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. and none likely to emerge in the next few days. To be honest, the topic is too close to the surface of many emotions right now to have a fair neutral evaluation of notability. Whether or not he should be merged can be discussed on the relevant talk pages, and this article can be re nominated at some time in the future if necessary. StarM 02:05, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sandeep Unnikrishnan[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

Sandeep Unnikrishnan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

The reason I am bringing this to AfD rather than flagging it as a speedy deletion is that we are getting many of these pages created at present after the Mumbai atrocities. My feeling is that one must do more to be notable than die, however unfortunately, in a terrorist attack. However this may be seen as a churlish view if expressed simply by multiple speedy deletion nominations. I am open to this AfD being extended to include all such articles as they are created unless the person is otherwise notable. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 17:33, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Similar article Havaldar Gajender Singh. --Unpopular Opinion (talk · contribs) 17:35, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary break for ease of editing 0[edit]

Keep: I would like to know more about him and deleting this is not a good idea.

• Delete per WP:NOT#NEWS. We do not have articles for each person killed by terrorists, or while fighting terrorists. This is an encyclopedia and not a memorial site or a newspaper. Edison (talk) 17:39, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Issue has been addressed by me in the discussion. If there are any other problems with the article, please state them and be precise. --Sainik1 (talk) 19:51, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:15, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:16, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to List of victims of the November 2008 Mumbai attacks. Even though under WP:NOT#NEWS and WP:BLP1E this person may not qualify for an article, I think that in present situation a redirect would be helpful. Particularly since he was among the security forces and slightly more notable than other victims. ^LeaveSleaves _talk 20:15, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• If u feel u need to delete his memories from this encylopideia then pls delete the list of hollywood and bollywood starts too as they too have done nothing more then acting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Akshtha (talk • contribs) 2008-11-29 10:36:21
  • — Akshtha (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Redirect as above --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 05:17, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am back as requested by Uncle G to rethink my vote of Redirect up. Though unlike people like Vijay Salaskar (Afd above), who have had notability before the event, Sandeep Unnikrishnan is notable only for one event ( But isn't it only for living people Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons ??? confused?), an event which is described as India's 9/11, which may assure his notability. The Indian media has discussed the story of every other victim of the attacks from Vijay Salaskar to Sandeep Unnikrishnan to a havaldar policeman to a Muslim family from Bihar, who died at the CST. After a few months, the media will forget these heros or victims, the references will dry out. Lets wait 2-3 months, then decide. At the moment, all clauses of General notability guideline are satisfied. Keep for now --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 16:58, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and expand: The article should be expanded as a biography of a person who has received notable attention("Significant coverage") by the public for making what is considered 'supreme sacrifice' in the line of duty. His contribution is certainly more than that of Pornographic actors whose bios are accepted. Given the contribution of this officer in an event of significant importance for the world many people would be interested in knowing about his life and achievements. Wikipedia should certainly contain his bio since this is the source many people would be looking at first. As per my interpretation the individual meets the criterion of notablility Indoresearch (talk) 05:38, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Then you'll be able to cite sources that document this person's life and achievements, from which such an article can be built. Please do so. Show that this person satisfies the primary notability criterion, don't just baldly assert it and expect people to take the word of a pseudonym on trust. Sources! Sources! Sources! Uncle G (talk) 17:10, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sources [1] [2] [3] [4] I have seen many a bold rejections by people who have clearly not done a google search about the Major. Trust works both ways.Indoresearch (talk) 21:19, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • None of us are trusted. But by citing sources of appropriate depths and provenances you will convincingly refute their bald assertions. As I've repeatedly said, sources are your arguments. They are your best and most effective arguments, and they will work. Bald assertions, irrelevances about how heroic or famous someone is, ad hominem attacks, and waving fingers at other articles will not. Uncle G (talk) 21:49, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Sandeep was a major in NSG. Not an ordinary victim to the terrorist attack (no offence meant to other victims). He was killed while defending his country. Salih (talk) 06:10, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please make an argument that has a basis in Wikipedia's content and article policies and guidelines. That argument has zero basis. Uncle G (talk) 17:10, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and Expand. Sandeep was a TRUE HERO, who sacrificed his life trying to save the lives of hundreds of hostages in Taj, who were nationals of US, UK,Greece, Israel, Japan ,Italy and other countries including Indians.He is a true national hero for us.I wonder when you guys can put up articles of Pamela Anderson and Jade Goody, I cant understand why you cant keep an article about Sandeep here. 12:30, 29 November 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anwarvarghese (talk • contribs) — Anwarvarghese (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Comment This nomination does not remove his courage nor any respect to him. It is simply that he does not appear to me to be a valid entry. Please read Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions which is relevant to your argument. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 09:59, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and expand . If anyone thinks this article should be put in some memorial sites, then articles about Pamela Anderson and Jade Goody should be put only in Porn Sites and other entertainment or Gossip sites and not in wikipedia!!!.12:55, 29 November 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anwarvarghese (talk • contribs) — Duplicate !vote: Anwarvarghese (talk • contribs) has already cast a !vote above.
• A more structured article is created on the same personality at Major Sandeep Unnikrishnan. A Military person has to be always addressed by his Rank. Major Unnikrishnan has led lot of missions in the border areas of Jammu & Kashmir before he was deputed to NSG. Data about most of these missions are classified by the Indian Army. But we hope to expand his biography in a few weeks or so, as and when new credible information arrives which can be reffered to. Users User:Sidharthan and User:Salih Abdusamad are welcome to update the new article with whatever credible information they have. User:ullascantony. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ullascantony (talk • contribs) 08:04, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please read our Wikipedia:Naming conventions. Uncle G (talk) 17:10, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect, possibly merge to Major Sandeep Unnikrishnan, obviously, which is about the same person, then rename the article to Sandeep Unnikrishnan per WP:MOS. I suggest that the notability issue is reevaluated after a month or so, after media coverage of the event is largely over, when the lasting significance of the people involved in the event can be better evaluated.  Sandstein  08:30, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note that we can consider the one whole article here. I have merged Major Sandeep Unnikrishnan to this article. This is not a substantive change that would, in my view, warrant a relisting and regathering of consensus. If others disagree with that assessment please feel at liberty to relist. It still looks like WP:BIO1E to me. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 10:09, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with the merger as it is in accordance with MOS. In any case we are discussing the notability of the topic and not title. As far as I can see, the notability is still unchanged and it does not warrant a separate article. ^LeaveSleaves _talk 10:15, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Being an anon, I realize that my vote won't be counted here. But I would still like to scream Keep and tell Wikipedians to stop their bias based to nationality. Wikipedia is full of articles on US troops killed in Iraq. And to put matters straight, this Wikipedia entry is legitimate because 1) The person concerned has been extensively covered by the media 2) If one of the only two National Security Guards commandos killed while combating the terrorists and the only of a Major rank. --128.211.201.161 (talk) 10:50, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your vote won't be counted if you give a rationale that has zero basis in our policies and guidelines, which "you are all biased against me" is. In contrast, your vote would be counted if you made a strong argument based soundly upon our policies and guidelines, as citing some of these purported sources, extensively covering this person's life and works, would be. Sources! Sources! Sources! Uncle G (talk) 17:10, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect. Pevernagie (talk) 10:51, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Question: to which article? Fiddle Faddle (talk) 10:54, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Hey! The man fought with so many terrorists. Should he be Bill Gates? Let the article remain. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.96.35.31 (talk) 12:28, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please make an argument that has a basis in Wikipedia's content and article policies and guidelines. Uncle G (talk) 17:10, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I have got one thing to say to people who are arguing that this page doesn't meet Wikipedia policies. If this guy doesn't deserve a encyclopedia page inspite of being a true hero and saving hundreds of lives due to "Wikipedia policies", then I gotta say Wikipedia sure needs a relook at and revamp its polcies.Crackjack (talk) 18:07, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• KEEP AND EXPAND When the 9/11 attack article was put on wiki it came with articles of firefighters who died in the incident trying to save people like Peter J. Ganci, Jr. Major Sandeep has of course done something even better. Then I ask Uncle G why is there an article on Peter J. Ganci, Jr. or 9/11 heroes??? People are asking for sources to build up is articles so: [5] johnxxx9 (talk) 11:54, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can give you the answer. It is in WP:WAX. Dekisugi (talk) 19:04, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your question is irrelevant here. The discussion here is about this article. The only relevant part of your argument is the source citation. At last one person has started to make a proper argument for keeping the article, that will actually hold water. Even then, you aren't quite getting it right. Keep citing sources. The other editors here making completely specious arguments, as the first part of your rationale here also is, should learn from this. Citing sources is the way. Sources! Sources! Sources! Uncle G (talk) 20:51, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• keep and expand The person has dona brilliant job and a national hero and every deserve his place anywhere whether its a encyclopedia or our daily life — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nonukhanna2009 (talk • contribs)
  • Outside the accident, there is not yet proofs of notability. Yes he is a hero, but Wikipedia is not a memorial site. Dekisugi (talk) 19:04, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I am hearing a lot of 'Wikipedia is not a memorial' thing! We are not trying to create this article in memory of some dead relative or friend. This man is a national hero. And this is accepted by all Indians. This article is allowed under "People notable only for one event"! So I request the administrator to let the article be created and expanded.It says that if you can provide citations on his life and achievements in his respective fields then you can post the article.johnxxx9 (talk) 00:54, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The policy you are referring to, WP:BLP1E, actually is the primary reason to delete this article. Please read it carefully. ^LeaveSleaves _talk 19:36, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Memorials of national heroes are just as much memorials as any other. Sources are your arguments, not claims to fame, importance, good works, or anything else. All such arguments will be discounted by the closing administrator. This is an encyclopaedia. It is intended to be verifiable, neutral, and free from original research. You must show that multiple sources of sufficient depths and adequate provenances exist to write a biographical article about this person, documenting xyr life and works. No other arguments will work. Sources! Sources! Sources! Uncle G (talk) 20:51, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sources [6] [7] [8] [9] More should come in news soon. We need to research his other missions in Kashmir and as NSG since last year. My point was always that we know this guy is getting coverage. We can see on TV and else where. We need to give it some time. On many other articles with much less importance Afd has not been brought for more than a year.Indoresearch (talk) 21:32, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sources[10][11][12]. See the responses in this website[13] [14][15] [16][17]. [18][19][20] See these sources have information on his childhood, education, works, military career, interests and also his fan following. I'll be citing more sources later! johnxxx9 (talk) 14:32, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Take some more:[21][22]
    • This is important:[23]And some more:[24][25]
    • THIS ALSO IMPORTANT:[26] These must be more than enough to 'fill water'. I think by now the 'water' is overflowing!!!!!!!johnxxx9 (talk) 15:32, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary break for ease of editing 1[edit]

