Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/T. G. Mohandas (2nd nomination)

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 delete. Wow, that was a headache to review. I'm deleting this one. Folks can bring it up at deletion review if they disagree. Thanks everyone for assuming good faith. Missvain (talk) 00:03, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

T. G. Mohandas

[edit]
AfDs for this article:

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

T. G. Mohandas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A non notable worker of Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh and Bharatiya Janata Party from Kerala. The subject fails general notability guidelines, because there is no significant coverage of them. Also, the subject clearly fails notability guidelines for politicians. Kutyava (talk) 01:12, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Kutyava (talk) 01:16, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. Kutyava (talk) 01:16, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Kutyava (talk) 01:16, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes Mr. Padavalam Kuttan Pilla the Wikipedia not a political party's platform. Bcs you explain the notability of the person as you are the creator of the article. Kutyava (talk) 09:43, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Kutyava:You got it wrong, I didn't create it .but the notability of this article was once discussed.Check out his talk page- Talk:T._G._Mohandas -- Padavalam Kuttan Pilla  Talk  10:51, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Padavalamkuttanpilla: Nothing explained on the page about the notability of the article. Kutyava (talk) 11:51, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Kutyava: Please Watch this discussion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/TG_Mohandas — Preceding unsigned comment added by Padavalamkuttanpilla (talk • contribs) 12:26, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Padavalamkuttanpilla: Tell me what is the notability of the man as a lawyer, politician or sangh parivar worker. Authordom (talk) 04:42, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@GenQuest: Is the lack of changes a cause of notability?Authordom (talk) 07:48, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@RaviC: Is the lack of changes a cause of notability? Some sources are notable but not a subject for his notability. Authordom (talk) 07:48, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment a review about the sources used in the article.
  1. LINK 1; Source: The New Indian Express: Date: 09th August 2016 - This link is the source for establishing that he was Kerala state convener of Bharatiya Janata Party's Intellectual Cell. Are the position is notable? The Intellectual Cell is a wing of the Kerala state committee of the political party. The political party not a major in the state, only one seat in the Kerala Assembly and no any seat in Loksabha from Kerala. The source was used three times in the article separately.
  2. LINK 2; Source: Haindava Keralam; Date: 28 October 2010 - This is a promotional release by a Sangh Parivar linked portal. Not a reliable source.
  3. LINK 3; LINK 4; LINK 5; Sources: Non Reliable Malayalam portals - These are tag links not that sources.
  4. LINK 6; LINK 7; Source:vod-videos.janamtv.com - These are links of a Portal linked to RSS and BJP authority of the state and these are not working properly, but redirecting to a YouTube channel.
  5. LINK 8; Source:Janam TV; Date: 2017-03-09 - This a link of a Portal linked to RSS and BJP authority of the state.
  6. LINK 9; LINK 10; LINK 11; LINK 12; LINK 13; Source: Some Malayalam portals - non reliable sources.

