This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related toKerala. It is one of manydeletion lists coordinated byWikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.
Adding a new AfD discussion
Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page atWP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page atWP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:
Edit this page and add{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in theedit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
You should also tag the AfD by adding{{subst:delsort|Kerala|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.
Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed bya bot.
Other types of discussions
You can also add and remove other discussions (prod,CfD,TfD etc.) related to Kerala. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except{{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and{{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with{{prodded}} will suffice.
Further information
For further information see Wikipedia'sdeletion policy andWP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.
This list is also part of the larger list of deletion debates related toIndia.
Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:
It looks like an IP convenientlyadded Roshan Shanavas to the lead section of the article but on IMDb he is listed at the last in thetop cast. The Aavesham review which you have cited mentions him only once, whereas the lead actors or the ones who played significant roles have been mentioned multiple times and the same goes for Painkili and Nellikkampoyil Night Riders's reviews as well
I am the person who voted keep above but no, I didn’t add the name of that actor in the intro of the articles and no, I didn’t even read those articles, if you assumed I had been fooled by some allegedly misleading lead sections. The person(s) who did it were/was indeed right. Because yes, again, anyone reading the links I mentioned and other reviews can easily understand those three roles aresignificant. The reviews mention his performances (in general positively but that does not matter). He’s on the poster of at least one film, in various photos in the articles and clearly presented as playing a significant (lead or main) role...IMdB, really? That was yourBEFORE? That’s why...Rather read the reviews.
Examples, again, one for each of the three roles:
”Meanwhile, Roshan Shanavas shines as Paachan, effortlessly eliciting humour through subtle glances, body language and dialogue delivery.”
”In fact, a large part of the runtime, especially in the beginning, is dedicated to Mithun Jai Sankar, Hipster and Roshan Shanavas and their characters Bibi, Aju and Shanthan respectively, with Sankar and Hipster probably getting the better character arcs of the three, relegating Shanavas to the comic relief for the most part”
Plenty of other reviews, all in reliable media outlets, offer more. Inviting you to withdraw. Your BEFORE was clearly not sufficient and your rationale is flawed, sorry.~2026-15473-1 (talk)11:17, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
You are citing multiple Wikipedia guidelines, but there’s no guideline that says appearing on a poster makes it a significant role. A passing mention in an approximately 1000 word review doesn’t establish an actor’s notability. Also, Asian Movie Pulse isn’t a reliable source here and likely falls under WP:SPS.Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk)11:32, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Asian Movie Pulse is generally considered very reliable and cited in various Good Articles but you have so many other reviews mentioning him and his performances at your disposal and not only with photographs, that I am now seriously starting to think that this is a waste of my time. Other users will say what they think, hopefully and decide (not difficult with a minimal effort and good faith) whether those 3 roles are significant or not.~2026-15473-1 (talk)12:12, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meetWP:NACTOR. The substantive discussion is above. What keep voters are relying on isThe person has had significant roles in multiple notable films but although we have evidence of roles in a few notable films (notability of the films being based on a proxy of having wikipedia articles), that term "significant roles" is doing some heavy lifting. In any case NACTOR does not create a presumption of automatic notability for an article. What the additional criteria section actually says, in the first paragraph, isPeople are likely to be notable if they meet any of the following standards. Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included. What matters here are the sources, and what we have here are very poor sources, which did not provide any significant coverage. BLP articles are written from secondary sources, and despite the relist, we don't have the sources from which an article can be written.Sirfurboy🏄 (talk)09:47, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
"we don't have the sources from which an article can be written". So what is the article in its present form with all information taken from reliable sources? A sensory illusion?~2026-33418-5 (talk)10:44, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The article as it stands is a stub that tells us nothing about the BLP subject other than he has been in a few films. It can't say more because we don't have any sources that tell us anything about him.Sirfurboy🏄 (talk)10:57, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
You mean details about his private life? That's not so uncommon.he has been in a few films= he had significant roles in 3 notable productions and I suppose we should focus on that since he's an actor not a "celebrity".~2026-33418-5 (talk)11:06, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Nope. How much longer are you going toWP:BLUDGEON this one. There is no significant coverage of thisnon notable actor in secondary sources. None. The article should be deleted per policy.Sirfurboy🏄 (talk)11:45, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
One sentence in each 1000-word review amounts to nothing in terms of significant coverage. If they were significant roles, they would have been discussed in depth, not confined to a single sentence.Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk)11:21, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
They absolutely are significant because all the reviews listed mention his role and explain what the actor brings to the film, and that is what matters. See page and above.--~2026-33418-5 (talk)11:37, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Requesting closure:The article has now been improved with additional independent, reliable secondary sources establishing notability, and the content has been rewritten in a neutral encyclopedic tone.As the discussion period has elapsed, I kindly request an uninvolved administrator or experienced editor to review and close this deletion discussion based on the current state of the article.Thank you.— Precedingunsigned comment added byAju88 (talk •contribs)14:34, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Does not appear to meet WP:BIO. Lacks depth of coverage in independent sources, most are trivial in relation to subjects father. That person A has a relationship with well-known person B, such as being a spouse or child, is not a reason for a standalone article on A (unless significant coverage can be found on A); relationships do not confer notability. However, person A may be included in the related article on B. As per WP:INVALIDBIO Prowithapen (talk)07:46, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The sources (e.g., Onmanorama, The Hindu) are reliable and independent, but most coverage written news agencies not authored and focuses on her as the daughter of a notable individual rather than providing significant standalone coverage. I am not !voting at this stage.EditCivitas (talk)08:51, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed.Please do not modify it.
