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 keep. The Nordic Goddess Kristen Worship her 19:32, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Colonel Theepan[edit]

Colonel Theepan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

One of several articles by the same author about a minor Tamil Tiger; the articles are devoid of biographical detail; cursory passing mentions of pseudo-position are not the "significant" coverage required for notability meriting separate article. This one doesn't even have the fellow's first name. THF (talk) 21:59, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This article has links from Tamil Tigers & other wikipedia pages and shouldn't be deleted. Person mentioned in this article is a senior Tamil Tiger person. Please do not delete until agreed by Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sri Lanka Reconciliation members. -Iross1000 (talk) 22:19, 17 January 2009 (UTC).[reply]

And what goes in this article that can't be merged into Tamil Tigers? WP:AGF, please. Using "notable" as an adjective doesn't create notability. THF (talk) 22:33, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Giving meaningless links to policy doesn't exactly prove it applies. Theepan has wide notability; as commander of the northern forces of the LTTE, as a negotiator, and as a revolutionary artillery commander.Pectoretalk 22:53, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Notability is objective, not subjective. Where is the significant coverage in reliable sources? For that matter, what is his first name if he's so notable? THF (talk) 22:55, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The LTTE didnt release his name (Nagarajah Venthan) obviously because they dont want their commanders being blown up or known. Notability is certainly subjective, and its also relative, since other parts of the world arent saturated with media outlets to facilitate easy access to news. Theepan is a major figure in Sri Lanka, meriting mention in The Politics of Sri Lanka by Dissanayake and Balansingham's book on the Tamil struggle.Pectoretalk 23:08, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You're demonstrating that, for all your accusations of ignorance, you don't understand the Wikipedia policies on notability. Notability is not subjective, and it doesn't mean "important"; it means "the subject of significant coverage from independent reliable sources." The fact that someone's name was mentioned in a news article or in a book does not constitute significant coverage; TamilNet is hardly independent; tamilguardian shouldn't be linked to at all per WP:EL, as it is an attack site blocked by good virus software so I can't see what it says. The references in the article don't add up to notability. And these one-line biographies don't merit 24 separate articles. Create List of Tamil military leaders and consolidate them there, and no one will complain about 24 one-line biographies. THF (talk) 23:54, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Tamilnet is treated as "qualified source" under Wikipedia:SLR#List_of_sources and can be used with attribution. WP:EL refers to external links, not to references. Your anti-virus/parental control settings finally have no bearing on the issue. Jasy jatere (talk) 17:20, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not true. Tamilguardian is a malware-virus site, and thus is not to be linked per WP:ELNO #3. THF (talk) 17:24, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • how do you know it is a malware site? (serious question)
  • WP:EL: "The subject of this guideline is external links that are not citations of article sources." this does thus not apply on this case
  • I agree that malware sites have close to no chances to be RSJasy jatere (talk) 17:55, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Google identifies it as such and warns users against following links there. THF (talk) 18:06, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
read the whole thing. Seems to be third party http://www.google.com/safebrowsing/diagnostic?site=http://www.tamilguardian.com/&hl=en Jasy jatere (talk) 18:25, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
One more reference has been provided.-Iross1000 (talk) 23:00, 17 January 2009 (UTC).[reply]
THF is right, what is needed is a properly cited List of LTTE military leaders article and redirect all these one liners and two liners to that article and any other. I have already redirected Colonel Seelan to the appropriate article. Even the list better be properly sourced not just websites but academic sources which are available. Conflict related articles should be done properly so that ones precious voluntary time is not wasted like this. All pedia rules have to met. Taprobanus (talk) 04:28, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Have to agree here. And blaming THF for ignorance is not appropriate, seeing as there is no notability asserted in any of these articles. This one, though, may be somewhat notable; he has led the LTTE in some important battles. I'll see if I can find anything. Chamal talk 10:42, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
agree with taprobanus and chamal. Jasy jatere (talk) 17:20, 18 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 09:14, 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, MBisanz talk 03:16, 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.
More