Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kumara Chapabandara

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. kelapstick^(bainuu) 12:15, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kumara Chapabandara

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

Poorly sourced (the few actual "references" being cited are either primary or unreliable ones, and the vast majority of the content is entirely unsourced) WP:BLP of a journalist, written in a manner that sometimes teeters dangerously close to being an outright advertisement instead of a neutral encyclopedia article ("‘Struggling to make the society fair and better is a historical challenge which has to be analyzed in open dialogue, there may be many ways to follow and many grounds to work!’ he says!") It's certainly possible that he might be notable enough to qualify for a properly written and properly sourced article — it's so bad that I can't make heads or tails of what's a WP:CREATIVE-satisfying claim of notability and what's inflated promotional puffery. But even if he does, it's not the assertion of passing a Wikipedia inclusion criterion that gets a person past that criterion, but the quality of sourcing that can be provided to verify the assertion — and the "sourcing" here doesn't cut it in the least. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 23:02, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:41, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:41, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:41, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, I would have covered the article with all the relevant tags and left it for another time. However, for all we know it may be complete fabrication. The other language is Sinhalese which is not translated by Google. However I tried to search on the Sinhalese name and got very few results. A lot of work has gone into the page. Total number of edits 166,

Total number of distinct authors 16 and all since April. There may be hope that something justifiable will come from this. Gregkaye (talk) 19:20, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, because of the potential for harm to our article topics if their lives and careers are misrepresented at all, we actually require WP:BLPs to include reliable sourcing from the start — we don't and can't allow them to linger in the inadequate state that we might tolerate in an article about a building or an organization or a concept, but rather we have to target them for policy compliance immediately. I'd be happy to withdraw this if good sourcing actually shows up while this discussion is still open, but we can't keep a badly sourced BLP just because it might eventually get better. Bearcat (talk) 18:31, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:37, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this appears to be some sort of concerted hatchet job, in violation of WP:SOAP, WP:BLP, and WP:ATTACK. Bearian (talk) 21:40, 7 July 2014 (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.