Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vadivel Nimalarajah

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. Despite claims to the contrary, in-depth independent coverage about the subject has not been shown to exist. As for WP:NEXIST, that part of the guideline also says once an article's notability has been challenged, merely asserting that unspecified sources exist is seldom persuasive, especially if time passes and actual proof does not surface and despite almost three weeks passing, Kaytsfan has not followed up on their claim.

However, those in favor of keeping might be willing to create an article about the "Without a Trace" campaign that is likely notable. If and when such an article exists, this article can be restored and merged into such an article about the campaign, restoring most of the information. So Why 15:06, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Vadivel Nimalarajah

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

I genuinely feel bad nominating this for deletion, but I don't see any indication that this specific person is independently notable. Most if not all of the coverage I was able to located about Nimalarajah was trivial, in the context of an International Federation of Journalists campaign about missing journalists, Without a Trace. Even then, mentions of Nimalarajah are almost all trivial name-drops in lists of the missing. It's possible that the overall Without a Trace campaign might be notable (although we don't presently have an article about it), but I just don't see an indication that Nimalarajah is. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:58, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 10:47, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 10:47, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 10:47, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 10:47, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep created this article in 2009 passes WP:GNG and WP:LASTING there is continued coverage in reliable sources about the subject even after so many years The Island in 2013 Sri Lanka Brief 2017 ,Free Media Movement 2014 and the BBC ,Human Rights Watch ,Amnesty International ,The Island ,Home Office UK Border Agency,UNESCO have all covered his disappearance if needed the title can be changed to Disappearance of Vadivel Nimalarajah .Now one area this is not totally covered here is the Tamil Language media including the Uthayan newspaper for whom he worked.His newspaper has written about him.Without the coverage of the Sri Lankan media in particular the regional Tamil and Sinhala media hence would disagree that the coverage is trivial particularly a journalist or media person death or disappearance is well documented and WP:NEXIST applies .Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 14:12, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Pharaoh of the Wizards, none of the articles you listed actually cover Vadivel Nimalarajah in any sort of depth, which is exactly the sort of thing I was talking about in my nomination. The Island name-drops him in a single sentence. The Sri Lanka Brief is an obvious copy-paste of the Uthayan Wikipedia article (down to the internal wikilinks and the citation style!), but even if it wasn't, it also only mentions Vadivel in a single unelaborated sentence. And for the love of fuck, the Free Media Movement link is a Wordpress blog. You ought to be trouted for trying to present that as a reliable source. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 16:11, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It belongs to the Free Media Movement as per this there website is down they appear they are using a blog .They are a member of the International Federation of Journalists as per this and the Committee to Protect Journalists states here The Free Media Movement, on which CPJ relies to monitor press freedom abuses in Sri Lanka .Note there website was blocked for sometime Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 16:30, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless, even if one accepts it as reliable, it's still nothing more than a single-sentence mention. How does any of that qualify as in-depth coverage as required by policy? ♠PMC♠ (talk) 16:48, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

KeepAgree with User:Pharaoh of the Wizards, and WP:NEXIST applies in this case.Kaytsfan (talk) 07:41, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Kaytsfan, in light of my analysis of the sources above, do you want to reconsider your thoughts? ♠PMC♠ (talk) 16:11, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 15:19, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:20, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (reluctantly) however I would have to concur with the nominator, in that the individual lacks significant coverage in multiple independent reliable secondary sources. A single sentence mention is not significant coverage. Dan arndt (talk) 07:03, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

He is subject to an International campaign by International Federation of Journalists and there is sustained coverage about him over the years and the coverage by the Tamil and Sinhala media sources are not available including his newspaper Uthayan has covered the subject in detail.Hence WP:NEXIST applies. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 08:44, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

his newspaper Uthayan has covered the subject in detail - and all of those sources that his newspaper produced, no matter how in-depth, would be a complete failure of the requirement that sources be independent of the subject, and therefore even if located would contribute nothing to a claim of notability. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 17:11, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keepper User:Pharaoh of the Wizards Subject of Worldwide campaign and major story in Tamil language media in Sri Lanka 2A00:23C5:1682:4600:6433:80AE:BC3:71C7 (talk) 18:16, 10 August 2018 (UTC) Moved from top of page[reply]

Do you have any sources from the Tamil media to substantiate this claim? Otherwise, if you're relying on the same sources/claims as Pharaoh of the Wizards, I have fairly thoroughly assessed them as being not helpful to a notability claim. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 18:24, 10 August 2018 (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.