• KEEP AND EXPAND. the man is a national hero involved in a major international terrorist event. it is a shame that an article on a terrorist -Azam Amir Kasav - is present and deletion of the man who saved hundreds of lives is being requested! there are biographies on wikepedia of far more insignificant people as mentioned above. what is the relevance of an article on Todd Beamer? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Doctorpt (talk • contribs) 14:44, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • — Doctorpt (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Comment The article cited above about Todd Beamer etc have stayed on Wikipedia for well over 1.5 years and not made Afd. My point is lets give this article due time and consideration. Anyways I have expanded the article a bit and split it in more sections. I request people to contribute both in the discussion(Afd) and the expansion. The significant coverage that Major Unnikrishnan is receiving in media and blogging circles is indisputable. Indoresearch (talk) 14:40, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment while I appreciate the sentiment you express and the work oyu have done in the article, please read this topic to see that other articles and their presence or absence have no frelevance to this discussion. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 15:09, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • If it's so indisputable, why haven't you cited any of it? Cite it! Show us independent sources, written by named people with reputations for fact checking and accuracy, that document this person's life and works in depth. Sources! Sources! Sources! Uncle G (talk) 17:10, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Redirect, possibly merge to Major Sandeep Unnikrishnan. I think its a bio of army person and it should be allowed. Keeping in mind the fame and fan following he got after Mumbai terrorist attack. I guess lot of people will be interested in knowing more about him and no better place than wikipedia. Thejesh GN (talk) 15:29, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please make an argument that has a basis in Wikipedia's content and article policies and guidelines. That argument has none. That people want to know about something does not automatically mean that Wikipedia, whose goal is to be verifiable, neutral, and free from original research, can tell them. Uncle G (talk) 17:10, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• KEEP AND EXPAND ..He is a brave NSG soldier, who sacrificed his life. I pity the man who put a speedy deletion tag on this page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.91.253.97 (talk) 14:43, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please make an argument that has a basis in Wikipedia's content and article policies and guidelines. That argument has zero basis. Uncle G (talk) 17:10, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• KEEP AND EXPAND ..give it some time and then review in a few months —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.158.4.218 (talk) 15:36, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please make an argument that has a basis in Wikipedia's content and article policies and guidelines. That argument has zero basis. Uncle G (talk) 17:10, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep for now - wait and watch for some time He was a Major with Indian Army and led the team fighting terrorists and he was killed during the operation. He is a national hero. I think we should keep it for sometime and see its significance. If in next 2-3 months we see no activity, it can be reconsidered for deletion. Veetrag (talk) 15:44, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please make an argument that has a basis in Wikipedia's content and article policies and guidelines. That argument has zero basis. Uncle G (talk) 17:10, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• KEEP AND EXPAND-- He was the only National Security Guard who had the courage to meet the extremists one on one. NSG sources say he literally ordered his fellow commandos not to come the floor above, as he will finish the terrorist on his own at the Taj Mahal Palace hotel, Mumbai. I believe not everyone has such courage and dedication that can go to such an extent without fearing about ones own life. I am not being emotional at the moment and would like to point out that the incident was not any Hollywood movie shooting but was real life terrifying siege. Enough said. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.86.99.3 (talk) 16:19, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, it's not enough said. That argument has zero basis in Wikipedia's content and article policies and guidelines. What you should be giving is an argument that is. Sources! Sources! Sources! Uncle G (talk) 17:10, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Okay, you think I am writing/spreading false/untrue information? I would request you to watch Indian news channels. Ref: Tele-converstaion with NSG DG J.K.Dutt, 29/11/2008 approx. 23:45 IST channel NDTV24x7. I was talking his words. He said same earlier as well. Please don't spread hatred and annoyance. Don't! Don't! Don't! (talking like you). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.86.99.3 (talk • contribs) 2008-11-29 18:25:43
      • I'm saying that you are not citing sources, and so your argument will carry no weight at all. Nor will absurd ad hominem arguments. You know how to make a proper argument. It's been repeated several times in this discussion. Do it! They are your only valid argument, and they will hold water. Sources! Sources! Sources! Uncle G (talk) 21:01, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I have already unfolded the source, still you would fancy a text source - CLICK HERE —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.86.99.3 (talk) 21:28, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Another one- CLICK HERE
            • Now you are approaching this the right way. But you're not quite there, yet. We need reliable sources. A web diary entry by someone going by the pseudonym "jaggy" no more cuts it than a statement by someone at Wikipedia known only by their IP address. Wikipedia needs sources where the author is identifiable and has a known reputation for fact checking and accuracy. Find and cite sources such as those.

