Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Varadarasanar


 * 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. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Varadarasanar

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

None of the information given is suitably referenced; two of the refs just give content of the books, they do not verify the facts; the third is culturopedia, which is not a reliable source. If I remove all the bio content that is unreferenced, therefore, there will be nothing left. I'm not claiming that this is not a notable person - plenty in Google - but the information in the current article cannot be verified.  Chzz  ►  02:48, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions.  -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  03:23, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep I think there is notability here for sure; if the only problem is the fact that the article in its current form fails WP:V, a rewrite with new sources is a better alternative to outright deletion in my mind. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 05:26, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.  —  Salih  ( talk ) 13:59, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep: a Sahitya Academy awardee is definitely notable. A RSmentions him. -- Redtigerxyz Talk 14:26, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Notable Tamil writer. Multiple reliable sources mention him . Salih  ( talk ) 15:23, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment I didn't nominate it as not notable; I nominated it because not a single piece of inoformation given in the article has an WP:RS. If we 'keep' the document, but delete all the unreferenced bits, it will therefore be blank. We simply can't improve the current content with references - it would require starting again.  Chzz  ►  21:29, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * It might be helpful to know how much searching you did for sources before nominating it for deletion. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:44, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Is there any reason why the article couldn't be rewritten with new sources? A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 16:01, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  —David Eppstein (talk) 01:42, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. It appears that the subject is better known as "Mu Varadarajan". I note that the nominator gave verifiability as the reason for deletion, even after finding sources. If you can find sources then the thing to to is to put them in the article, not to nominate it for deletion. You could start with some of these 973 books. Articles get deleted because they can't be sourced, not because an editor decides that it's someone else's job to add the readily available reliable sources. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:39, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep but improve references. Cnilep (talk) 17:28, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. But make it a stub, until someone decides to improve it, or rather write a proper article. The article creator apparently “retired” soon after he created the article. The problem is not only with the lack of refs., but also incomplete sentences and apparently incorrect information. This Google Books search suggests that the subject probably passes WP:PROF, not as much by the number of hits, but by the nature of several of the references to the subject.--Eric Yurken (talk) 02:17, 18 April 2009 (UTC)


 * 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.