Deletion of Chakravartin Ashoka Samrat

Comment: Wikipedia:Notability (films)#Future films, incomplete films, and undistributed films says: Films that have not been confirmed by |reliable sources to have commenced principal photography should '''not''' have their own articles, as budget issues, scripting issues and casting issues can interfere with a project well ahead of its intended filming date. The assumption should also not be made that because a film is likely to be a high-profile release it will be immune to setbacks—there is no "sure thing" production. Until the start of principal photography, information on the film might be included in articles about its subject material, if available. Sources must be used to confirm the start of principal photography '''after''' shooting has begun. I didn't find anything in the sources indicating that principal photography has commenced.The history should be preserved under the redirect to allow easy resurrection, as noted by Milowent and 23W. As I wrote at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2014 July 19#Westshore Town Centre: The only benefit of keeping the edit history deleted that I can see would be to prevent users from undoing the redirect and restoring the deleted content. But this is easily remedied by reverting the restoration and fully protecting the redirect.A benefit of restoring the article's history would be to allow non-admins to see what the encyclopedia once said about the subject.Using the deleted content for a merge is not the only benefit. Another example is that in the future if sources surface that demonstrate notability, the deleted content can be easily reviewed. Without needing to ask an admin, a non-admin could determine whether the deleted content could be used as the basis of a newly recreated article with the new sources. Deletion would hinder this.In sum, the benefits of restoring the deleted content outweigh the negligible negatives, so the article's history should be restored under the redirect
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS)

Comment: no evidence of significant coverage. fails  as well (applicable even if its a TV show and not a film). redirect to Ashok Banker would also be acceptable
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NFF)

Comment: Eh, has some significant coverage in secondary sources, including http://www.bestmediainfo.com/2014/10/colors-announces-magnum-opus-chakravartin-ashoka-samrat/ ''Best Media Info'', http://www.indiantelevision.com/television/tv-channels/gecs/colors-revisits-history-with-chakravartin-ashoka-samrat-141004 ''IndianTelevision.com'' and the http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/entertainment/hindi/tv/news/Chakravartin-Ashoka-Samrat-History-comes-alive-on-the-small-screen/articleshow/44320707.cms ''Times of India''. Don't know how reliable the former two are, but they both contribute coverage that could make this more than a stub. If not, '''redirect''' to the list of programs broadcast by Colors, because |redirects are cheap
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Redirects are cheap (WP:CHEAP)