636:. Do you really think that this subject, based on the information available on him – none of which is a material quality RS on the subject himself (the critical component for a media-BLP) – makes him notable. There are AfD's in the queue that have not even had a comment, and you spend your time like this? Making "contrived" cases to create borderline BLPs is a fools game in WP unless the subject is a figure of long-term historical importance. This guy is not.
447:. We should not be "scraping". This is a media-BLP which means that they thow up refs are part of their media work. These sould not be taken a RS on the subject themselves. The guy has only been in one film with a $ 140,000 budget whose own WP article is a potential AfD (which means there is a strong COI/UDP issue here).
665:
without voting to note potential mistakes (and such comments have been made to me on my contributions). But I do not assume that they are "lying". What is even worse, you take such an extreme view for an AfD which is not only a Delete, but is most likely a COI/UDP case – E.g. the basis of this article is a lie?
560:
Except as I commented above, there is still virtually no coverage of this person despite his supposed "starring" in this film of questionable notability. Therefor per nom could also be referring to my comments. At the time I searched for this there weren't any independent, in depth, reliable sources,
686:
that he had not held a major named role. If you want to take my temporary inability to read as a malicious act, do so elsewhere because this has gone far off course and I've since expanded on why he is not notable. Further, if you think that I am acting maliciously, please take it to the appropriate
664:
You have taken an extreme view that a mistake is definately a lie. If that is the case, then AfD is full of liars as many AfDs have mistakes or inaccuracies in their proposals. I have seen such mistakes in some of your contributions Phil, but I don't call you a "liar". I make comments in many AfDs
681:
I did not lie. Lying implies that I did something with the intent to deceive. That is not the case here. I made a mistake which I admitted and I still stand by my comment that when I initially looked at the article, it appeared
543:
It's perfectly acceptable to give an opinion that this should be deleted, but "per nom" is not a valid opinion as the nominator's statement that this actor only played an untitled character in a film is a bare-faced lie.
206:
254:
593:
it showed no main role in a film of note under his name R.S. Karthik. It wasn't until later that the sources stating such were found but my point still stands that he is not currently notable.
159:
632:
Why make these comments when your point is not material to the outcome. Under any WP:BEFORE check, this subject is a delete. I could edit the article myself and get it close to a
611:
is how the article looked when you nominated it for deletion. Notability may not have been demonstrated, but it was perfectly clear that the subject played the lead, named, role in
200:
575:
Yes, that might be true, but you shouldn't overstate the case for deletion by lying that the subject played an untitled character when it was actually the lead role.
274:
91:
397:
106:
650:
I think that it's important that people should know that they will be called out when they tell lies, whether in a correct cause or not. Don't you?
166:
86:
79:
17:
132:
127:
136:
317:, not an untitled character, as confirmed by reliable sources found by the Google News search linked by the nomination process.
513:
383:
119:
221:
100:
96:
188:
467:
335:
725:
40:
589:
I think you're being unduly harsh here and stating this as if my intent was to deceive. At the time when I afd'd this
670:
641:
530:
452:
182:
369:
426:
2 out of 3 of those are interviews or at best and one is a rehashing of the other but they're all basically
427:
696:
674:
659:
655:
645:
624:
620:
602:
584:
580:
570:
553:
549:
534:
517:
485:
456:
439:
417:
353:
326:
322:
306:
286:
266:
246:
178:
61:
721:
481:
349:
36:
387:
692:
598:
566:
435:
413:
373:
242:
228:
311:
The subject may not yet be notable, but I must point out that he played the lead role of
Smoothu in
666:
637:
526:
509:
448:
214:
401:
282:
262:
123:
651:
629:
616:
576:
545:
318:
75:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
720:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
477:
378:
345:
302:
57:
194:
688:
594:
562:
431:
409:
238:
633:
496:
237:
Non notable actor who’s claim to fame is an untitled character in a film. Fails nactor
278:
258:
115:
67:
153:
298:
53:
313:
392:
363:- He's getting coverage as we speak. He is now prominent See the below,
398:‘Peechankai’ helped me survive as athis wasn actor, says RS Karthik
716:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
470:
to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
338:
to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
255:
list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions
608:
149:
145:
141:
213:
615:, which makes your nomination statement a clear lie.
476:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
344:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
227:
43:). No further edits should be made to this page.
728:). No further edits should be made to this page.
273:Note: This discussion has been included in the
253:Note: This discussion has been included in the
8:
370:A Film On Theru Koothu Is Currently Underway
107:Help, my article got nominated for deletion!
275:list of India-related deletion discussions
272:
252:
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
24:
607:Stop trying to rewrite history.
591:with the sources available to me
297:. Completely non-notable actor.
92:Introduction to deletion process
1:
697:23:28, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
675:22:05, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
660:21:54, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
646:21:30, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
625:20:50, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
603:20:45, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
585:20:39, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
571:20:25, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
554:20:19, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
535:19:47, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
518:06:11, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
486:00:33, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
457:21:34, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
440:18:12, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
418:09:42, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
354:04:03, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
327:13:51, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
307:12:25, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
287:19:50, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
267:19:50, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
247:12:54, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
82:(AfD)? Read these primers!
745:
561:as remains the case now.
62:21:15, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
718:Please do not modify it.
32:Please do not modify it.
368:, February 14, 2019 -
495:. Not notable at all.
384:Theru Kootthu in focus
405:Scrapes through to a
80:Articles for deletion
366:Silverscreen India
488:
396:, May 07, 2018 -
382:, Feb 13, 2019 -
356:
289:
269:
97:Guide to deletion
87:How to contribute
736:
504:
501:
475:
473:
471:
388:Nandita Jennifer
379:Deccan Chronicle
343:
341:
339:
232:
231:
217:
169:
157:
139:
77:
34:
744:
743:
739:
738:
737:
735:
734:
733:
732:
726:deletion review
502:
499:
489:
466:
464:
374:Adithya Narayan
357:
334:
332:
174:
165:
130:
114:
111:
74:
71:
48:The result was
41:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
742:
740:
731:
730:
712:
711:
710:
709:
708:
707:
706:
705:
704:
703:
702:
701:
700:
699:
687:venue. Thanks.
679:
678:
677:
667:Britishfinance
638:Britishfinance
557:
556:
538:
537:
527:Britishfinance
520:
474:
463:
462:
461:
460:
459:
449:Britishfinance
442:
421:
420:
404:
390:
376:
364:
342:
331:
330:
329:
309:
291:
290:
270:
235:
234:
171:
110:
109:
104:
94:
89:
72:
70:
65:
46:
45:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
741:
729:
727:
723:
719:
714:
713:
698:
694:
690:
685:
680:
676:
672:
668:
663:
662:
661:
657:
653:
649:
648:
647:
643:
639:
635:
631:
628:
627:
626:
622:
618:
614:
610:
606:
605:
604:
600:
596:
592:
588:
587:
586:
582:
578:
574:
573:
572:
568:
564:
559:
558:
555:
551:
547:
542:
541:
540:
539:
536:
532:
528:
524:
521:
519:
515:
514:Contributions
511:
507:
506:
505:
494:
491:
490:
487:
483:
479:
472:
469:
458:
454:
450:
446:
443:
441:
437:
433:
429:
428:WP:CHURNALISM
425:
424:
423:
422:
419:
415:
411:
408:
403:
399:
395:
394:
389:
385:
381:
380:
375:
371:
367:
362:
359:
358:
355:
351:
347:
340:
337:
328:
324:
320:
316:
315:
310:
308:
304:
300:
296:
293:
292:
288:
284:
280:
276:
271:
268:
264:
260:
256:
251:
250:
249:
248:
244:
240:
230:
226:
223:
220:
216:
212:
208:
205:
202:
199:
196:
193:
190:
187:
184:
180:
177:
176:Find sources:
172:
168:
164:
161:
155:
151:
147:
143:
138:
134:
129:
125:
121:
117:
116:R. S. Karthik
113:
112:
108:
105:
102:
98:
95:
93:
90:
88:
85:
84:
83:
81:
76:
69:
68:R. S. Karthik
66:
64:
63:
59:
55:
51:
44:
42:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
717:
715:
683:
652:Phil Bridger
630:Phil Bridger
617:Phil Bridger
612:
590:
577:Phil Bridger
546:Phil Bridger
522:
498:
497:
492:
465:
444:
406:
402:Vishal Menon
391:
377:
365:
360:
333:
319:Phil Bridger
312:
294:
236:
224:
218:
210:
203:
197:
191:
185:
175:
162:
73:
49:
47:
31:
28:
525:. Per nom.
478:Ad Orientem
346:Ad Orientem
201:free images
689:Praxidicae
613:Peechankai
595:Praxidicae
563:Praxidicae
432:Praxidicae
410:Karl Twist
314:Peechankai
239:Praxidicae
722:talk page
393:The Hindu
37:talk page
724:or in a
468:Relisted
336:Relisted
279:Bakazaka
259:Bakazaka
160:View log
101:glossary
39:or in a
445:Comment
207:WP refs
195:scholar
133:protect
128:history
78:New to
523:Delete
493:Delete
299:Ajf773
295:Delete
179:Google
137:delete
54:RL0919
50:delete
684:to me
634:WP:A7
503:titan
407:Keep!
222:JSTOR
183:books
167:Stats
154:views
146:watch
142:links
16:<
693:talk
671:talk
656:talk
642:talk
621:talk
609:This
599:talk
581:talk
567:talk
550:talk
531:talk
510:Talk
500:Luso
482:talk
453:talk
436:talk
414:talk
361:Keep
350:talk
323:talk
303:talk
283:talk
263:talk
243:talk
215:FENS
189:news
150:logs
124:talk
120:edit
58:talk
400:by
386:by
372:BY
229:TWL
158:– (
695:)
673:)
658:)
644:)
623:)
601:)
583:)
569:)
552:)
533:)
516:)
512:|
484:)
455:)
438:)
430:.
416:)
352:)
325:)
305:)
285:)
277:.
265:)
257:.
245:)
209:)
152:|
148:|
144:|
140:|
135:|
131:|
126:|
122:|
60:)
52:.
691:(
669:(
654:(
640:(
619:(
597:(
579:(
565:(
548:(
529:(
508:(
480:(
451:(
434:(
412:(
348:(
321:(
301:(
281:(
261:(
241:(
233:)
225:·
219:·
211:·
204:·
198:·
192:·
186:·
181:(
173:(
170:)
163:·
156:)
118:(
103:)
99:(
56:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.