- 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. RL0919 (talk) 21:15, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- R. S. Karthik (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non notable actor who’s claim to fame is an untitled character in a film. Fails nactor Praxidicae (talk) 12:54, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 19:50, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 19:50, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- 2 out of 3 of those are interviews or at best and one is a rehashing of the other but they're all basically WP:CHURNALISM. Praxidicae (talk) 18:12, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. 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). Britishfinance (talk) 21:34, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- 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. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:19, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- 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, as remains the case now. Praxidicae (talk) 20:25, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- 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. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:39, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- 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 with the sources available to me 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. Praxidicae (talk) 20:45, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Stop trying to rewrite history. This 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 Peechankai, which makes your nomination statement a clear lie. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:50, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Phil Bridger 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 WP:A7. 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. Britishfinance (talk) 21:30, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- 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? Phil Bridger (talk) 21:54, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- 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 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? Britishfinance (talk) 22:05, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- 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 to me 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 venue. Thanks.Praxidicae (talk) 23:28, 27 February 2019 (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.