Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Censorship of The Amazing World of Gumball in the United States


 * 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.  ·Add§hore·  T alk T o M e ! 01:10, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Censorship of The Amazing World of Gumball in the United States

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Original research, entiirely non-notable subject TheLongTone (talk) 09:16, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * delete unsourced, POV, and trivial; if any of it is true and can be cited, it can be put into the main article. Mangoe (talk) 13:47, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete - Broken Engrish, something about trimming a few seconds off of a cartoon to squeeze in more commercials being "censorship". Just a weird opinion/rant, not encyclopedic material. Tarc (talk) 13:55, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete No WP:RS evidence of censorship; even the article says it's not censorship. Might be original research though it could be copied from somewhere. This info could perhaps go in The Amazing World of Gumball if it was sourced, but maybe it's too trivial even for there. --Colapeninsula (talk) 14:48, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete as non-notable. — Ed! (talk) 15:44, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete, agree with . Does not meet WP:RS. JJ98 (Talk) 20:38, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. JJ98 (Talk) 20:48, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. JJ98 (Talk) 20:48, 11 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete If the information is notable and sourced, it should go in the article for The Amazing World of Gumball. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 23:03, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete All cuts seemed to be made for time and content to air in earlier hours, not censorship. Original editor would do well to understand the basics of standards and practices and that removal of content is called 'editing', not 'censoring' (which is limited to language and gestures). All OR, doubtful any of this could be shared in the main article.  Nate  • ( chatter ) 02:57, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete Reads like a trivia rather than encyclopedic content and, as Nate mentioned, the article title is misleading. Funny  Pika 20:47, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * 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.