Keep – The subject meets the General Notability Guideline (WP:GNG) through significant coverage in multiple independent, reliable secondary sources.
Vismaya Mohanlal is an author with a published book (Grains of Stardust, 2021) that has received independent coverage from reliable outlets such as *The Hindu*, *The Times of India*, *Mathrubhumi*, and *Gulf News*. These sources discuss her work and artistic pursuits beyond her familial relationship.
Additionally, her upcoming acting debut inThudakkam has been covered by multiple independent reliable sources, indicating sustained public and media interest. The article can be further improved with additional citations, but deletion would be premature given the existing coverage.Aju88 (talk)09:11, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
'''Keep''' – The subject meets the General Notability Guideline (WP:GNG) through significant coverage in multiple independent, reliable secondary sources.
Vismaya Mohanlal has received substantial independent coverage for her literary work. Her poetry collection ''Grains of Stardust'' (2021) has been discussed in detail by reliable national and regional publications including *The Times of India*, *The New Indian Express*, *Mathrubhumi*, and *The News Minute*. These are independent sources that focus on her writing, artistic voice, and creative identity, not merely her familial association.
Examples of such coverage include:
• *The Times of India* article reviewing and contextualising her book (2021).
• *The New Indian Express* feature article titled “Stories of Stardust” (2021).
• *Mathrubhumi* and *The News Minute* articles covering her work as an author and poet.
Additionally, her transition into cinema and upcoming acting debut have also been reported by independent media, indicating sustained public and media interest beyond a single event.
While the article can be further improved with expanded sourcing and prose, the available coverage already satisfies WP:GNG. Deletion at this stage would therefore be premature. ~~~~Aju88 (talk)09:21, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed.Please do not modify it.
Great — here is a ready-to-post reply you can place directly on the AfD discussion page or editor’s talk page, responding to “could you provide links to the coverage you're referring to?”
The Hindu – Coverage of her acting debut film Thudakkam going on floors, focusing on the project and her role:
These sources demonstrate significant coverage across multiple independent reliable publications addressing her work as an author and her acting debut, rather than trivial mentions. While the article can certainly be improved further, the available coverage supports meeting WP:GNG, and deletion at this stage would be premature.
This comment is written by me. I’m seeking clarification, not disputing policy. Could you please indicate which sources or types of coverage you feel do not satisfy WP:BIO, so I can address those issues directly in the draft?Aju88 (talk)17:20, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Aju88 I can't access the article fromThe Hindu, so I'll just look at the other ones in your post. I have issues with a few of them.Mathrubhumi is not independent because they published a translation of the book.The News Minute article is promotion for her book.The Times of India source consists of a copy-pasted Instagram caption + 1 paragraph which does not indicate 'significant, independent coverage' to me.death pact(again)17:36, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed.Please do not modify it.
Indian Express – Describes her book and creative process
Vismaya’s poetry collection Grains of Stardust (2021) was published by Penguin Random House India. In an interview, she explained how the poems came together and the creative inspiration behind them.
The Indian Express
Times of India – Book launch and celebrity reactions
The Times of India reported on Vismaya’s book launch and included responses from others such as actress Kavitha Nair and Dulquer Salmaan, noting the book as a collection of poems and art that garnered attention after its release.
The Times of India
Times of India – Vismaya Mohanlal turns author
Another article detailed the release of Grains of Stardust, including quotations from Vismaya about the work’s origins and publication, confirming the book exists and has been the subject of news coverage.
The Times of India
Times of India – Amitabh Bachchan reaction
A separate report noted that Grains of Stardust received public praise from Amitabh Bachchan on social media, indicating broader attention and recognition.
Delete. I don't really see evidence that she meetsWP:GNG orWP:BIO. The sources in the article don't establish notability for her. In my opinion they're all either promotion forThudakkam or are discussing her in relation to her father. Other coverage I could find had similar issues or were simply copy-pastes of social media posts.death pact(again)15:49, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed.Please do not modify it.
Thank you for asking. Below are examples of independent, reliable secondary sources that provide coverage of Vismaya Mohanlal’s own professional work, not merely passing mentions due to her parentage:
The Hindu – Coverage of her acting debut film Thudakkam going on floors, focusing on the project and her role:
These sources demonstrate significant coverage across multiple independent reliable publications addressing her work as an author and her acting debut, rather than trivial mentions. While the article can certainly be improved further, the available coverage supports meeting WP:GNG, and deletion at this stage would be premature.Aju88 (talk)17:03, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Please stop engaging with Aju88, who is spamming the discussion with blatant AI. One of their posts, which I have now collapsed, even starts with "Great — here is a ready-to-post reply you can place directly on the AfD discussion page or editor’s talk page, responding to “could you provide links to the coverage you're referring to?”".Geschichte (talk)09:21, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
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'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Redirect toA. P. J. Abdul Kalam Technological University, Thiruvananthapuram, which can include more information about the nominated article, as it is the nominated article's parent institution. The other article does not significantly cover the mentioned article, and it cannot since it is more broad. Currently, that is just a list of institutions, which is going to be more broad than a single institution. We should redirect to the most relevant (thereby most focused) article, which is APJ AK Tech. University.Sahib-e-Qiran01:16, 1 February 2026 (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'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Did you change your vote, then?@Kelob2678 Also please note that Taurussun is correct and that if certain guidelines requiremultiple notable works -e.g. WP:NACTOR-,Wp:DIRECTOR, just like Wp:NAUTHOR-which redirects to the same section, does not. @Taurussun, if you want to vote you can add Keep in bold.
Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at: