Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adult Swim Video
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 ), 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  or .  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
— User:Calathan, 16:36, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
Stance: merge
Cited policy: WP:BEFORE||WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS||WP:NOTINHERITED (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion)