Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thani Oruvan


 * 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. Of the two reasons given by the nominator, one has been addressed and the other is a reason for cleanup, not deletion. Olaf Davis (talk) 12:48, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Thani Oruvan

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Falls under too soon, from what I can tell this is not even being filmed yet-also the intro is a bit too promotional Wgolf (talk) 15:34, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:41, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:41, 26 April 2014 (UTC)


 * WP:INDAFD: Thani Oruvan
 * WP:INDAFD: Thani Oruvan
 * WP:INDAFD: Thani Oruvan
 * WP:INDAFD: Thani Oruvan
 * WP:INDAFD: Thani Oruvan
 * WP:INDAFD: Thani Oruvan


 * Keep per meeting WP:NFF (paragraph 3) through its ongoing production and filming receiving the requisite coverage under that guideline... before and after it was titled. Sorry, but "The shoots of the film have been done in places such as Mahabalipuram, Bangalore and Hyderabad so far" and we can allow this new sourced stub article to remain and grow and be improved through regular editing.... that is, unless someone convinces me that a merge and redirect to filmmaker M. Raja is a solution that somehow better serves the project.  Schmidt,  Michael Q. 04:35, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep The article has a source which says that the principal photography has started.--Skr15081997 (talk) 03:50, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment-for some reason I didn't see it say that it started-it just felt a bit too promotional though as well. Wgolf (talk) 03:54, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Response: I found that citation and added to the article through some minor post-nomination clean-up. I would offer that a sense of any article feeling a "bit too promotional" would be a valid reason to tag it for editorial attention ( IE: ), but not necessarily one for calling for a flat-out deletion of something that could be corrected through regular editing.  Schmidt,  Michael Q. 22:28, 27 April 2014 (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.