Some other sources like: Deccan Chronicle, The Hindu and The Times of India are good but they are not support his notability. Authordom (talk) 08:42, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A review about the "review":
  1. TNIE is a highly reliable and independent source. TGM is not a politician and RSS is not a political party, even for a politician notability does not depend on whether his party is major or minor in a particular state. No problem in citing a source 3 or 15 times.
  2. It's a website, NOT a portal. And from where did you got the information that it is linked to Sangh Parivar, your source?
  3. NOT "portals". Mangalam and Chandrika are "newspapers", reliable and are among the oldest Malayalam dailies, with established reputation. Asianet News is a reliable and among the oldest news channels in Kerala, also THE most watched Malayalam news channel, per data from BARC.
  4. Again, NOT a "portal", Janam TV is a news channel. Redirecting means it was once live, such sources should not be removed because of its current status. No matter BJP or INC, reliability depends on the specific content being cited. Do you find any problems with the content? If so then provide counter sources for justification.
  5. Same as above.
  6. Give me a break. Portals? Madhyamam is a reliable Malayalam newspaper, Asianet News and MediaOne TV (subsidiary of Madhyamam) are news channels. Not to mention that Madhyamam and MediaOne are Jamaat-e-Islami newspaper and channel, just noting.
He was already found to be notable. You can challenge it though. I support to Keep. 137.97.92.43 (talk) 19:41, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Why close? Authordom (talk) 11:59, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:53, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Delete
  1. Does Intellectual Cell of BJP is notable?
  2. Does Bharateeya Vichara Kendram notable?
  3. Does Ayodhya Printers notable?
What makes a person of a non-Notable cell/organisation Notable? -❙❚❚❙❙ JinOy ❚❙❚❙❙ ✉ 12:25, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Close *Comment
  1. Does Intellectual Cell of BJP is notable? : The intellectual cell provides ideological inputs to the ruling party of India and has a considerable say in policy making : Please use new Indian express article 27th May 2017 By N V Ravindranathan Nair as reference, TG mohandas heads the ittelectual cell in Kerala which is a pan india support organisation for BJP
  1. Does Bharateeya Vichara Kendram notable? : P parameshwaran the founder of Bharateeya vichara kendram was awarded with Padmavibhushan the second highest civilian honour in India , does that make him and his organisation notable ? : Ref Wikipedia : P. Parameswaran
  1. Does Ayodhya Printers notable? : Ayodhya printers is the establishment which brings out Janmabhumi daily which is noted for it's fight against emergency . refrence Janmabhumi dialy : about -— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mahit23 (talk • contribs) 18:27, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Mahit23: Intellectual Cell of BJP- I cannot find sufficient independent or third-party coverage to meet GNG for this. Bharateeya Vichara Kendram - The Wikipedia article was previously deleted because it fails to prove WP:GNG. See the deletion log here. Ayodhya Printers- No Sources available to Verify and no Significant coverage.-❙❚❚❙❙ JinOy ❚❙❚❙❙ ✉ 14:08, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Your perception is wrong. He is not notable because he is the convener of BJP's Intellectual Cell or secretary of BVK or manager of Ayodhya Printers. He is notable because he's a well known social critic, public litigator, and television personality. Look at the opening sentence: T. G. Mohandas is an Indian orator, social critic, writer, lawyer, journalist and television presenter from Kerala. The rest of the positions all are additional data as it is his biographical article. 2409:4073:83:D6EB:FCC8:DFE8:8EC1:CCFC (talk) 15:43, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, the article seems to be more biased as well as here in Afd. So many Ip users and newbie users voted here. When gone to sources in the article, there is no independent sources to prove notablity of the Subject in all the cases mentioned above. Well known? Wikipedia is not a place to creates hoaxes. No sources has been provided in opening sentence to prove notability. The sources cited on Opening paragraph fails WP:NPOL. So i decided to support Delection.-❙❚❚❙❙ JinOy ❚❙❚❙❙ ✉ 12:10, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non notable politician and journalits.Fails WP:SIGCOV. Kumblani (talk) 14:03, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

He is NOT A POLITICIAN and he is not currently a journalist. He is a social critic and television personality, for which there is sufficient coverage to establish that. 2409:4073:83:D6EB:FCC8:DFE8:8EC1:CCFC (talk) 14:48, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non notable politician and journalits.Fails WP:SIGCOV. Mywikiupdates (talk) 07:24, 28 January 2020 (UTC)Mywikiupdates[reply]


  • Strong Keep He is a well known media personality and the sources are reliable WP:GNP clearly meet Anilp68 (talk) 16:30, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep: (or perhaps suggest no consensus with option to re-nom in 2 months) Going through early sources in the article I am just finding WP:SIGCOV but I observe possible bias in content lifted from the those articles and failing to give fuller context. While WP:NPOL appears failed there is some merit in cover otherwise. The AfD seems disrupted by by !votes by accounts little history or perhaps a vague wave at trying to accumulate a little history. I was going for Weak keep but the keep arguments don't counter the delete arguements well. Poor citations don't help; and if non-English language with poor incomplete citations (no trans-title or english quotes and of key points) are being used to cover content. Along with the bias of content taken from the article this is probably just about a delete. but there are real issues with people interfering with the article and having battles behind the scenes here. In fact I've looked at the previous AfD and with that I've enough for a weak keep, just. This AfD has been severely afflicted by Wikipedia:Don't bludgeon the process and I'd suggest peoples take a break.Djm-leighpark (talk) 00:47, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per GNG Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 05:29, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Iamreallygoodatcheckers: Can you explain about the notability of the person. Authordom (talk) 06:21, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The multiple reliable sources in the article establish notability. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 23:18, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Can explain please. Authordom (talk) 03:03, 28 January 2020 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/T._G._Mohandas_(2nd_nomination)&oldid=938076740"