Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sarath Kodithuwakku

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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:22, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sarath Kodithuwakku[edit]

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

Not Notable - No evidence that the subject satisfies the criteria under WP:PROF. Article lacks any in-depth support of individual. Dan arndt (talk) 08:40, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 08:40, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 08:40, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 08:40, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) 09:23, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:12, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:12, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ☮JAaron95 ^Talk 18:17, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 04:06, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom.Bondegezou (talk) 22:11, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no claim of notability in the article, sources are primary pieces by the subject, a faculty listing, and some don't mention the subject, google scholar lists one paper that was cited 150 times, and another that was cited 30 times, not quite enough to pass WP:NACADEMIC. Kraxler (talk) 02:34, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom and above editors. Doesn't pass WP:GNG or WP:SCHOLAR. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:37, 27 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.