Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/India's Next Top Model (season 4)

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 keep. Closing this as keep rather than NC because the nominating statement doesn't provide any policy-based reasons for deletion. There's no indication that WP:BEFORE was performed, and most of the complaint is about another editor without addressing any inherent notability issues of the subject itself. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:12, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

India's Next Top Model (season 4)

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Nothing to indicate this show meets notability requirements. Article creator repeatedly adds unsourced minutia and refuses to add sources when requested. Ravensfire (talk) 13:59, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:22, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:22, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:12, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:27, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Cycle is in progress and I'm not seeing issues that aren't dealt with through common warning and reverting or as has already been done, semi-protection. Also, the 'article creator' hasn't edited the article at all since creating it and I'm seeing nothing at all suggesting any sign of socking by them, nor any reach-out to them besides templating this nomination their way. Also, you can add sources yourself, so I don't know why you haven't done so rather than just reverting these contribs with a brusque 'come back when you have a source'. WP:AGF is needed, not deletion. Nate • (chatter) 14:27, 29 October 2018 (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.