Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kodiesvaran

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 redirect to K. T. Kunjumon. v/r - T P 00:42, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kodiesvaran[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The film was announced in 1996 and has been shelved. Clearly fails WP:NFF Commander _{(Ping Me)} 18:34, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no sense in keeping this article around if the project is now dead. ArcAngel (talk) ) 19:46, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Movie never got to release and no major coverage even of that in sources (I checked all cites and most of them don't actually even mention it--as if they were just directory-entries of current projects that got elided when the project died). DMacks (talk) 21:42, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, I created this page so I would say Keep, because the film received heavy publicity during it's period of production. The film was widely touted to be the most expensive Tamil film ever produced at the time - and hence gains notability in that respect. However, as like most other foreign language films, sources are far and few online - and I guess that does reduce it's chances of surviving this AfD. Universal Hero (talk) 21:50, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment WP:NFF does not mandate deletion. Toward failed films it instructs "...films produced in the past, which were either not completed or not distributed, should not have their own articles unless their failure was notable per the guidelines." So rather than simply delete it as a failed project, we need to determine whether or not the coverage available for this failed film might then allow its failure to be notable per the guidelines. It would seem reasonable at the least that it could also be redirected to a sourced and historically contextual mention elsewhere. Suggestions? Possibilities? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:57, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirecting would be a good option. I did that a few days ago but someone reverted back stating that the article was created after the film got shelved. --Commander _{(Ping Me)} 11:25, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I see what happened. That User:Editor 2050 disagreed with your redirect was a suitable reason to take it to AFd for wider discussion, and whomever closes this AFd can do the redirect. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:21, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:09, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:10, 6 September 2011 (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.