              Similarly, we need in-depth sources, documenting this person's life and works. Your second source gives no biographical information about this person at all. There's not a single mention of this person's life and works anywhere in it. Uncle G (talk) 21:59, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

              • As far as false name/pseudonym is concerned, I hope you do understand that people search wiki for information. Should there is no info(on Wiki) on the subject, how can you expect some random user to cite sources? Still I will try - CLICK HERE. I can provide press releases at the moment, should they be apt. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.86.99.3 (talk) 22:15, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• He is a great national hero. This article must remain. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.192.200.63 (talk) 16:38, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please make an argument that has a basis in Wikipedia's content and article policies and guidelines. That argument has zero basis. Uncle G (talk) 17:10, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• deletion of this article has no basis in Wikipedia's content and article policies and guidelines. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Doctorpt (talk • contribs) 18:36, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Prove it! Sources! Sources! Sources! Uncle G (talk) 21:01, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Why do you have an article on Maulana Masood Azhar? Has he done something very significant to get a place on Wikipedia? Major Sandeep Unnikrishnan fought for saving the largest democracy in the world. If we consider democracy important for the world then Major Sandeep is the biggest hero of the hour. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hellboy77 (talk • contribs) — Hellboy77 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • The existence of other articles is irrelevant. This discussion is about this article. Stop making irrelevant arguments and start citing sources. If you continue making arguments to avoid in deletion discussions they will be ignored by the closing administrator. ("If we consider democracy important to the world then […]" is the Chewbacca Defence, by the way.) Citing sources will not be ignored. Stop wasting effort with futile arguments and start making the arguments that will hold water. Once again: Sources! Sources! Sources! Uncle G (talk) 21:01, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary break for ease of editing 2[edit]

