Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Janaka Thissakuttiarachchi

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 keep. Based on the arguments presented, the subject appears to meet WP:POLITICIAN. Nakon 01:02, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Janaka Thissakuttiarachchi

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

Does not appear to meet either WP:GNG or WP:POLITICIAN. Dan arndt (talk) 04:22, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 March 17. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 04:25, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 08:31, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 08:31, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think the article should be kept, but think the article needs moving. I think they do meet WP:POLITICIAN as they are a member of a provincial legislature, which is sufficient to meet that notability guideline. There is this, this and this articles which talk about 'Janaka Tissa Kuttiarachchi', while this article calls him 'Janaka Tissa-kuttiarachchi'. There are several quite short articles talking about his support for Mahinda Rajapaksa at the recent presidential election such as here. So I think a case can be made he meets both WP:POLITICIAN and probably the WP:GNG, but should be retitled "Janaka Tissa Kuttiarachchi". Davewild (talk) 22:15, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes WP:POLITICIAN as a member of a provincial legislature. • Gene93k (talk) 14:35, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm not really convinced that Sri Lankan provincial councils count as true legislatures. Do they have real autonomy, or are they just the equivalent of say county councils in Britain (whose members do not qualify under WP:POLITICIAN)? Sri Lanka doesn't appear to count as a federal republic, and it's usually only those that fall into the category of countries with state or provincial legislatures. WP:POLITICIAN doesn't just cover any elected member of any council, despite claims to that effect that I've seen in the past. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:08, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well according to our article Provincial councils of Sri Lanka they have legislative power "over a variety of matters including agriculture, education, health, housing, local government, planning, road transport and social services". I think that shows they are quite powerful and the article also says this is part of the constitution. They are certainly far more powerful than your comparison to English County councils. Davewild (talk) 18:42, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Really? Because that just looks like a county council equivalent to me - they do pretty much all that (and have done all of it in the past). I'm prepared to be swayed on this, but so far I still see little real evidence that they're actual legislatures. The only thing that might swing it is that they have "ministers", but that's just a word. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:16, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well according to this page each Provincial council has a chief minister and a board of ministers. This says "The Provincial Council has power to pass a "statute" on any subject that is assigned to it under the Constitution subject to the condition that it should not violate the Constitution." and that they have "Legislative powers for the Provincial Council". The list of powers for the Provincial Councils can make legislation is here. To me these look a lot stronger powers than says the members of the Welsh Assembly from 1999 for which we have articles on every member - Category:Wales AMs 1999–2003. Davewild (talk) 18:28, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Every country sets up its division of powers between different levels of government differently, according to local needs and structures. So the fact that those look like "county council" powers to you doesn't necessarily negate viewing this body as a legislature — to me as a Canadian, that reads very much more like powers of a provincial legislature. I get that in England (but, importantly, not Scotland or Wales) it's all either Westminster or the local city/county/other-equivalent-local-authority governments, with no intermediate level in between them to assume any government powers — but that's a "government structure of England" thing, not an "inherent nature of the powers themselves" thing. Bearcat (talk) 23:46, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Of course they do, but the fact remains that we don't accord every elected council similar status under WP:POLITICIAN and we need to determine what does and does not count as a legislature. What I was challenging was merely the apparent assumption that because he was an elected member of a council he met the requirements of WP:POLITICIAN, since this is clearly not the case. Since User:Davewild has bothered to provide further evidence (beyond a simple "elected member = notable"), I suspect that Sri Lankan provincial councils do probably count as legislatures. Incidentally, given that Scotland and Wales are actually separate countries, above even provinces, the fact they do or do not have legislatures is irrelevant to the discussion. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:02, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Notability established according to WP:POLITICIAN. Provincial councils have the power to pass legislations and therefore qualify as legislatures.--obi2canibe^{talk contr} 20:09, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Do they pass actual laws? Or just local bye-laws? -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:16, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Read the constitution and judge for yourself.--obi2canibe^{talk contr} 19:40, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm by no means an expert in the nuances of Sri Lanka's political system, but nothing in Provincial councils of Sri Lanka gives me any substantive reason to doubt that they count as first-order divisional (state/provincial) legislatures. If there's a better reason to doubt that than "those would be county-level powers in England" (which, great, but we ain't talking about England), then I'm willing to reconsider — but I'd need to actually hear one first. Keep, though certainly content and referencing improvements are still needed. Bearcat (talk) 00:13, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I merely use English counties as an example of a first-level administrative sub-division of a similar size whose councillors are not considered to meet WP:POLITICIAN and ask why members of councils of these divisions are (other than "because they're members of first-level sub-division councils"). No need to be snide. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:02, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The importance of the legislative body has been established in this debate and accordingly this person meets the relevant notability guideline. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:57, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Someone left a comment at WT:POLITICIAN asking for input here. Nyttend (talk) 01:19, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - according to our article on Provinces of Sri Lanka, those provinces are the first tier (the equivalent of "states") and "districts" are the next tier down (2nd tier, equivalent to local councils) which are then divided again (into Divisional Secretary's Divisions) and then again (into Grama Niladhari Divisions). There are 256 third-tier divisions in the country, which sounds about equivalent to an Australian local council or a council of aldermen. It's obvious that the system doesn't really have "natural" equivalences in the UK, US, Australia, etc making comparisons more difficult. But if we accept what our articles say they he is the equivalent of a state assemblyman in the US or state MP in Australia. Even as the second-least-populated province in the country, the province this fellow sits in the legislature for has 1.2 million people. Some of our states and territories (Northern Territory - 250,000, Tasmania - 500,000) have their own functional legislatures and their MPs are considered to meet WP:POLITICIAN. That said, needs sources per BLP and such sources would make a decision here much easier. St★lwart¹¹¹ 05:19, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Again, to possibly play Devil's advocate (see my comment above), English counties often have about the same number of people, but county councillors are not considered to meet the requirements of WP:POLITICIAN. Size isn't especially relevant. It's the powers of the council and status of the sub-division that matter. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:02, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, there are English shire counties with as many as 1.4 million people, but there are also counties with only 100,000. At 1.2 million, this Sri Lankan province is the second-least-populated. It's among the smallest at 1.2 million, whereas England's counties are among the largest at 1.4 million. They seem far more comparable to Australian states (in that context) than they do English counties. Population tends to necessitate the sorts of services an administrative division must provide which in turn necessitates the legal power to do so. St★lwart¹¹¹ 23:30, 24 March 2015 (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.