Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Colonel Santhosham

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. MBisanz ^talk 02:37, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Colonel Santhosham

One of several articles created by same editor about minor Tamil Tiger figures. Flunks WP:BIO because not the subject of significant independent coverage from reliable sources; mentions in passing do not add up to notability no matter how often the adjective "notable" is used. So unnotable that his name is unknown. THF (talk) 22:43, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This article has links from Tamil Tigers wikipedia page and shouldn't be deleted. Person mentioned in this article was a senior Tamil Tiger person. Please do not delete until agreed by Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sri Lanka Reconciliation members. -Iross1000 (talk) 22:45, 17 January 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —Nick-D (talk) 05:34, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No mention of anything significant he's done. The "foundation stones" thing doesn't convince me on notability; see my !vote at the Appaiah entry for more on that. Politizer ^talk/_contribs 09:08, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On the side, a general comment about this whole set of AfDs: from what I have seen so far, some of the individuals are notable and some aren't. It's clear that the editors who created the article think they are all notable. But it would have helped the process a lot if you could have provided sources and information from the beginning asserting that notability (ie, what they have done in their capacity as officers), rather than expecting us to just know what makes a Tamil Tiger notable. A lot of these arguments could have been averted. Politizer ^talk/_contribs 09:08, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:59, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sourced, notable, even important. --Mr Accountable (talk) 00:57, 22 January 2009 (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.