• Redirect. Trivial mention in some newspapers. IF we have an article on this, it creates a precedent for every soldier who died in the line of duty. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 17:29, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, the mentions are not trivial. Please read the sources that are (finally, after extensive pushing) being cited. The Times of India, The Hindu, and the Calcutta Telegraph all have article-length biographies of this person going back to xyr childhood. Uncle G (talk) 22:47, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. A tragedy but not an encyclopedic article. There is no Wikipedia grounds I am aware of where this individual could support an article. I think redirect is somewhat acceptable too. JodyB _talk 18:35, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I disagree. Sandeep Unnikrishnan is the only person who is being saluted by more than 1,128,000,000 billion people on this globe. That states the number of fans as well as far as wiki grounds are concerned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.86.99.3 (talk • contribs) 2008-11-29 22:00:38
    • The number of fans of a person is irrelevant as far as Wikipedia is concerned. This is an encyclopaedia, not a fan site. Please make an argument that has a basis in Wikipedia's content and article policies and guidelines. That argument has zero basis. Sources! Sources! Sources! Uncle G (talk) 22:47, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Wikipedia's content and article policies and guidelines in a nutshell. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nghtyvbz (talk • contribs) 23:20, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • — Nghtyvbz (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
        • Playing the IAR card rarely washes, in part because it's usually used as an excuse, as it is by you here. The betterment of Wikipedia involves making a verifiable encyclopaedia that is free from original research. To that end, there must be sources. Sources! Sources! Sources! And a healthy dose of what IAR is not, for good measure. Uncle G (talk) 00:01, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOT#MEMORIAL. Use the news articles to mention his name in the main article: the terrorist attack incident. There is no need to have a separate article. Not this time, when there is no notability proofs of the subject outside the accident topic. Dekisugi (talk) 18:53, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The topic is not an accident it is a major event of historical significance. Major Unnikrishnan has played an important role in it. We need to keep the article going to research his life and achievements. Afd notice was brought up too soon. There are many articles where it has not been brought for years. If you follow news then you will understand the coverage his is getting. People need to know about his life and times. Indoresearch (talk) 20:47, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply - that is exactly what Wikipedia is not for. The entire article shows only one specific event and Wikipedia is not a newspaper. There is one place very suitable for this article: wikinews. The event itself is notable, and yes we have the article, but we don't need each article for every specific details. Dekisugi (talk) 21:01, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Show where that has already been documented, outside of Wikipedia. Per our Wikipedia:No original research policy, Wikipedia is not the place to do it directly. Sources! Sources! Sources! Uncle G (talk) 21:41, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks for being a help. You are actually steering the discussion in correct direction. My meaning of research is to cite from other sources. I never meant my own phone conversation with his family when I said research. We just need to give it time to let the sources come up.Indoresearch (talk) 22:07, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Steering the discussion in the correct direction, the citing, reading, and evaluation of sources, is why I'm here. That's what AFD discussions should be about. A lot of novice editors coming to Wikipedia to make irrelevant arguments won't help AFD one whit. All such arguments get ignored in practice. I've been crying "Sources! Sources! Sources!" precisely so that a proper discussion, with arguments that are firmly based upon Wikipedia policies and guidelines, is had. Uncle G (talk) 22:47, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and Expand per Wikipedia:Notability. This person is now known to millions of Indians. You can see the photographs of Total number of Indians who want to know about this person is possiblly more than size of most of countries in Europe. These people consider him as a hero. Also he died trying to save his colleague's life while fighting miliatans. (This itself is a hallmark of a great man) Possibly he'll be awared some medal by a government also in near future. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Srivasrrahul (talk • contribs) 19:44, 29 November 2008 (UTC) — Srivasrrahul (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Please make an argument that has a basis in Wikipedia's content and article policies and guidelines. That argument has zero basis. Uncle G (talk) 21:41, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep. According to notability, the following conditions have to be satisfied:
  1. Significant coverage: DONE (In fact, cant be any more widely covered!)
  2. Reliable: DONE ("Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process").
  3. Sources: DONE. Rediff, CNN, BBC, Fox news and of course Indian sources. Sources couldn't be more diverse and from more "different geographic regions" than that.
  4. Independent of the subject: DONE. Author has no previous affiliation.
  5. Presumed: DONE. Reading the above comments, I think that the consensus part was over a long time back.
• Please provide BASIS on which the article should be deleted. I'm confident of defending it on each of the criteria. Do NOT be vague just stating a word "delete". Please follow Wiki GUIDELINES and post the rule.

  P.S.: Although I do not generally include personal comments in AfD discussions, however if there can be an article on Daniel Pearl, Afzal Ansari, then this shouldn't be a problem.--Sainik1 (talk) 19:46, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • The article violates WP:BLP1E. ^LeaveSleaves _talk 19:57, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:BLP1E is applicable only for a living person I suppose. Salih (talk) 20:31, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm sorry for providing the wrong shortcut, but the policy applies to living and dead people alike. ^LeaveSleaves _talk 20:38, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The claim that this has been "done" is not borne out either by the article or by this discussion. There has been no citation anywhere of a BBC or a FOX news source, for example. Vaguely claiming that there is a source, somewhere, is not citing it. Cite sources! Even raw hyperlinks, as below, will do. (And they don't have to be the BBC or FOX. I've cited The Hindu, the Times of India, Dawn, and several others before now to show that articles should be kept.) Vague "It's done." claims that are clearly false will not show that the primary notability criterion is satisfied. Proper citations of multiple in-depth sources, by independent and reliable people, will. Make arguments that will work, not vague insubstantial claims that will not. It's not as if I haven't told you eight times what to do. Sources! Sources! Sources! Uncle G (talk) 21:41, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• observe article for a while. insufficient reasons for deleting. 14,000 articles open with his name search. mr administrator, can you please put forward for deleting the article on terrorist Azam Amir Kasavi on the same basis. half of wikipedia biographies violate WP:BLP1E.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Kadambaking (talk ) -- — Kadambaking (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Comment. I have something to say about Uncle G's comments. The link hidden in his often repeated statement "That argument has zero basis" is Wikipedia:NOT#MEMORIAL. This argument holds only when somebody creates an article to honor departed friends and relatives. I don't think any of the contributors to the article is a relative or friend of Sandeep.

  As for the notability requirements, the most relevant guide line applicable here is WP:BIO1E and hence we will have to see whether the person passes WP:BIO1E. It says "When a person is associated with only one event, such as for a particular relatively unimportant crime or for standing for governmental election, consideration needs to be given to the need to create a standalone article on the person." Clearly the event associated with the person is not unimportant by any measures. Then it says "If reliable sources only cover the person in the context of a particular event, then a separate biography may be unwarranted." That is, it does not say it is unwarranted.

