Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tharun Moorthy


 * 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. Daniel (talk) 00:23, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Tharun Moorthy

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

The subject of the article does not meet Wikipedia's notability criteria as a director and writer. Yes there is coverage. But it is in the form of promotional interviews and these do not count towards notability. Coverage from reliable sources such as The Hindu is primarily focused on the subject's second movie and there is not enough independent, in-depth coverage to meet WP:GNG for inclusion of this article to the main space at this time. Additionally, the article was created by a blocked sockpuppet who has a history of engaging in undisclosed paid editing and promoting articles. Akevsharma (talk) 09:17, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Kerala. Akevsharma (talk) 09:17, 14 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Keep For some reason, Akevsharma has something against this article subject and has been trying to block my editing of it every step of the way, including from when it was a draft. While it was originally made in short form by a sockpuppet, I rewrote it from scratch, turning it from this to the current article you see today. Their constant referencing to the original editor and ignoring my work is honestly insulting. As for their claims about the sources, they're just blatantly incorrect. The sources include some quotes from the subject, but are written about how the subject made the films and the inspirations behind doing so. You can see that clearly in the very The Hindu article that was brought up. They are not question and response interview articles as Akevsharma is implying. Silver  seren C 17:30, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Should I also note that Akevsharma appears to have purposefully timed this AfD submission in order to interfere with the article going on the Did You Know section? The nomination for it was approved and moved to a prep area yesterday. The article has been out of draft for nearly a week, but they suddenly decide to now file this AfD? Silver  seren C 17:34, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I hold no personal ill towards you or this topic. The creator of this article was confirmed to be a sock ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/SuhailShaji786/Archive#13_January_2023 ) yesterday and I was waiting for the confirmation. Otherwise,this article would have been easily deleted under the G5 criteria earlier. You may want to investigate the history of the account using the link provided. ( https://xtools.wmflabs.org/pages/en.wikipedia.org/Window369 ) Additionally, I would like to note that this article is part of a group of promotional articles created by this sock farm. But that is not the reason for the nomination and this is not the venue for a sockpuppet investigation. I have nothing personal against you or this subject.
 * I understand and appreciate your efforts to improve the article, however, I want to make it clear that I am not taking any of this personally. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. Based on my analysis, I believe that the sources used in the article primarily focus on the movies directed by the subject and do not meet the criteria outlined in Wikipedia's WP:GNG. The director in question has only directed two movies so far, and they do not meet the requirements of being a notable director and filmmaker.
 * Akevsharma (talk) 01:12, 15 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Keep Whilst I note GNG's words on promotional content - "nor a result of promotional activity or indiscriminate publicity" - the fact is that directors will be found in newspapers more often around the time a film is released than at other times. It's clear that three major newspapers have provided what looks to me to be significant coverage. AfDs are judged on the notability of the subject, and not on the (in this case) questionable origin of the article, and so the extended reiteration of the origin has no place in this AfD, not least since a different and independent wikipedian has rewritten the article from scratch. --Tagishsimon (talk) 20:35, 15 January 2023 (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.