Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/KT Manu Musliar

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 speedy keep. nomination withdrawn Mgm|^(talk) 11:50, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

KT Manu Musliar

The current article is abysmal, but being a secretary on a board with a WP article indicates to me there's more to this person than is written about. Since he recently died according to the article, people with access to the right language newspapers should be able to confirm whether he is notable. (I'm bringing this to AFD because I don't think the speedy tag was appropriate.) Mgm|^(talk) 10:33, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Salih (talk) 10:52, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless further evidence of notability presented. TallNapoleon (talk) 20:37, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 00:23, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —John Z (talk) 04:01, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. —John Z (talk) 04:22, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Apparently nobody has been watching this article. The AfD tag was removed on February 5 by the article creator. I restored it and put a warning on his/her talk page. And unless sources come up: Delete. --Crusio (talk) 11:02, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment; May I point out, however, that also adding an AfD tag without an edit summary is just not done and itself can be considered serious vandalism.--Prosfilaes (talk) 16:59, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, negligible news coverage in English (search here). If there is coverage in other languages, fine -- but in the absence of that sort of evidence... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 09:41, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep, speedy close Nominator wrote: "Since he recently died according to the article, people with access to the right language newspapers should be able to confirm whether he is notable." Wikipedia:Notability states: "If an article fails to cite sufficient sources to demonstrate the notability of its subject, look for sources yourself." Nominator made no indication that they search for references themselves. WP:PRESERVE a policy states, Preserve information. Whatever you do, endeavour to preserve information. Instead of removing, try to (examples), Wikipedia:Deletion policy: "When in doubt, discuss first on the talk page...If the page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing, rather than deletion" WP:POTENTIAL and WP:INTROTODELETE "Remember that deletion is a last resort. Deletion nominations rarely improve articles, and deletion should not be used as a way to improve an article, or a reaction to a bad article. It is appropriate for articles which cannot be improved." The nominator is using an AfD to clean up the article and make other editors prove notability, instead of looking for these sources himself, and working with other editors to find sources first, against all of these rules. Therefore this AfD should be speedy closed. Ikip (talk) 10:28, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closing administrator in 15 minutes I did what no one else here was willing to do, I sourced the article, adding three references to this man from The Hindu, a newspaper with a subscription rate of 1.17 million. The article is well sourced now. Ikip (talk) 10:47, 10 February 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.