Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sarath Kumara de Silva

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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 13:26, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sarath Kumara de Silva

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

Fails to satisfy the criteria of WP:NBUSINESSPEOPLE. Non-notable senior public servant - just being the chairman of a state government agency does not confer automatic notability. Dan arndt (talk) 05:03, 24 November 2017 (UTC) Dan arndt (talk) 05:03, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 06:56, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 06:56, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable businessperson.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:30, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Not just a businessman (or even predominantly a businessman). Notable civil engineer and chairman of a major government agency. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:09, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment just because he was the chairman of a government agency does not make him automatically notable. How is he a notable engineer, just saying it doesn’t make it so, need to provide evidence. Dan arndt (talk)+

The head of a significant government agency would definitely be considered notable if it was in the UK or USA. It is also notable if it is in Sri Lanka. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:00, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Necrothesp:, where on WP does it state that the head of a government agency is automatically notable - you can’t just make up criteria to support your argument. Dan arndt (talk) 22:42, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh dear, another editor who believes that if it's not written on sacred stone then it's not coming in! I've said it many times - if notability was determined simply by strict policies then we wouldn't bother having AfD discussions; we'd just have admins allowed to delete any article that didn't meet strictly defined criteria. Note that we do have AfD discussions! -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:27, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No just another editor who believes that an individual should be notable in their own right to be included. At this stage you’ve shown no justification as to why this individual is notable apart from he was a head of a government agency, for which there is no inherent notability. Dan arndt (talk) 13:41, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. To be fair, there are certain notability claims (e.g. member of a legislature) for which as long as we can verify them as true, we keep the article even if it isn't properly referenced yet. (The operative word here being yet, as the article does still have to get improved with proper referencing — we extend it the presumption of notability pending better sources, but the article is most definitely not exempted from ever having to get properly sourced.) But being the internal head of a civil service department isn't one of them — even in the UK or the USA, he would only be considered notable if he could be shown as the subject of enough reliable source coverage to clear WP:GNG, and would not be given an automatic "no sourcing required" inclusion freebie just because he exists. But a GNG pass is not what the sources here are showing: all three of the "general references" are dead links, while the two properly footnoted references are a primary source and a blurb. That's not good enough, and it wouldn't be good enough for a civil servant in the UK or the US either. Bearcat (talk) 21:51, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:10, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:15, 29 November 2017 (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.