single channel, but your point it out as such that it amounts to understanding that it is one concept. Spshu (talk) 20:06, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Spshu: - I meant "Channels", Not sure why I worded it as a single channel but thanks for spotting the error.... –Davey2010(talk) 13:47, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Disney Junior - Most of what's on this article can easily be merged & perhaps put as a table, It's simply easier to have everyone thing in one place as opposed to everything everywhere!, –Davey2010(talk) 13:47, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above five votes should be disqualified, as all have the signs of socking by Finealt, a user who has been blocked because of their MO of reducing international television network coverage by force. Nate (chatter) 02:45, 11 July 2014 (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.