Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ram Mohan P


 * 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 no consensus. North America1000 08:33, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Ram Mohan P

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Only links are to IMDB. I searched and came up with nothing notable. Seems like this fails WP:BIO. mikeman67 (talk) 00:57, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 01:56, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.  Human 3015   TALK    01:57, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  Human 3015   TALK    01:57, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.  Human 3015   TALK    01:58, 14 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete as this one seems obvious. SwisterTwister   talk  03:59, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete - weak sources, not notable. r a y u k k. 21:03, 14 October 2015 (UTC)


 * birthname:
 * company:
 * film:
 * film:
 * film:
 * WP:INDAFD: "Ram Mohan P" "Ram Mohan Paruvu" "Sunshine Cinemas" "Ashta Chamma" "Golconda High School" "Uyyala Jampala"

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep per meeting easily meeting WP:GNG and more importantly meeting WP:FILMMAKER, prong 4 (c) in that his works have won significant critical attention. The current article is poorly written yes, but being WP:UGLY is not a reason to delete a notable topic that can be improved with just a little attention. I politely remind that per guideline WP:N, if someone's diligence finds available sources, topic notability is established, even if the sources have not (yet) been used or the topic improved.   Schmidt,  Michael Q. 10:29, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor Talk! 01:42, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Note to, and : A little due diligence and some work in expansion and sourcing show (IMHO) the man's works to have received enough "significant critical attention" so as to have him meet WP:FILMMMAKER, prong 4, (c). The current version is no longer the unsourced stub first brought to AFD, and I feel it best serves Wikipedia to have this remain and grow over time and through more editorial attention. As this is no longer the article upon which you first opined, I invite you to reconsider. Thanks.  Schmidt,  Michael Q. 02:59, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Is it really necessary to be so condescending? I appreciate your work on expanding the article. But right now, by my count, only two of the eight sources on the page even mention him at all, and the ones that do are both very trivial mentions. Also, the section "Recognition" are reviews of movies, and make no mention of Mohan, which seems like an attempt to WP:BOMBARD the page. There's nothing in those sources to suggest that it's Mohan who deserves credit for those movies' praise, or whether he was involved in the filmmaking process at all. Generally film producers' roles vary widely, and it's possible his role was very minor. Without reliable sources that discuss his role, it's impossible to know. I find it telling that he isn't mentioned in those articles. I've done a number of searches now for his name, and from what I have seen, there are almost no reliable sources that discuss him at all, and do not see how a page could be created with such limited verifiable information. I do not think he meets WP:BASIC, WP:FILMMAKER (I'll point out here that this criteria applies to creative professionals only) or WP:GNG at the moment, but of course would reconsider if more sources are presented. mikeman67 (talk) 13:57, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
 * If you feel my being careful and polite in explaining my guideline-supported thoughts for others who may not have made 1100 edits in nine years is "condescending", then sorry. Courtesy is per policy, and clarity prevents misunderstandings. While it would be fine if the man had headlines around the world, a guideline notability found through his works receiving significant coverage does not also or somehow require that he himself have such coverage, else all SNGs would be deleted and we'd rely instead on the GNG and the GNG alone. And pardon, but unless you wish to somehow refute the many reliable sources speaking toward and praising  Uyyala Jampala, a film he both wrote and produced, it seems his "creative" endeavors ARE being recognized.  While you may tacitly imply or personally feel Sify or The Hindu or The Deccan Chronicle or International Business Times somehow do not meet the criteria for reliable sources, I cannot change my own belief that they do unless WP:RSN agrees with your evaluation. And on a lighter note, when you request the removal of THIS notability clarification, or nominate the SNGs for deletion, please ping me so that I might respond in those discussions. Thanks.  Schmidt,  Michael Q. 20:55, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — foxj 04:04, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep. I consider MQS as the WP authority in this field, and since he thinks the refs are sufficient, the article should be accepted.  DGG ( talk ) 05:11, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * This is just a type of WP:ADHOM argument. No doubt he's a very experienced editor with lots of great contributions, but nobody gets a supervote. I don't agree his sources indicate substantial coverage of Ram Mohan P himself. They show light coverage of movies in which his role isn't entirely clear. Totally fair if you disagree with me, but perhaps you can take a closer look yourself before voting. FuriouslySerene (talk) 14:10, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I could of course have paraphrased his arguments. But I give him credit for finding and evaluating the sources.  DGG ( talk ) 15:57, 30 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Pinging interested subject users, , and .  SwisterTwister   talk  20:34, 5 November 2015 (UTC)


 * 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.