  Further, it says "Information on the person should generally be included in the article on the event itself, unless the sources have written primarily about the person, and only secondarily about the event." There are reliable sources which are primarily written about the person, like [27], [28], [29], [30], [31], [32], [33], [34] Salih (talk) 20:48, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • At last a second person is citing sources! And it only took three sections and eight requests for sources for you to start doing it. This is what everyone wanting to keep this article should have been doing from the start, instead of arguing about how heroic someone is (irrelevant to Wikipedia) or that our policies of being a verifiable, neutral, encyclopaedia free from original research, and not a memorial (which can be for honouring any person — be it friend, relative, or national hero — and which was created as a direct result of Americans wanting to memorialize people who had died) web site, are somehow faulty. As an editor who has been here two years, you should know full well how such arguments will fare. Uncle G (talk) 21:41, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge/Redirect to November 2008 Mumbai attacks or List of victims of the November 2008 Mumbai attacks per WP:BIO1E. Right now Major Sandeep is best known and primarily covered for getting killed. One burst of news coverage is not enough for WP:N general notability. Enduring interest should be proven over time. We're still in the news cycle. Alternately, if his heroics are formally reconized, such as by a Param Vir Chakra or Ashoka Chakra Award, notability can be established that way. Until then, a biography for an officer killed in battle is premature at best. • Gene93k (talk) 21:13, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There is mass coverage at present. News about his childhood is coming out. [35]. 1000+ people were at his funeral. The point many are making here about other articles is valid. There were articles cited where a single even has made a person famous and such articles are not Afd. Major Unnikrishnan deserves a Bio. You need not live a long life and be rich to deserve this. Short meaningful life is good enough. I don't think the WP policy is meant to reject articles like this. The real intent is to prevent me writing an article about myself when I broke a traffic signal. Nov 20008 is not a trivial event. If WP policies say that one significant event is not enough then some policy rethink is my suggestion. Anyways my interpretation of the notability does not exclude this article.Indoresearch (talk) 22:01, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The point about other articles is not valid. It's entirely irrelevant. Please read Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions, already mentioned several times. Stick to citing sources. Wikipedia policy, from Wikipedia:Deletion policy through Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons to Wikipedia:Notability, is geared towards keeping articles on the basis of in-depth coverage in multiple independent sources published by identifiable people with reputations for fact checking and accuracy. Straying from that, as you are here, will not wash as an argument. You know what argument works. It's citing reliable and independent sources that cover the subject in depth. Stick to it! It will make your best case, with the full backing of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines behind it. Other arguments will not work.

      The only part of your counterargument that is thus relevant is the second sentence, which points to a reliable source, the Times of India, that documents this person's life and works. Ironically, I just edit conflicted with you in asking Gene93k the exact same thing. Uncle G (talk) 22:47, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary break for ease of editing 3[edit]

• STRONG KEEP and EXPAND - The person is a major of the elite NSG Commandos... Not much has been known about this person because he was a commando and such people are not allowed to expose their identity... Their is a major media attention on this person and much more on his life journey will come out soon enough... If Kevin Cosgrove can have an article on Wikipedia, I don't think there should be any problems at all of having this Article. 96.52.193.72 (talk) 22:08, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - By the way, try googling his name... 44,500 results, you keep whining for sources, don't you, here are 44,000 of 'em. http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&q=Sandeep+Unnikrishnan&btnG=Google+Search&meta=A little on his life ... http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Bangalore/Maj_Sandeep_UnniKrishnan_-_A_school_remembers/articleshow/3770767.cms 96.52.193.72 (talk) 22:15, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • A Google search result list (which will vary according to who reads it, where it is read, and what time it is read) is not a source citation, and proves not a thing. Cite sources! Vague assertions that "sources exist" don't cut it. Provide proper citations. Uncle G (talk) 22:47, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Might I add, please, that they should be provided within the article, ideally as directly relevant inline citations. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 22:59, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note that there is the start of a discussion on WP:BIO1E on the relevant talk page, and any interested parties might wish to determine whether any redrafting is required. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 22:58, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• PLEASE KEEP AND EXPAND - Wikipedia is a source of information on everything from shoes to political leaders to little known soldiers in Iraq. I think it is important for someone with insight and knowledge about his life to add information to this site. Yes, this does not want to become a memoir for our heroes and dying soldiers but then maybe wikipedia can start a little diary for our heroes of war.

The internet will have to find a place for memorials ...after all we all live in this virtual world now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.198.137.226 (talk) 23:21, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Please assist the article by citing reliable sources, not here, but within it. This is how Wikipedia works. Your argument based upon emotion has no value in this discussion. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 23:36, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• STRONG KEEP and EXPAND - I think this discussion about deletion is premature. The person who has flagged this article should have waited for more few days. This incident happened this week only. The weekly publications will cover this topic in next week and then there will more sources to cite. There are accusitions in the discussion about not giving importance to non western people which seems to be justified. The damage is already done by flagging it too early even though it is conceled by saying "cite sources". Notability can be gauged by monitoring traffic to this article or google search. ~~Varun~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.69.111.73 (talk • contribs)
  • Comment Because Wikipedia has policies and guidelines, the reverse is true. The article has been created far too early. Articles only have a place here when they are within those policies and guidelines. If we have a "wait and see" policy then we may as well have an article about every single member of the global population "in case something ever becomes notable." Fiddle Faddle (talk) 23:39, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Well, now whats the point of deleting this article when it is going to be made in a couple of days anyways... It seems like you are determined to somehow delete this page. Our comments and opinions seem like we have no say at all or would change any opinion... 96.52.193.72 (talk) 23:53, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Please try to understand to concept of consensus. What I say matters as much or as little as what you say. We have equal weight. However, if you argue from emotion alone without a basis within policies, your argument is likely to fail. The best service you can do this article is to show citable sources that assert notability and place them within it. With them it may be kept. Without them it is likely but not certain to fail. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 00:06, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Agreed that this article may have been created early before it can be evaluated properly as per guidelines. But this article has helped people looking for more informartion on this person in last few days. Now it is created and we should wait for some time before evaluating it. This article is not as irrelevant as any other article about "every single member of the global population". No one reads or flags such articles and no one protests about deletion of such articles. ~~Varun~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.69.111.73 (talk) 00:04, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • An article may be evaluated at any time. There is no scope in the policies and guidelines for "waiting for a while." Fiddle Faddle (talk) 00:08, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I assume this scope was left to be decided by common sense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.69.111.73 (talk • contribs)
          • Please think more carefully. Common sense dictates that an article may be edited as soon as it is placed here. Such edits include nomination for deletion. Waiting is not a notion that ever has a place here. If you wish to change policies please go to the relevant pages and propose changes. Arguing for the here is interesting but useless. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 00:29, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • Proposing to wait for some more time here is not useless. I am sure contributors will appreciate that the events are recent and the information is still comming in. Weekly publications next week will surely publish more about this person. Change is policies can only come when we feel the need for changes. This nomination will be one example for such need for change in the policies. ~~Varun~~
              • First please sign your comments by using ~~~~ which translates into your signature. Second, there is no concept of "Waiting a while in case stuff changes." Fiddle Faddle (talk) 01:05, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                • I have made my point saying "wait till weekly publications are out" and that is just two days away. Weekly publication in general are creditable and do their story after proper research. It is not as if there are not even a signle references for this article. There are at least 10 listed at this point. ~~Varun~~

