Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/N. Balasubramaniam


 * 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. All "keep" opinions are based on the argument that ambassadors are inherently notable. But because this is not supported by our inclusion guidelines, and attempts to amend them to provide for such notability have to my knowledge always failed, I must give the "keep" arguments considerably less weight here.  Sandstein  08:44, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

N. Balasubramaniam

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

fails WP:BIO. no inherent notability in any of his roles including ambassador. No in depth coverage. And keep voters, the "ambassadors are always notable " argument doesn't work. There is an American pathologist of the same name too LibStar (talk) 15:17, 26 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep - The attempt to delete all ambassador articles which don't have in depth coverage shows the discrepancies we have when it comes to notability of biographical articles. Some Wiki projects have taken it upon themselves to give certain groups of individuals low thresholds of notability and as result we have thousands of articles of individuals who have little in depth coverage and would not meet WP:GNG. For example, WP:CRIC have come up with WP:CRIN which means an individual can qualify for an article simply by having played a first class cricket match. Unfortunately no Wiki project has come forward to say that all ambassadors are notable. As a result, according to Wikipedia policies, an ambassador isn't notable but a cricketer is notable, even if they have only played a single first class match (not an international) and scored a duck. The lack of coverage does not mean the individual isn't notable, just that the online resources are biased in favour of Anglophone speakers. An American/British/Canadian/Australian/New Zealand ambassador to France and Singapore would have in depth coverage and would qualify for an article. But a Sri Lankan ambassador doesn't. We need a consistent approach to notability across all articles, not target certain groups for deletion.-- obi2canibe talk contr 11:37, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
 * you've made zero attempt to show sources exist (in any language) to meet WP:BIO . ambassadors are not inherently notable despite your long winded post. Ambassadors have been deleted of all nationalities including from English speaking countries. LibStar (talk) 12:32, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
 * comparing to cricketers is WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. LibStar (talk) 12:33, 2 October 2016 (UTC)


 * If you'd read the article you would have seen that it has five English language WP:RS. I was not, as you well know, saying that the article should be kept because other stuff exists, I was merely highlighting the inconsistency in notability guidelines.-- obi2canibe talk contr 15:57, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
 * using the inconsistency argument has zero bearing on establishing notabilty for this individual. LibStar (talk) 16:02, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Would you like to say something about my first point?-- obi2canibe talk contr 16:20, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

None of the 5 sources are indepth coverage of this individual. So therefore WP:BIO is not established. LibStar (talk) 16:38, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
 * If WP:BIO is the only relevant policy when it comes to establishing notability, when you have finished deleting all ambassador articles please nominate for deletion the hundreds of first class cricketers articles who rely on a single entry on ESPNcricinfo to establish notability.-- obi2canibe talk contr 10:48, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

That's classic WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Please nominate cricketer articles and see how far you go. The notability of cricketers has zero bearing on this article. LibStar (talk) 11:07, 16 October 2016 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:42, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 05:09, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 05:09, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 05:09, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 05:09, 3 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete I struggle to find any significant coverage about N. Balasubramaniam (noting that there is a Transport Commissioner in India and a Politician in Malaysia with the same name that register more hits), only a few mentions in passing. I'd have to concur that there is no in depth coverage, in accordance with WP:GNG to establish notability. Dan arndt (talk) 05:18, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep. Ambassadors to such significant countries as France should always be considered notable, despite what the deletionists claim. This is common sense and common sense doesn't require a policy. Also deputy permanent representative to the UN and a senior civil servant into the bargain. See the second entry at WP:POLOUTCOMES. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:20, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment . A diplomat can get an article if he can be sourced well enough to pass WP:GNG, but does not get any automatic presumption of notability just for the fact of existing as a diplomat. Dan arndt (talk) 23:19, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
 * It's common sense to actually demonstrate sources exist to prove notability. It is not common sense to invent inherent notability when no guidelines, policy or community consensus exists. LibStar (talk) 12:13, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Always makes me laugh when editors claim a policy, guideline or consensus needs to exist to illustrate common sense. The irony seems lost... -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:13, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
 * There's nothing remotely commonsensical about extending topics an exemption from having to be sourced well enough to pass WP:GNG. In an encyclopedia whose editing structure leaves us so incredibly vulnerable to the addition of false and tendentious and WP:BLP-violating claims and/or PR torquing and/or outright WP:HOAXes, verifiability in reliable sources is the only line of defense that we have in terms of keeping our articles accurate and unslanted. Accordingly, "diplomats are notable if they can be properly sourced" is the common sense position, and "diplomats are always inherently notable regardless of how much sourcing can or cannot be provided to support them" is not. "Common sense" includes being aware that not all people who edit Wikipedia articles are doing so responsibly, and that the quality of the referencing is our sole mechanism for managing the quality of the articles. Bearcat (talk) 23:08, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

