This article was nominated for deletion on 6 October 2020. The result of the discussion was keep.
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourcedmust be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia articles
I'm going to remove the unsourced filmography section[edit]
This section is unwarranted given the poor quality of the sourcing. Wikipedia should be a summary of the reliable secondary sources about a subject. It does not need to duplicate IMDB. --Salimfadhley (talk) 07:42, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Have reinstated it, filmographies are a part of nearly all film actors or crew articles and should be more accurate than imdb. Instead of drive by deletionism why not improve the article instead ? regards, Atlantic306 (talk) 00:28, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that many film-related articles have filmographies, but you just added a load of unsourced content back into an article. Wikipedia is not a film listing site, it is a summary of secondary sources. --Salimfadhley (talk) 01:03, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Why don't you source it instead of issuing platitudes ? Not everything in an article has to be referenced to secondary sources, see WP:Primary, regards Atlantic306 (talk) 01:08, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That's not actually true. Wikipedia articles are supposed to be summaries of what the reliable secondary sources say about this subject. It is completely unacceptable to have large sections of the article unsourced. This is the sign that we are doing original research, which is completely not allowed on Wikipedia. I think you should source this section or delete it. The fact that many other articles about South-India film-industry topics have huge amounts of unsourced content does not excuse this unsourced content. --Salimfadhley (talk) 09:30, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I am really delighted to see some sources added to the filmography section of this article. There is no excuse to have unsourced text on a Wikipedia article. It is better to be incomplete than to make unsourced claims. Kudos to the editors who are putting in the time to fix this. Now we only have to worry about the tens of thousands of other articles with unsourced filmographies. --Salimfadhley (talk) 11:44, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
For filmography, the film itself acts as a source, provided that the film is publicly available. That's because anyone can look up the end credits and verify the content. Infact, per WP:FILMOGRAPHY, the reference column is optional and only needed when "when a work may be obscure or difficult to confirm" say, for uncredited roles. -- Ab207 (talk) 12:37, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
