Deletion of Varadarasanar

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 http://books.google.co.uk/books?hl=en&safe=off&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&hs=DBt&num=100&q=%22Varadarasanar%22%20OR%20%22Mu%20Varadarajan%22%20OR%20%22M.%20Varadarajan%22&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wp 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
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Be bold (WP:SOFIXIT)

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 . 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
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS)

Comment: I think there is notability here for sure; if the only problem is the fact that the article in its current form fails , a rewrite with new sources is a better alternative to outright deletion in my mind
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:V)