The irony is not once gave you ever bothered to do searches for sources to establish WP:BIO. It always makes me laugh. LibStar (talk) 15:05, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I think you probably need to look up irony in a dictionary! -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:36, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I think maybe you do, because LibStar is using it correctly. Bearcat (talk) 22:14, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:20, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Can the ensuing debate focus on ascertaining the reliability and depth of coverage of the article's existing sources, please?  A  Train talk 16:41, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  A  Train talk 16:41, 12 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep - Agree with User:Necrothesp - "Ambassadors to such significant countries as France should always be considered notable, despite what the deletionists claim." Also Agree with User:Obi2canibe  - "The lack of coverage does not mean the individual isn't notable, just that the online resources are biased in favour of Anglophone speakers. An American/British/Canadian/Australian/New Zealand ambassador to France and Singapore would have in depth coverage and would qualify for an article. But a Sri Lankan ambassador doesn't. We need a consistent approach to notability across all articles, not target certain groups for deletion."Shankar2001 (talk) 12:54, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
 * you're arguing inherent notability when there is none. I've seen ambassadors from anglophone countries deleted. If there is indepth coverage of this individual please actually show it. LibStar (talk) 15:32, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

The references present here, however, are not about Balasubramaniam, but merely provide glancing namechecks of his existence in coverage about other things. Accordingly, I'm willing to withdraw this if somebody can source him over WP:GNG, but there is not, and correctly should not be, any automatic notability freebie for diplomats in the absence of sufficient sourceability. Diplomats are still real people whose lives and reputations can be harmed if we eff up, which is precisely why we can't grant them a special exemption from having to pass GNG on the sourcing. Bearcat (talk) 22:14, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. Notability, for Wikipedia purposes, is defined by the depth and breadth of reliable source coverage that the topic does or doesn't receive in media — no topic, for any reason, ever gets a "so important that it's exempted from having to be referenced normally" pass. And Shankar2001 is incorrect, as well, about how easy it is for diplomats in "first world" countries to get over GNG: even with many more news outlets to help support notability, diplomats in Canada, Australia, the United States and the UK do still frequently get deleted for not actually receiving the necessary degree of coverage. (Speaking as a Canadian, trust me: even in Canada, the only diplomatic postings that are guaranteed to always have a GNG pass are our ambassadors to the US, the UN and France, and our high commissioner to the UK — and even then it's got more to do with the way those plum positions are typically used to reward retiring politicians who had already passed WP:NPOL anyway than it does with actually getting very much coverage as ambassadors.) Furthermore, Wikipedia's sourcing rules do not restrict us to English language sources — if you can find Sinhalese or Tamil language RSes that properly support notability, then you are allowed to use them. So Wikipedia's reliable sourcing rules are not causing a systemic bias issue in favour of anglophone nations when it comes to the notability of diplomats, because Wikipedia's reliable sourcing rules do not limit us to anglophone sources.


 * 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.