Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Raja Rajeshwari


 * 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.  Sandstein  21:09, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Raja Rajeshwari

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Fails WP:NOTFILM - no references/citation for WP:V or internal links from other wiki articles.  Flewis (talk) 07:11, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.   --  Fabrictramp  |  talk to me  23:29, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment According to Google, and the Wikipedia article for the star Ramya Krishnan, it seems the film is actually titled "Sri Raja Rajeswari", so if the article is kept, it probably needs a rename. With that as the search though, there's one review found, . The Google search doesn't find much else, however, other than false positives. And I'm not sure whether one review satisfies notability criteria, so I'm leaving that to others to debate. raven1977 (talk) 00:44, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.   -- raven1977 (talk) 00:44, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per Raven1977's hint, notability is assured. I was able to find enough english sources to be able to improve the article., . I'll get to it this evening.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 01:19, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Update: Have cleaned up per film MOS, expanded, wikified, sourced. Raven is correct in that the name will require changing if kept. Comparing crew and production I found it as "Raja Rajeshwari", "Sri Raja Rajeshwari", and "Sree Raja Rajeshwari". Let me tell ya... that got confusing.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 07:18, 26 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 06:16, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Keep After Mr. Schmidt's efforts in sourcing and cleaning up the article, I believe it's in a good enough state to be kept now.Raven1977 (talk) 15:46, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Notability has been established.Yachtsman1 (talk) 00:42, 27 October 2008 (UTC)


 * 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.