Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anushka Wirasinha: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 11:14, 24 June 2010

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. Shimeru 09:36, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Anushka Wirasinha

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not encyclopedically notable, non reliable sources; (I haven't been able to verify the claims): Malice and jealousy against a listed well known person should not be a cause for deletion of that person. Anushka Wirasinha is a very well known and highly respected IT author. Those who have asked that the article be deleted have no reasonable facts to warrant such a claim. They have not bothered to verify the details and have slandered without reason. There are facts to support this author that are more than enough to give her inclusion in Wikipedia. Anushka Wirasinha earned a BSc Economics degree from University of London. It can be verified from the University. Her foundation page has "CSS Harvard" which is the qualification she received. The CSS is beyond grad level and it is awarded by Harvard. She also was an assistant lecturer in Micro Computers and Information Technology at Harvard and this also can be verified. She is a published author with Prentice Hall of India and this can be verified by them at www.phindia.com. Over 20 Universities have her books "Visually Learn PC, On Your Marks Net Set Go...Surviving in an eworld and Flash in a Flash: Web Development listed in their curriculum (please see the links on her foundation page). IMTA is the International and Modeling Talent Association where students from modeling schools are "selected" on talent basis to compete where she got "best smile". There is a fee to enter IMTA but from those who pay the fee you have to be selected and very few are selected. Please note that Katie Holmes was discovered at IMTA and please don't discredit such credible talent organizations. Sigma Xi membership is given after looking into many credits and she is a member and you can verify with them. She is also a Master Practitioner of NLP directly taught under Paul McKenna and Richard Bandler. Her books are in the Library of Congress copyright office and you can see through their online catalog. There are endless newspaper articles about her by genuine and reputable papers. Deletion of her from wikipedia should not have even come up. Given the facts and position outlined above I request the article be undeleted immediately.

Shimeru seems to be boasting saying he has published a poem. Where is it...by whom? The vanity is all Shimeru knows. Please don't write slandering others you do not know anything about and make off the cuff judgements. You are also certainly not from Sri Lanka as you don't know the facts.

-- Jeandré (talk), 2010-06-01t11:44z 11:44, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:10, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:10, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:10, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I totally agree .I have find out lots of living persons biographical Articles .Please delete This kind of All personal blogs from encyclopedia. --Wipeouting (talk) 17:40, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep We have to go by the sources, and according to them she is a notable author. DGG ( talk ) 16:55, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

keep There are enough verifiable signif. rel. sources listed to meet WP:N. Turqoise127 (talk) 19:00, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not a notable career, and extremely weak documentation. Membership in sigma Xi is a trivial distinction, and the publications are not significanat. I admit i am a little put off by the method of challenging someone's notability through OTRS, which is probably responsible for my careless response earlier. DGG ( talk ) 21:19, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know, I stand by my keep, the first four references listed seem to me to be reliable third party in-depth coverage sources, no? I mean, if 2rs=N, then 4rs=N even if BLP. That's just my 2 cents. I am flexible on changing mind if I can be shown sources are not reliable...Turqoise127 (talk) 16:51, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW (Talk) 17:54, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Second relist rationale. The article is a BLP. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Promotional, vanity. Abductive (reasoning) 06:32, 23 June 2010 (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.