Deletion of N. Balasubramaniam

Comment: 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  to establish notability
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: 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  ''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 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 , 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
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS||WP:NPOL||WP:GNG||WP:BLP)

Comment: 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 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Deletion policy (WP:POLOUTCOMES)

Comment: 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 . For example,  have come up with  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
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:CRIC||WP:CRIN)