• mr fiddle faddle, can you please put forward for deleting the article on terrorist Azam Amir Kasavi on the same basis. half of wikipedia biographies violate WP:BLP1E. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kadambaking (talk • contribs) 00:23, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment please feel at perfect liberty, if that article fails to meet guidelines and policies, to nominate it yourself. But do not bring this canvassing for deletion here. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 00:32, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment "My feeling is that one must do more to be notable than die, however unfortunately, in a terrorist attack." This person did not simply unfortunately died in the terrorist attack. He died fighting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.69.111.73 (talk) 00:33, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Rhetoric here is pointless, though interesting. Doing substantive work in the article has a point. Go and find and insert some reliable sources in it. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 00:39, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Let's think this through. Hundreds of police and firemen died on September 11, 2001. We do not have articles on each. Thousands have died fighting terrorists in Iraq and Afghanistan and we do not have articles on them. Hundreds died fighting the fascists of WWII but we do not have articles on them. It is no reflection on this man's honor or memory that there is no article. And let me add that this is not only about consensus but also about the policies that make our system function. JodyB _talk 00:59, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Stated with clarity and precision. Thank you. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 01:01, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • In light of which, how do you respond to the sources now cited? Uncle G (talk) 01:10, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • My own view is that, unless there is a change in policies and guidelines, these sources, while generally reliable (I have not checked them all, hence the word "generally") and thus suitable for inclusion in the article where meeting WP:RS do not, of themselves, save the article, since they stem from the fact of the one event. No event would have meant no notability. This is why I have placed a proposal for change at the relevant policy talk page to consider rewording to make a single event such as the attack a "qualifying event". Fiddle Faddle (talk) 01:27, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• I would like to bring to your notice that this was not just a normal death in terrorist attack. The brave Sandeep was fighting terrorist and above all trying to save his fellow injured commando. He fearlessly fought the terrorist without considering his personal safety. Please do not consider his martyrdom as a normal death by terrotist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.225.143.152 (talk) 01:25, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Uncle G. In this country, when I die, my obituary will be published in at least 2 newspapers which are reliable sources. That does not make me notable. Reliable sources often carry lists of victims but again, that does not make them all reliable. As to the comment that his not a "normal death" I would suggest that at the point he receives some significant award (such as the US equivalent of the Congressional Medal of Honor, then perhaps you have a case. At this point all you have is a great swelling of pride in your countryman. Such is admirable and wonderful but I just don't see the notability. Notability is not based on pride. JodyB _talk 01:37, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• It is too early to delete the article on the basis of lack of notabilty or reliable sources. Not everyone in the country where the brave man died have time like us to hastily conjure up articles on reliable defence sites or give away medals of honor overnight. Please allow some time before deleting this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Goldendeer (talk • contribs) 01:54, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is never to early to delete an article through lack of notability. Bravery and heroism are not the same as notability. Any hasitily conjured up articles should also go. Please note that Wikipedia does not use itself as a source. No articles about the gentleman in WP:RS and the article does not qualify. WP:BIO1E and the article does not qualify. Also see, yet again WP:NOTMEMORIAL Fiddle Faddle (talk) 13:07, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• PLEASE KEEP and improve quality so it's not quite so gushing. Wiki finds "room" for articles on every Z-grade US actor and tenth string NFL player, even those who managed to get on the field for one play in their entire lives. A military leader who dies leading troops in a notorious incident and is mourned as a national hero by hundreds of millions should not have to be an American to qualify as notable. I note that there are Wiki articles on minor 9/11 personalities, for example several of the passengers on Flight 93 and even the telephone operator who took calls from the passengers. This person was an active participant in an important historical event. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.104.68.25 (talk) 04:13, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do try to keep perceived national bias out of this. Articles on non notable people from all places should go. please read WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS Fiddle Faddle (talk) 13:12, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • cComment actually national bias is a very serious argument here which cannot be dismissed out of hand. Thanks, SqueakBox 22:18, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary break for ease of editing 4[edit]

