Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charles Godakumbura

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 SNOWing Keep as there's apparently no other ending here (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 04:10, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Godakumbura[edit]

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

Non-notable person Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 21:26, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He meets WP:ACADEMIC #6 as head of a major national scientific society, now known as the Royal Asiatic Society of Sri Lanka. His 1955 work Sinhalese Literature has been widely cited by scholars for 60 years. He was the top government official responsible for archaeology. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:42, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep whilst there might be a conflict of interest by the creator of this article, the subject is notable. Godakumbura was the first Ceylonese head of the Department of Archeology. He published numerous works on a range of subjects, which are still widely cited by academics. Satisfies WP:ACADEMIC.Dan arndt (talk) 08:32, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 08:46, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 08:46, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. For those doing various searches, he is usually cited as "C. E. Godakumbura". I am leaning "keep" at the moment. He lived well before the internet era, and GBooks still gives 2,630 hits[1]; the name appears to be unique, so I don't think there are any false positives there. I did find one published obit about him[2] in the Journal of Burma Research Society. Also, there is a short book/booklet[3] published about him. So arguably passes WP:GNG, even if weakly. JSTOR has at least 14 published reviews of his work[4]. Actually, some of these reviews contain interesting semi-biographical details. E.g. this posthumous review[5] by Ernest Bender says, in particular: "The present catalogue -- based on first galley proofs which fortuitously survived the original manuscript destroyed by the ravages of white ants in Sri Lanka -- comprises one hundred ...". Probably one can make a case for passing WP:PROF here. Nsk92 (talk) 12:19, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: appears to meet qualifications for line of study/research and as per @Nsk92's thoughtful rationale. Quis separabit? 14:08, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Appears to have been eminent Sri Lankan scholar. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:31, 29 May 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Keep. Head of a major government department. Clearly notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:56, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:57, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, obviously. It surprises me that editors who make such disruptive, timewasting, deletion nominations are never warned or sanctioned in the way that those who perform other disruptive edits are. Surely we should treat all forms of disruption in the same way? 86.17.222.157 (talk) 19:48, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per Cullen328. - Variation 25.2 (talk) 19:50, 3 June 2016 (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.