Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sardha Wijesoma (2nd nomination)

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 speedy keep. You don't nominate articles within hours of the previous one closing as it's disruptive, Well it's been a week and still no one gives a toss so i suggest you don't nominate this for a third time as you could end up blocked!, Rant over. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 01:07, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sardha Wijesoma

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

This article has been previously nominated for deletion, with the decision being to close the AfD with no consensus. I believe that the article in fact fails criteria #1 of WP:NACADEMICS, in that the criteria states "The person's research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources". It has been previously argued that Wijesoma is a widely cited scholar, with 349 citations. WP:ACADEMICS clearly states that "To count towards satisfying Criterion 1, citations need to occur in peer-reviewed scholarly publications such as journals or academic books." I don't believe that there is sufficient evidence provided to satisfy this requirement. WP:ACADEMICS also goes onto to state "Simply having authored a large number of published academic works is not considered sufficient to satisfy Criterion 1". In any case none of the evidence relating to Wijesoma's research is included within the article itself (i.e. 'demonstrated by independent sources') Dan arndt (talk) 06:07, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 06:07, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 06:07, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 06:07, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 06:07, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 06:07, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep, speedy close. Stop wasting the community's time. No one supported the initial nomination in the three weeks since you made it. Reopening the discussion not even three hours after it was closed borders on abusive. There are appropriate steps to take, but this isn't one of them. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 18:52, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - If I thought I was wasting anyone's time I wouldn't have nominated the article. I do think that the subject lacks any credible notability, the fact that the previous nomination was not supported, is more likely a combination of apathy and that I didn't provide a clear explanation of why I thought that the subject wasn't notable - the second part I have tried to correct here. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz if you believe it should be kept at least have the decency to explain why . Dan arndt (talk) 15:08, 29 August 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.