Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kodiesvaran (2nd nomination)

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 as this seems to be enough to close (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 05:34, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kodiesvaran[edit]

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

This is still a non-notable shelved film. It was nominated in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kodiesvaran and the result was a redirect to the producer in September 2011. For some reason, a vandal blanked it in April 2013, reverted and then this was just restored in May 2014 without further explanation. The sources remain again only passing mentions and there's no evidence that this is some historically famous shelved film or the like. Ricky81682 (talk) 00:18, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:42, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:43, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect again to K. T. Kunjumon. 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 itself 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.Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 08:11, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, I don't see evidence that this is some historically famous shelved film at which point the failure itself would be the basis for its notability. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:12, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Historically famous shelved" is not the requirement. Having coverage (made or not) is. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 20:06, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - per MichaelQSchmidt. —Vensatry _(Talk) 08:57, 22 March 2016 (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.