Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Malaka Dewapriya (2nd nomination)

Malaka Dewapriya

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Malaka Dewapriya
• Articles for deletion/Malaka Dewapriya (2nd nomination)
• Articles for deletion/Malaka Dewapriya (3rd nomination)

Malaka Dewapriya (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

The subject still lacks sufficient notability according to general notability guideline and has been nominated for the same reason before, when the result was deletion. See Talk:Malaka Dewapriya (more than one section) for current discussion and link to previous discussion: Articles for deletion: Malaka Dewapriya. --NYScholar (talk) 14:40, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. – David Eppstein (talk) 18:44, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Related comments

Please see subsequent discussion in Talk:Malaka Dewapriya#Continued discussion: several comments above do not take into account when Susitha R. Fernando (Sachie Fernando) wrote her news articles based on interviews with the subject in Sunday Times. It was when he was still an undergraduate and graduate student.

• I suggest that one read the sources and not just count the number of them and also that one notice the relative chronological dates of publication. Thanks.
• I also suggest that editors not involved in the subject of Sri Lanka, Sri Lankan film, and other Sri Lankan topics be the ones who evaluate the notability of this subject, from a neutral not involved point of view. As one not previously involved in any Sri Lanka topics, I see myself as a more neutral observer than those who have had previous involvements with Sri Lankan subject editing in Wikipedia or those previously involved in the earlier deletion of the article from Wikipedia (see that linked discussion above).
• Not enough more recently-published reliable third-party notable sources have been added to this article in the past year to alter the previous decision to delete it. --NYScholar (talk) 02:29, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
• I have been working over the past few days to try to correct this problem. Whether I and others have supplied by now enough reliable third-party published and verifiable sources to enable others to decide to "keep" the article is currently being discussed. The article is currently being worked on further by at least two editors. --NYScholar (talk) 03:15, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
• I think that I may have supplied enough more recent sources and developed the EL sec. further enough to make the subject seem more currently notable (not just student work but more recent work (2007 and 2008). --NYScholar (talk) 04:13, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

This Structure

This New article structure is who created By NYScholar. It is appearing Dewapriya’s most of self publications. I believe there are of Other Primary sources in Sri Lanka Language and Other International web sites. There is no other Sri Lankan text in English or on the internet. That is why You can find out lots of Susitha fernando's and Sunday Times articles. This situation is Relate To my other articles which I Edit.Nira WickramasingheJ B Disanayake,Shelton PayagalaDhamma Jagoda There is author for everything .Nothing outside of author and text.( I am thinking about this neutral Pont of view) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jetskere (talk • contribs) 04:27, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

• • Last I looked, it wasn't a nonstarter to be able to cite a foreign language article. Someone can be asked to verify a fact in translation, so can always be checked. We used those a lot in the 3mos flamewars five years ago in the Tsushima, Tsushima Islands and various nationalisticly driven related controversies which I mediated with Mel Etitis, sans any language skills. Whether the source is reputable is still under the notablilty guidelines of course, which was the key in the end. Unsupported web content went out, and thereafter things got simple... all that was before Cites were available. So if it's a source... use it. (With a quote and translation of quote would be best.)

String of votes

• Weak Delete Whilst the article has a large number of references, if one excludes self-published sources, simple directories or exhibition catalogues (which do not establish notability), the references that remain would appear to amount to a number of articles in a single Sunday newspaper. WP:RS is slightly coy about the status of newspapers as regards notability, merely remarking that the "quality" press is of more weight in establishing notability. In my view, it carries considerable weight where in the newspaper the article is carried. Articles about the subject in the main newspaper, as news articles carry some weight. Articles in the arts supplement that are essentially coffee-table and waiting-room fodder carry very little weight. As such, I can't accept that this series of articles establishes any sort of notability. Mayalld (talk) 19:26, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

• Weak Strong Keep as article does have sourcing and looks like it will be has been greatly improved by some decent copyedit. The assertion of being a first Sri Lankan to acomplish a notable act needs clarification. Per WP:CSB, I'd recommend cleanup, nor deletion. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:58, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

  My hat is off to User:NYScholar who went at the article with a single-minded determination to make it shine. I was going to pout a bit as I had not weighed in on the article itself... but I know the work of a Master when I see it. It is rare to see someone nomoinate an article for deletion and then himself turn a sow's ear into a silk purse. Well done. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:24, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

  A good scholar should be able to argue both sides, but few actually do. Plastikspork (talk) 07:06, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

  An rare event which explains my pleased surprise. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 08:47, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

• Delete Insufficient notability to meet inclusion guidelines. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:24, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Keep You ahve to dig a bit for the good refs, and the student thing threw me a bit. But there is substantial coverage and recognition to warrant an article. ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:57, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

• Keep he has two articles written about him in The Sunday Times (it's [unsourced] Wikipedia page reports it as the second larges English Language newspaper in the country, after one owned by the state), seems to establish notability to me.--kelapstick (talk) 00:48, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
• Keep Per WP:CSB, as cited by Mr. Schmidt. Pastor Theo (talk) 01:37, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

• Keep Looks like it meets notability requirements to me across a range of subjects. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 12:47, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

• Strong Keep -- why not question notability of articles on geosciences or math? Stop wasting people's time, and add content. // FrankB 17:19, 11 February 2009 (UTC)