Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Captain Pandithar

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 03:16, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Captain Pandithar[edit]

One of several contentless 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. Wasn't even notable enough to get a phony-baloney "Colonel" title. THF (talk) 22:48, 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) 22:49, 17 January 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Keep - Notable high level commander of a very prominent militant organization, the Tamil Tigers. Also, this nomination is a horrible escapade in ignorance driven deletionism, seriously just look at the sheer stupidity of this series of nominations. "Captain" was the highest title in the LTTE before 1985, hence why he did not receive a "phony-baloney" title. A google search easily finds many sources establishing notability.Pectore^talk 23:00, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:CIVIL/WP:AGF please. JuJube (talk) 10:24, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - @ Pectore: Then please add those sources to the article and assert notability. Just mentioning them here is not enough. I'm working on finding sources for these articles, but have been unsuccessful so far. Chamal ^talk 11:14, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —Nick-D (talk) 05:33, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP is not an obituary site for those killed in warfare —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jasy jatere (talk • contribs)
Delete No evidence in the article of his having done anything notable other than being an officer. I agree with Chamal on the "just saying X is notable doesn't make him notable" point. I don't care what rank the individual held; my !vote won't change unless notability can be shown for something he did. If there's nothing more to say about him than what's there now (that he was an officer and that he was killed), there's no point having an article. Politizer ^talk/_contribs 08:59, 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 08:59, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Punt to Sri-Lanken Reconciliation - they know what they're doing. Xavexgoem (talk) 20:35, 21 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.