• Keep for now maybe re-evaluate article in a year. The information is referenced and correct, nobody is hurt if the info is here. If Indians would put a monument to him or name a school after him, etc. we would certainly need the article. If he would be completely forgotten we can merge the article elsewhere. Been a high ranked security chief killed in action makes him much more notable then the other terrorist's victims Alex Bakharev (talk) 10:28, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If you would think about what you have said for a moment the logical extension is that any editor may put anything whatsoever in an article. They may then argue "Let's keep this for a year and see what sources turn up to verify it". No. Not now, not ever. Never. Your argument argues for chaos and a very bad end product indeed. Far better to delay the creation of an article than to have unmitigated trash here. Now to those who will read what I have said as "this particular article is unmitigated trash" I suppose I ought to address some words, but I realise that whatever I say will be ignored in a fervour of emotion, and patriotism. So I will just say "this article is not unmitigated trash, but it is not notable past this one event, and it fails as a memorial. The man was undoubtedly heroic. We are not here to create memorials, even to heroes. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 10:52, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I also incline towards keep and re-evaluate in some months' time. Yes, you are right that it would have been better if people had held off creating this article until things had settled down, but that didn't happen and it seems likely that he will get honours in the future. He is certainly not a common-or-garden victim of terrorism. There are times when WP:IAR is appropriate - it is certainly arguable that Lee Harvey Oswald is notable for only one event in his life, but I don't think anyone would seriously nominate him for deletion. -- Arwel Parry _(talk) 11:04, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment. Although WP:WAX applies here, but Lee Harvey Oswald is not only notable for one particular event. Please read the article. Dekisugi (talk) 12:59, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Fork and Redirect to separate article: Nearly a dozen security personnel were killed in the operation, and right now, the media is just ablaze with reports of these brave ones. Some two months later, they will be forgotten by the vast majority, except for some of their close relatives/colleagues. Does anybody here fired up by nationalistic fervour remember any of the security personnel killed in the December 13 attacks?

I'll say, instead of having a separate article for each and every one of them, let's maintain a single article titled something like "Security personnel killed in the 2008 Mumbai attacks", so speaks rohith. 11:51, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Fork? Please explain with precision what you mean here. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 13:03, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This article must stay. Also, article on Vijay Salaskar should also stay. I will tell you how these persons become notable. 2008 November attacks was the biggest terrorist act India ever faced. These were the few people who fought for and saved the country. They shed their lives in the process. Also remember that other commandos and police officers were also involved in this war. They were not considered for Wiki articles. They are also heroes. But their names were not considered for wiki articles because they would have sufficed the deletion criteria. But Sandeep and Salaskar are persons who laid down their lives in the process of liberating hostages and retaining the country's pride. So, these articles must stay. May I request you people to have your say on the Vijay Salaskar article deletion page too? -- Sreejith Kumar (talk) 14:49, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep due to notability in India, where we need to improve our coveraghe. Clearly there are tens of thousands of bios more suitable for afd than this one. He may not have been notable till the end of his life but he then became notable, like 'H'. Jones amongst others. Thanks, SqueakBox 15:28, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect Wikipedia is not a memorial. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 17:13, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

finding, citing, reading, and evaluating sources[edit]

For the benefit of the established Wikipedia editors who are having difficulty navigating the reams of irrelevancies above, here are the major sources cited here, after an inordinate amount of pushing to do so:

• "Unnikrishnan waged a valiant battle against terrorists". The Hindu. 2008-11-29.
• "Boy who had a crew cut in school". The Telegraph. Kolkata. 2008-11-29.
• "Maj Sandeep UnniKrishnan — A school remembers". The Times of India. Bennett Coleman & Co. Ltd. 2008-11-29.
• "Thousands bid adieu to brave hearts". The Hindu. 2008-11-30.
• "Bihar Regiment fondly remembers Major Unnikrishnan". The Times of India. Bennett Coleman & Co. Ltd. 2008-11-29.

Uncle G (talk) 01:10, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree to comments made by the other contributors and wish to add I am positively sure Major Unni will be awarded the Kirti Chakra, the highest award for peacetime battle honors. In such a sense, this definetly is an topic to retain. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ram1978 (talk • contribs) 03:04, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment He may. He may not. WP:NOTCRYSTAL applies to future speculation. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 10:54, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lets give time WP guideline on notability states "..the discussion should focus not only on whether notability is established in the article, but on what the probability is that notability could be established. If it is likely that significant coverage in independent sources can be found for a topic, deletion due to lack of notability is inappropriate unless active effort has been made to find these sources. For articles of unclear notability, deletion should be a last resort.". Citing sources is the thing to do. Everyone please focus effort on improving the article and accumulating sources for that. Arguments will go on. Indoresearch (talk) 06:41, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Thank you for UncleG's refreshment. I read those sources, but they are still only covering the attack event. The side-story of his childhood cannot hold the notability to have a separate article here. I would like also to comment Indoresearch's comment above. I'd incline to WP:CHANCE for a new article; there new reliable sources can be added to support the notability. However, we cannot establish notability based on the probability of being notable (see WP:NOTCRYSTAL). For the subject of this debate, all sources are in the WP:NOTNEWS cycle, and at best at this moment that the subject can only be mentioned in the main article. When he receives an award, say an Indian national hero award, then the notability is established automatically. Dekisugi (talk) 08:36, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I've read the sources, but I'm afraid that the article still doesn't pass WP:BIO1E from what I can see. The sources are, however, useful, but the gentleman in question is only discussed in relation to this one event. Until he becomes notable in some other way - perhaps he has a building named after him, or the like - I still think a whole article for one man and one event is a bit much. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 10:13, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Letter/Spirit The guideline says 'When a person is associated with only one event, such as for a particular relatively unimportant crime or for standing for governmental election, consideration needs to be given to the need to create a standalone article on the person.' The keyword here is the 'importance' of the event. The WP:BIO1E should be read in spirit of what is being said not just the letter. if the event is important enough. I see it is valid to have a bio. 221.249.25.218 (talk) 12:34, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • But you didn't continue citing WP:BIO1E. "... If reliable sources only cover the person in the context of a particular event, then a separate biography may be unwarranted.". Right now, sources referred here are only in the context of that event, so it is unwarranted to have a separate bio. Next time you cite a policy, please don't cut. Dekisugi (talk) 12:55, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• This is for Uncle G, his mention in a few more articles, "Sources! Sources!" as he calls them:

(1) Fox news: [36]

(2) BBC: [37]

(3) CNN: [38]

(4) MSNBC: [39]

(5) CBS News: [40]

If any more NON-Indian sources needed, I can dig up such sources for ever.

