Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nickelodeon-India (2nd nomination)

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 speedy close. If Wikipedia was paper, the ink on the first nomination would still be wet. If someone wishes to contest the first nomination then please take it to DRV. Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:32, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nickelodeon-India[edit]

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

The Previous nominator was correct, and how can we believe this channel exists, the logo of this channel is just like the logo of the American one, no references make some people feel that this page is a mere lie. This page is constructed very badly. Unfortunately by the editor's deeds, Wikipedia will suffer. Alekhya Emani (talk) 10:36, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge, I completely agree with the nominator. The page is in a very bad condition and no-one is taking interest to improve it. Anirudh Emani (talk) 10:42, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment for Anirudh Emani and Alekhya Emani Please read WP:MEAT and WP:FAMILY. Catfish Jim and the soapdish (talk) 10:53, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep I'm slightly confused... is this a serious nomination? Channel is part of Viacom 18 as stated in article. The briefest of internet searches backs this up. See Viacom 18 website for example. Catfish Jim and the soapdish (talk) 10:44, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The last AfD ended five days ago. Starting a new AfD so quickly is usually frowned upon. – sgeureka ^t•c 11:02, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep if you accuse something of being a hoax at least have a look at the official website of the supposed parent company. Yoenit (talk) 11:07, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. The channel obviously exists, and no other valid reason has been provided for deletion. If the nominator and her brother are concerned about the current state of the article then I would suggest improving the content and adding references rather than repeatedly nominating for deletion. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:52, 30 September 2010 (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.