And regarding WP:BIO1E, as someone just said, half (personally I think more than half) the articles on Wikipedia do NOT pass that criteria. I think that someone gave the example of Daniel Pearl also. Does getting killed by some crazy lunatics and getting your name in a few newspapers count as being "notable for more than one event" (Apologies for the quotes)?? Its 1 of the very few :times that I've seen deleters raising this rule!!

I personally think that the quality of an article is an issue here. WP:CHANCE should be used rather than a deletion.--Sainik1 (talk) 13:18, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I've read all of the sources you mentioned above (Fox, BBC, CNN, MSNBC and CBS). All of them, I repeat, all of them, do not tell anything more about the subject but as one of the victims. It's a trivial mentioning and does not give enough coverage about the subject (see WP:N). Dekisugi (talk) 13:28, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note to the closing admin. The following is a copy-paste of the comment made by the User:Arwel Parry in the afd discussion of Todd Beamer.

"it's clear that the AfD for Sandeep Unnikrishnan is what has triggered this one. Major Unnikrishnan's defenders are quite correct that Todd Beamer is no more notable than Maj. Unnikrishnan, both owing their fame to WP:BLP1E. Either both articles should be deleted or both kept. It would be hypocritical of Wikipedia to come to different decisions simply because one subject is American and has more online defenders than the Indian subject." I thought it's relevant here. Salih (talk) 13:30, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• let us begin a campaign to delete the thousands of biographies that violate wikipedia's guidelines mentioned above WP:BLP1E. most are probably american. but an encyclopedia is about creation and spread of knowledge. not deletion.

I am unable to understand wiki policy. terrorist is more notable than a martyr. see example terrorist Hafiz Muhammad Saeed.

Aminami (talk) 16:37, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• • Comment. That would violate WP:POINT, let us instead improve our coverage of India and all those countries who we cover poorly on wikipedia. Thanks, SqueakBox 16:39, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Number of refs and public info suggests he is at least notable on the local level. Obviously most of his notability stems from one event, but the amount of info would be too unwieldy to include in the main Mumbai attacks article, so only proper to have a separate article. Joshdboz (talk) 16:49, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Rules, be it constitutional ones or wiki's, have to be qualified by human judgement. Can you not understand the significance of the events that have unfolded over the past few days and why these men are so important? The existence of other articles on people who have risen to fame for far more frivolous reasons clearly suggests that chaps vying for speedy deletion are patently insular. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.92.58.8 (talk • contribs) -- — 59.92.58.8 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Delete - WP:NOT#NEWS. Eusebeus (talk) 18:33, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Please do not remove anything on this brave man. That will be against humanity. Poonam — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.92.40.205 (talk • contribs) -- — 59.92.40.205 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Note. A section of this AfD discussion has been removed. See here. I don't think it is proper to arbitrarily remove a section while discussion is in progress. Salih (talk) 19:09, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Its at the talk page, which is where discussions should be. It was messing up the format with people voting in 2 different plasces and that is what was clearly unhealthy in such a charged debate. Thanks, SqueakBox 19:16, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • But, I thought that is also an integral part of the debate. Is there any precedence in doing so? Salih (talk) 19:31, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, masses, this is a perfectly good use of the talk page to continue the debate. Nobody is suppressing anything, its a janitorial move. Thanks, SqueakBox 19:44, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep - what part of WP:GNG is difficult to understand? Notability does not degrade over time, nor is it mitigated by being suddenly bestowed. The only consideration here is "is this a topic about which we can write an article whose contents are verifiable to reliable sources?" And the answer is "yes". Adios, the skomorokh 20:11, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep - BLP1E is not relevant in this case in my opinion (and indeed I think this discussion underlines the fact that the BLP1E rule needs serious work, "a single event" is far too vague a construct). The event was major, the person in question was unique within that event, and there are verifiable sources on this individual. And on a more personal subjective note, I am white British but I seriously doubt such feverish discussion occurred about articles pertaining to notable people involved in incidents such as 9/11. Irrelevant to the discussion I know, but there is blatant national bias. I'm not saying this dicussion for deletion shouldn't be happening, but the fact it is, and hasn't happened elsewhere, is noteworthy (irrelevant, but interesting ;)) Kauzio (talk) 22:05, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment err see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Todd Beamer (2nd nomination) for why this statement is not quite accurate. Thanks, SqueakBox 22:16, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment True, but Todd had two votes for Delete. Look how many Sandeep Unnikrishnan has. Just saying :P Kauzio (talk) 22:23, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment The irony I see here is that the same users who are supporting the deletion are supporting the Keep there. Isn't this plain cheap nationalism? And please note, the last line in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Todd Beamer (2nd nomination) nails it all. And I quote, "his notability is lasting, he is still well known for the event, and most people would consider him "worth noting", so the logic of the "1 event" rule does not apply here." K.O.! Please Refrain from deleting comments off AfD discussions (this goes for users like User:SqueakBox), especially if you're not an administrator. Please do not try especially acting like one. And regarding WP:BIO1E, as someone just said, half (personally I think more than half) the articles on Wikipedia do NOT pass that criteria. I think that someone gave the example of Daniel Pearl also. Does getting killed by some crazy lunatics and getting your name in a few newspapers count as being "notable for more than one event" (Apologies for the quotes)?? I personally think that if the quality of an article is an issue here, WP:CHANCE should be used rather than a deletion.--Sainik1 (talk) 01:58, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Whatever the article may have looked like in the past, it certainly supports a (strong) keep now. Under even a strong interpretation of BIO1E, I direct attention to: "unless ... sources have written primarily about the person" There are articles specifically about him, with his name in the title, in the refs now. (Without that clause of BIO1E, BIO1E would be too inconsistent with the GNG). So my meteorological forecast is "snowing keeps".John Z (talk) 22:15, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep If a terrorist is more notable than a martyr. You can delete otherwise Keep this page. Aminami (talk) 01:33, 1 December 2008 (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.